66 replies to this topic

[LYY]

NUMBER is the Quranic weapon to subjugate the world.
The Quranic approach is simply Math - to populate like rabbits to outnumber the infidel.

You do not have to believe me, really.
Just take a look the Quranic approved posture in love-making.
There is only one approved posture - the one that facilitates the highest chances to conceive!

[William O'Chee]

NUMBER is the Quranic weapon to subjugate the world.
The Quranic approach is simply Math - to populate like rabbits to outnumber the infidel.

You do not have to believe me, really.
Just take a look the Quranic approved posture in love-making.
There is only one approved posture - the one that facilitates the highest chances to conceive!

It s interesting that the Vatican conceded this week that there are now more Muslims than there are Catholics, although all Christians still outnumber Muslims by just under 2:1. The Vatican cited population growth among Muslims rather than conversion for this.

It is, of course, interesting that Protestants have always accused Catholics of having too many children due to the Church's opposition to contraception. I think that official position has been undermined by delayed marriage, as well as a willingness among Catholics to ignore the ruling on contraception, while continuing to eschew abortion.

[Mok]

NUMBER is the Quranic weapon to subjugate the world.
The Quranic approach is simply Math - to populate like rabbits to outnumber the infidel.

You do not have to believe me, really.
Just take a look the Quranic approved posture in love-making.
There is only one approved posture - the one that facilitates the highest chances to conceive!

I don't suppose pleasure is a factor in their love-making equation...

[William O'Chee]

I don't suppose pleasure is a factor in their love-making equation...

The cheeky Chinese sense of humor in me begs to make a reply, but I don't want to incur a fatwa...!

Actually, the Cathlic church had similar views on the matter in the middle ages. See:

http://www.brown.edu...positions.shtml

Sex with the woman on top could result in a penance of three years according to a guide for confessors. Such attitudes have, of course, long since changed.

[Mok]

The cheeky Chinese sense of humor in me begs to make a reply, but I don't want to incur a fatwa...!

Actually, the Cathlic church had similar views on the matter in the middle ages. See:

http://www.brown.edu...positions.shtml

Sex with the woman on top could result in a penance of three years according to a guide for confessors. Such attitudes have, of course, long since changed.

And the warped Chinese sense of humour in me insists on making yet another comment...except that I may become the next Salman Rushdie.

The Catholic Church's stance on sexual positions? Oh yeah, I knew that all along. Some people I know still believe that sex is only for procreation, but I don't see more babies poppin' out of them.

[polar_zen]

Oh yeah, I knew that all along. Some people I know still believe that sex is only for procreation, but I don't see more babies poppin' out of them.

Obviously they're no longer having sex.

[LYY]

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

Benign ? ... when WE means we are not ONE ...
Let's delve into the "kami" consciousness ... the denial of WE as ONE.

http://ebooks.iaccp....p;output=screen

We have had a long history of a psychology of the I; there is nothing wrong about being Ego-centered, but psychology must not overlook the fact that any Ego is an existential center, conscious of being related to others. ... At this junction, I will introduce you to two Indonesian words, Kita and Kami ; both meaning We. However, both refer to two distinct manifestations of togetherness, indicating two We-modes. Kita is used as a first person plural, the constituents of which maintain their respective individual identities. Kita is inclusive in nature; none of its constituting subjects are excluded. It is a manifestation of being-together in optima forma, with the inclusion of each and every subject and concurrently without the intention of excluding others outside it. It is a mode of togetherness without any reference to others existing outside its boundaries; it is indeed "We" or "Us"" without neither reference nor regard to any existence of "They" or "Them."

In a Kita mode of togetherness every constituent is free to develop him/herself without being inhibited by his/her participation. This does not mean that Kita is a conflict-proof mode of togetherness. In fact, the Kita mode allows differences to develop amongst its constituting subjects; it is not a togetherness in which all constituents are always in juxtaposition to each other; it is neither a togetherness that merely can express itself collectively in unison. However, differences (of, for example, opinions and attitudes) between its constituents manifest themselves in an atmosphere of what philosopher Jaspers (1932) called liebender Kampf, ? a "struggle" characterized by reciprocal care and mutually insight-promotion as well as self-enhancement. Indeed, Kita is a mode of togetherness that opens an opportunity for self-actualization of the subjects involved. It is a Mit-sein with an atmosphere in which genuine and creative dialogues between the engaging subjects may further develop, and it is a Mit-welt in which nobody of its constituents is marginalized or alienated; in short, it is an all-inclusive togetherness constituting a shared world.

Let us now turn to Kami . In this mode the constituents do not primarily exist as subjective entities, but are rather reduced to some shared identity. This means that self actualization in the fullest sense of the constituents in a Kami is inhibited. Kami is a mode of solidarity in which its participating constituents are expected to reduce their personal Selves in order to affirm a shared identity. Participation in a Kami is only possible by the readiness of its constituents to submit to a shared identity and, consequently, being reduced as personal Selves. The Kami mode affirms its shared identity concurrently by excluding others outside it. In fact, the essence of a Kami mode is the awareness of a shared We that per se excludes others; in other words, the Kami mode is a We that maintains the demarcation separating between 'those who belong' and 'those who do not belong' to it.

