Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: EUROPE UNDER MUSLIM RULE

Expand Messages
  • james tan
    what about possible misconception of islam? how do we properly , appropriately , meaningfully interpret the action of MUSLIMS such as osama, the
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      what about possible misconception of islam? how do we 'properly',
      'appropriately', 'meaningfully' interpret the action of MUSLIMS such as
      osama, the palestinians suicide bombers on civilians, abu sayaff of
      philliphines? is it fair to attribute to islam what these muslims are doing?
      are such misconception understandable given what they have done?

      james.


      From: swmirsky@...
      Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
      To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: EUROPE UNDER MUSLIM RULE
      Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:57:32 EDT

      I think that is exactly right, that Muslims see this as justified because
      Allah "supports" or "requires" this. But every religion can make the same
      claim. So, in the end, it is might makes right. In the early days of the
      Middle Ages of Europe and its environs, they had the might, they had the
      cohesion, the technology, the energy and the historical momentum. From a
      religious perspective, they explained all this by claiming that Allah was on
      their side. But when they lost the advantages of might, they did not also
      lose their belief in their religious tenets. So, on that view, either they
      are only temporarily deprived of Allah's support (for their own faults, as
      the Jews see it in their world view, or for Allah's own inscrutable reasons)
      or they were wrong in believing that Allah was uniquely on their side at the
      time. Of course, to embrace this last view is contrary to their faith so
      they
      must assume they are only waiting in the wings to reprise this glorious
      past.
      For some fanatics, it seems, this means they must do everything they can now
      to restore their past successes by whatever means necessary including, and
      not limited to, tearing down other cultural edifices, othe nations and
      civilizations. That is the crux of the problem. If they recognize the
      rational view you have been espousing, that they were successful in history
      once before because of the conjunction of certain facts "on the ground",
      then
      they are, in effect, questioning the claims of their own religion. But if
      they can move through terorism to reverse the verdict of history, then they
      see themselves as upholding the truth of its claims. A very serious
      conundrum, it seems to me, for people in our modern world (both for them and
      for us).

      SWM

      In a message dated 7/31/2002 10:31:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      tyjfk@... writes:


      > u have a pt there. some see it as glory, but it is only from a certain
      > perspective. such 'glory' may not be entirely politically/morally correct
      > (but in a religious pt of view, it is evidence of allah's glory?!). some
      > muslims may argue that the ultimate justification comes from their god
      > himself, the creator, and thus, the real owner of all things. my opinions
      > is
      > this: at the end of the day, it is not morality that talks, or even god;
      it
      >
      > is power (and technology) that decides.
      >
      > james.
      >





      _________________________________________________________________
      Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
    • james tan
      unlike u, i have never been attracted to islam. i was acquainted with buddhism, christianity, taoism when i was younger. being chinese, these religions are my
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        unlike u, i have never been attracted to islam. i was acquainted with
        buddhism, christianity, taoism when i was younger. being chinese, these
        religions are my 'cultural menu'; but not islam. i didnt understand why the
        men grew such beard (which mildly disgust me), why women are so 'hangup' and
        'uptight' about being pious by wearing all manners of headscarfs, why they
        all seem to have that faraway gaze (into heaven?) in their eyes. nothing
        wrong in themselves, just that 'they' are so different from 'us' (chinese).
        singapore is a multi-racial, multi-religious country, and over time i get to
        know and understand more about 'them', and also come to believe in living in
        harmony through mutual respect and understanding. unlike u, i have never
        studied islam through reading their holy book quran, but to say as u did
        that "the strain espoused by the fundamentalist/extremist/terrorists is very
        much
        part of the core of Islamic thought. It is not all there is, but it is not
        so very far removed from the heart of the teaching, regrettably" may not be
        agreed by some muslim theologians. in singapore, the govt is in the habit of
        differentiating between two types of muslims, one the
        militant/fundamentalist (the type u describe, which has worried the leaders
        here as potential source of trouble in the asian region), and the moderates
        ones, who basically believe in peace and harmony among different races and
        religions, and do not endorse the religious mentality and operation
        procedures of the likes of osama and abu sayaff. are such differentiation
        artifical and accurate? i do think so, since without such discrimination,
        the moderates may suffer the 'collaterl damage' of what osama, a muslim, has
        done as the world reacted to 911. although it is logical to separate what
        osama has done from the tenets of islam, man is not always logical; the
        natural process of association may get the upper hand in people's mind,
        overriding the logical process.

