The Reality That Is Islam

reply to post by InfoKartel

Replacing the racial terms with "cultural" is just a futile attempt to dodge charges of racism.

Saying "Japanese culture places greater importance on the collective rather than the individual as compared to Western Culture" is a statement about differing cultural traditions.

"Kurds have always been nicer than Arabs" is a racist statement.
Let us switch it about a bit:
"Whites have always been nicer than blacks"
"Britons have always been nicer than the Japanese"
"Americans have always been nicer than Scandanavians"

Sounds like a horrible thing to say now, doesn't it?

It is funny that you say "Judeo-Christian", when in fact, the OP lays the same accusations against Christianity. And in his understanding (i.e. a system where the religious elite can regularly "update" and contradict the scriptural doctrine (Judaism), vs. a system where the followers must follow (albeit with varying interpretations created because of problems in the text) exactly the scriptural doctrine, no matter how out of date (Christianity as well as Islam)), he's right.

PS: I've lived in Muslim majority countries. I've lived in Christian majority countries. I've lived in (Christian) African countries as well. Are you suggesting that because I had fewer luxuries than when I live in the west, africans are worse people than westerners? People are people. Quit trying to demean them.

reply to post by babloyi

Replacing the racial terms with "cultural" is just a futile attempt to dodge charges of racism.

Your ignorance about what the term culture means is astounding.

"Kurds have always been nicer than Arabs" is a racist statement.
Let us switch it about a bit:
"Whites have always been nicer than blacks"
"Britons have always been nicer than the Japanese"
"Americans have always been nicer than Scandanavians"

What you fail to get is that Kurdish people do not have a country in the traditional sense, and have been divided through thousands of years of racism and discrimination - amongst a number of countries that still discriminate against them. Your actual racism and ignorance against and surrounding Kurdish people is showing - but what the hell do you care right?!

Just look through history and observe the facts for yourself. Kurdish rulers and people HAVE been nicer than Arabs, religiously and politically speaking, both to their own people and others. Kurdish people have contributed the most to religion and science compared to other Muslims, BUT, they are the least(if even) recognized - because people like you are wholly ignorant about the Kurdish issue, and you want to talk about racism? You bring up Palestinians because it furthers your goal(or so you thought), but you fail to mention the Kurdish issue...that's your bias showing. It's the same with all you apologists really. Do you even know the first thing about Kurdish history or Kurdish people?!

Besides the fact that it's not a racist statement, but a generalized statement that you will find hard to disprove. Go ahead, read history, I beg you, READ.

PS: I've lived in Muslim majority countries. I've lived in Christian majority countries. I've lived in (Christian) African countries as well. Are you suggesting that because I had fewer luxuries than when I live in the west, africans are worse people than westerners? People are people. Quit trying to demean them.

No you obviously have not lived under Islamic law. And if you have, the lessons have gone lost on you as you were blind to other peoples suffering. Nobody made a claim about possessions, in fact, go look up how much resources and possessions the Arabs have compared to the Kurdish, and STILL the Kurdish are a million times more free than the Arabs could ever wish!

Why you ask?!

Because Kurdish people, historically speaking, have always questioned life(moreso than most populations and definitely more so than the Arabs with their thousands of years of oppression of people through religion and religious conquest). Whether that be science or religion. Where do you think the "Sufi" branch comes from(the most progressive and mystical branch of Islam)?! Go read HISTORY.

There was a time that Jewish, Christians, Baha'i and Muslims...whether they be Kurdish, Iranian, Turkish...lived next door to each other in Iran - without a religious government practicing Islamic law. Now look at Iran and observe how "free" every religion is except for Islam. Then observe how free people are?! That is the effect of Islamic doctrine.