Kami is in fact a way of affirming an "in-group" and concurrently excluding an "out-group." For example, members of a political party are rallying themselves as Kami , consciously excluding others who are non-members; the same is the case with a student fraternity, a labor union, a platoon of soldiers, an ethnic entity, a racial group, a religious community, a nation. However among the constituents themselves, those Kami 's can also share an inclusive collective awareness as a Kita , disengaged from and disinterested in the significance of others' existence as outsi-ders or out-groups. Kita and Kami are indeed two distinct modes of togetherness, but they are both confirming that human existence is characterized by Mit-sein. Whether the We is experienced as Kita or Kami depends on the absence or presence of objectifying or objectified others.

...
...
...

Allow me for a moment to side-step the discussion of cultural diversity and invite you to contemplate on the developing realities of religions as a rallying force for a We-world. I think that we all agree that in religions human beings are viewed as part of the total realm of God's creation. In one of his major works, Ernst Cassirer (1946) maintained the view that "life possesses the same religious dignity in its humblest and its hig-hest forms" (p.83). The essence of religious experience is the same in all belief systems, which is the experience of being transcendentally related to a Supreme Being. An important characteristic of the religious experience is that it implies an act of faith, based on pathos rather than on logos. Religious belief is not structured by logical reasoning; it is pre-logical and supra-rational. Hence it may be worth examining how much truism is reflected by the statement 'una est religio in rituum varietate'. If all religions provide guidance for transcendence toward the Supreme Being, is there no apertura for all religions to share a We-world in a Kita mode?

Let me at this junction quote the famous Lebanese poet and philosopher Khalil Gibran (1949), who expressed in one of his works his vision as follows:

I love you worshipping in your church, kneeling in your temple, and praying in your mosque. You and I are children of one religion, for the varied paths of religion are but the fingers of the loving hands of the Supreme Being, extended to all, offering completeness of spirit to all, anxious to receive all (p.83).

Gibran's appeal may be interpreted as meaning "to whatever religion you belong as part of a Kami , let it also be possible for us to share a Kita as fellow human beings." In Gibran's view, one has the full right to be part of a Kami based on adherence to a particular belief system, but should at the same time be able to participate in a Kita , sharing a We-world with others of different religions. It is, of course, right and justified to affirm our collective identity by saying who we are according to our religious beliefs, similar to affirming our national or ethnic identities. However, one must also be able to liberate oneself in order to be able to share a We-world in a Kita mode.

Edited by LYY, 01 April 2008 - 11:13 PM.

[mariusj]

Obviously they're no longer having sex.

Or. . . .

[LYY]

Obviously they're no longer having sex.

http://www.islam-wat...y-Out-Sunna.htm

When i first come about to learn about the real life of the Prophet, i am shocked.

Suddenly I realize why there are a lot of people who are ignorant about the dark side of Quranic teaching and the role model of the Prophet at His time.
Most of us have an impression that a Prophet in Islam will show an exemplary model in moral and spiritual cultivation just like Jesus or Buddha does to his disciples respectively.
In truth, it works the other way round.
It make the followers habitualize to the uncivilized way of the 6th-century tribal behaviours by rationalizing the life-threatening dangers of the infidels ... and the like.

[William O'Chee]

http://www.islam-wat...y-Out-Sunna.htm

When i first come about to learn about the real life of the Prophet, i am shocked.

Suddenly I realize why there are a lot of people who are ignorant about the dark side of Quranic teaching and the role model of the Prophet at His time.
Most of us have an impression that a Prophet in Islam will show an exemplary model in moral and spiritual cultivation just like Jesus or Buddha does to his disciples respectively.
In truth, it works the other way round.
It make the followers habitualize to the uncivilized way of the 6th-century tribal behaviours by rationalizing the life-threatening dangers of the infidels ... and the like.

I agree with looking in an analytical way at Mohammed's life. This is not something that most Islamic scholars encourage. In fact, I can't think of any Islamic scholars who encourage it, but I may be wrong.

Of course, to say the things which you have said would earn a death sentence in many Muslim countries. This is one of the aspects of Islam with which I have difficulties. It seems that a different standard is applied to what is said Jesus compared to what is said about Mohammed. I believe human rights demands equal dignity to the different religious views people have.

[LYY]

I agree with looking in an analytical way at Mohammed's life. This is not something that most Islamic scholars encourage. In fact, I can't think of any Islamic scholars who encourage it, but I may be wrong.

Of course, to say the things which you have said would earn a death sentence in many Muslim countries. ...

Moral Paradox?
Ethical dillemma?

So the muslim has to perform pre-emptive killings agianst his neighboring infidels, and in doing so, allow the love of ALLAH to spread through the world ...

Edited by LYY, 04 April 2008 - 03:23 AM.

[fcharton]

I agree with looking in an analytical way at Mohammed's life. This is not something that most Islamic scholars encourage. In fact, I can't think of any Islamic scholars who encourage it, but I may be wrong.