        "Islam, by its own claims and writings, is a religion of conquest of others.
        Therefore it is not surprising to find Osama bin Ladens in its midst and,
        more, to find that they are VERY popular in the Islamic world."

        even in ur reference to osama bin laden, i notice that u are careful to use
        his full name so as to discriminate him from others who has the name of
        osama. u said that islam claims itself to be a religion of conquest of
        others - is there any reference source? afterall, u are not a muslim,
        perhaps much less a islam scholar, so maybe a reference will be more
        authoritative. but i agree with u that osama is a very popular figure among
        muslims, even here: i have personally seen a surprising number of muslim
        students pasting his photos over their bus-pass, have his face as their
        computer desktop, some proclaiming in a mysteriously low voice presumably to
        signal deep conviction that osama is a 'true' muslim - if not religously
        significant, osama is emotionally significant to muslims all over, in spite
        of what he has done (or because of what he has done).


        From: swmirsky@...
        Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
        To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: EUROPE UNDER MUSLIM RULE
        Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:54:17 EDT

        Although I am not a Muslim I was very attracted to Islam in my youth and
        have
        studied many religions including Islam. While recognizing that there are
        many
        streams within Islam, as in any religion, I also have come to believe that
        the strain espoused by the fundamentalist/extremist/terrorists is very much
        part of the core of Islamic thought. It is not all there is, but it is not
        so
        very far removed from the heart of the teaching, regrettably. Just look at
        the history of it. Islam was founded as a religion of conquest and retains,
        to this day, that imagery, that sense of itself. You have only to look at
        the
        posting we have been addressing here. Although I am not strictly speaking a
        religionist these days, I am most at home with Buddhism which has a very
        different basis and source. In fact, all religions are not the same and are
        not, from a moral perspective, equal, even though it is probably politically
        incorrect to make such a statement. Islam, by its own claims and writings,
        is
        a religion of conquest of others. Therefore it is not surprising to find
        Osama bin Ladens in its midst and, more, to find that they are VERY popular
        in the Islamic world. -- SWM

        In a message dated 8/1/2002 1:34:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
        tyjfk@... writes:


        > what about possible misconception of islam? how do we 'properly',
        > 'appropriately', 'meaningfully' interpret the action of MUSLIMS such as
        > osama, the palestinians suicide bombers on civilians, abu sayaff of
        > philliphines? is it fair to attribute to islam what these muslims are
        > doing?
        > are such misconception understandable given what they have done?
        >
        > james.
        >





        _________________________________________________________________
        Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
      • james tan
        From: Karun Philip Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com To: Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: EUROPE
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 2, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          From: "Karun Philip" <karun@...>
          Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
          To: <WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com>
          Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: EUROPE UNDER MUSLIM RULE
          Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 19:13:24 -0400

          >I think we all have a sense that both Buddhism and Christianity would rule
          out engaging in terrorism

          "An eye for an eye" can be similarly misused. The problem is fallibility in
          judging who did what. The particular terrorists in question had a convoluted
          way of interpreting events to make the justifications they used. Buddhism
          cannot be misused in my opinion, yet in Sri Lanka, Buddhists forbid the use
          of Tamil by one section of its population who had immigrated from India. The
          violent response that ensued is completely unjustified by the Tamils, but it
          is strange that nationalism made it so easy for the religious principles to
          be forgotten. You could alternatively use Islam's slant on violence (1) as a
          part of the Hadith and not the Koran, as in my post or (2) a call to use
          coercion on those who coerce you. The important thing is to use due process
          of law and presumption of innocence in any such use of state coercion.
          Punish the individual, by bringing him to trial and due process, though if
          he shoots or is trying to shoot at you while apprehending, you can
          retaliate. The whole "war" on terrorism could have been presented in the
          rhetoric as a process of justice, but I'm afraid the powers that be in the
          US have no understanding of the true power of the ideas in their own
          constitution, and do not always act by those principles outside US borders.
          All I call for in US policy (rather than a specific call like "don't reject
          Arafat") is that the US government should behave according to the principles
          of the US constitution, even outside its borders where they have no legal
          validity, if they truly believe in that constitution.

          Regards,

          Karun.
          --
          Karun Philip
          Author: "Zen and the Art of Funk Capitalism: A General Theory of
          Fallibility"
          http://www.k-capital.com






          _________________________________________________________________
          Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
          http://www.hotmail.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.