You most probably will find moderate muslims who agree with this. But do note that most religions do have difficulty with such approaches. Ernest Renan's Life of Jesus, which portrayed the Christ as a historical person came under the same kind of violent criticism in its time (that's late 19th early 20th century, not quite the middle ages)

Of course, to say the things which you have said would earn a death sentence in many Muslim countries. This is one of the aspects of Islam with which I have difficulties. It seems that a different standard is applied to what is said Jesus compared to what is said about Mohammed. I believe human rights demands equal dignity to the different religious views people have.

One point I find slightly disturbing is how Islam, and muslims, these days, get judged by standards which would not be applied to other religions. First, the courts of most (if not all) muslim countries would not pronounce a death sentence for what has been said on this thread. I do understand stating this might make one feel courageous, but it is not the case. And even then, this 'banned in Boston' argument is useless: some of my posts might, under some circumstances, get me arrested in the PRC, and perhaps I sometimes do thing which would be offenses in some american states? Does this tell something aboutl Chinese, or Americans? I don't think so.

Second, if one examines any religion or political doctrine closely enough, one can find such extreme statements. Ever read the Old Testament? quite a few bloody things there, are we to consider Christianism, and Judaism, in general as bloodthirsty religion? And what about Lenin and Mao? Should we consider any leftist, who claims filiation from them (eg the CCP, and quite a few others) as potential criminals?

Third, you can find extremists everywhere. Ever seen those christian groups who consider metal rock bands as minions of satans? and some prolife people who would not hesitate to attack, and sometimes kill, for their ideas? And what about the violent monks here and there? Should those who disagree with the attitudes of buddhist monks in Vietnam, or Burma, or Tibet, use this as a global indictment for Buddhism, as a violent and dangerous religion?

I am always amazed by my daily perception of muslims (France has a lot of muslims), and what I see written in threads such as this one, which eerily remind me about the stuff some used to write about Jews a century ago.

Francois

Edited by fcharton, 04 April 2008 - 03:34 AM.

[LYY]

One point I find slightly disturbing is how Islam, and muslims, these days, get judged by standards which would not be applied to other religions. First, the courts of most (if not all) muslim countries would not pronounce a death sentence for what has been said on this thread. I do understand stating this might make one feel courageous, but it is not the case. And even then, this 'banned in Boston' argument is useless: some of my posts might, under some circumstances, get me arrested in the PRC, and perhaps I sometimes do thing which would be offenses in some american states? Does this tell something aboutl Chinese, or Americans? I don't think so.

Second, if one examines any religion or political doctrine closely enough, one can find such extreme statements. Ever read the Old Testament? quite a few bloody things there, are we to consider Christianism, and Judaism, in general as bloodthirsty religion? And what about Lenin and Mao? Should we consider any leftist, who claims filiation from them (eg the CCP, and quite a few others) as potential criminals?

Third, you can find extremists everywhere. Ever seen those christian groups who consider metal rock bands as minions of satans? and some prolife people who would not hesitate to attack, and sometimes kill, for their ideas? And what about the violent monks here and there? Should those who disagree with the attitudes of buddhist monks in Vietnam, or Burma, or Tibet, use this as a global indictment for Buddhism, as a violent and dangerous religion?

True, from the eye of history.

Thanks to your reminder.
I think I will stop using the word "muslim" and "Islam" which are rather inappropriate.
The Quranic content should be discussed without incurring the phrase - "muslim" and "Islam".

As a substitute, "Islam" can be viewed as a "belief system"; but i have problem to find a suitable word for "muslim" for few reasons:

(1) I can't tell if they are "believers" because it is not easy for them to receive permission to convert. I can't tell if this is their choice.
(2) I can't tell if they are "followers" because the Quranic standard are enforced by nature.
(3) It is not easy for them to question and challenge the teachings if they have doubts.
(4) It is not easy for them to be exposed and learn about other belief systems.
(5) Due to my shallow knowledge and exposure, i have problem to tell if jihadist are muslim.
...

Come to this point of time when i write, a word pop up ... receiver.
And since we can't run away from Quran, why not use the word receiver of Quranic Mandate?

[LYY]

I am always amazed by my daily perception of muslims (France has a lot of muslims), and what I see written in threads such as this one, which eerily remind me about the stuff some used to write about Jews a century ago.

My perception on Chinese is MONEY (stereotyping!).
Don't know why, Chinese is always concerned with Money, even more rampant in the communist PRC.

My perception on my fellow muslim in my country is GRACE, and somewhat "easy go lucky" type.
A natural daoist!
They are my favourite spots to eat out (without my wife).

My focus is in the Quranic content and His Authorized Author.
Anything beyond is not within the scope of my intent.
For some paradoxical reasons, the Quran calls the Jews "pig" and the Christian "Monkey" one thousand five hundred years ago, which map the same pattern some used to write about Jews a century ago.

[mariusj]

My perception on Chinese is MONEY (stereotyping!).
Don't know why, Chinese is always concerned with Money, even more rampant in the communist PRC.

Actually, prior to the modern age, how would you get that perception?

In fact, money is the LAST concern of Chinese culture.