PS. Why don't you live in a country with Islamic law anymore? If it was that much better than a Christian or Jewish or Secular country, why leave?! Why do people FLEE FROM those places instead of to those places?

reply to post by InfoKartel

Originally posted by InfoKartel
What you fail to get is that Kurdish people do not have a country in the traditional sense, and have been divided through thousands of years of racism and discrimination - amongst a number of countries that still discriminate against them.

I have not made any statement at all anywhere about Kurdish people. This discussion isn't about Kurdish people. It is amazing how you attempted to twist this whole thing around into an off-topic rant about how I am racist towards Kurds.

But trying to trump up the Kurds, you're being racist towards arabs again. Cute. It is odd you call Sufiism the "most progressive" branch of Islam..I guess you haven't read into it much? It is even weirder that you think it originated from the Kurds. Hasan Al-Basri (Persian), Owais Qarni (Arab), Haris al-Muhasibi (Arab), Rabia Al-Qaisiyah (Arab) and Bayazid Bastami (Persian) would have something to say about that.

And I'm sure there were many great Kurdish scientists, philosophers and intellectuals. Doesn't mean they had an exclusive or even majority stake in "religion and science" than other muslims. Unless you are being racist towards Arabs and Persians and want to ignore Al-Farabi (Persian or perhaps Turkish), Geber (Arab or Persian, or perhaps Syrian), the Banu Musa brothers (Persian), Al-Kindi (Arab), Ibn Firnas (Andalusian), Al-Battani (Arab), Al-Razi (Persian), Avicenna (Persian), Abul-Qasim al-Zahrawi (Arab), Ibn al-Haytham (Arab or Persian), Al-Zarqali (a Visigoth! ), Al-Idrisi (Arab), Ibn al-Nafis (Arab), Nasir-ud-Din Al-Tusi (Persian) and Al-Farangi (Persian).

Originally posted by InfoKartel
No you obviously have not lived under Islamic law. And if you have, the lessons have gone lost on you as you were blind to other peoples suffering.

I think I'd know better than you where I've lived or not lived.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
PS. Why don't you live in a country with Islamic law anymore? If it was that much better than a Christian or Jewish or Secular country, why leave?! Why do people FLEE FROM those places instead of to those places?

Your racism and narrow-mindedness shines through. Congratulations. I didn't "flee" any country. I travel. You should try it. It broadens narrow minds, it sounds like you need it. You ever been to another country NOT as part of an invading army?

reply to post by babloyi

This discussion isn't about Kurdish people.

It's about the absoluteness of Islam, and part of that absoluteness is how Kurdish people were marginalized and wiped away from history books, their names altered to resemble Persian or Arab names even though most contributions and discoveries were made by Kurdish people. Oh yes, your racism and ignorance shines through far brighter than you would like it to.

It is odd you call Sufiism the "most progressive" branch of Islam..

Metaphysics? Mysticism? No?

Unless you are being racist towards Arabs and Persians

...

Oi, ignorant fellow. How many of the names you did and did not write down are Kurdish people yet they have been divided into either Arab or Persian or any other nationality with the excuse that Kurdish is not a nationality? ATS has gotten useless, all you ignorant people who can copy-paste wikipedia perfectly, but a single thought in your head is too much to ask for. Carry on, wallow in the ignorance, you seem to enjoy it.

Congratulations. I didn't "flee" any country. I travel.

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the many MILLIONS whom you seem to forget when it's about you, you, you. So again, why do people FLEE from those countries instead of to those countries? Simple question one would think.

You should try it. It broadens narrow minds, it sounds like you need it. You ever been to another country NOT as part of an invading army?

Since when did Iranians invade a country?! Or Kurdish people?! Oh you ignorant person...

reply to post by InfoKartel

Originally posted by InfoKartel

It is odd you call Sufiism the "most progressive" branch of Islam..

Metaphysics? Mysticism? No?

What has mysticism got to do with progressiveness? The Freemasons are mystical. The Zoroastrian religion (and to a greater extent Mithraism) was pretty mystical. Didn't stop the the "Elite", "esoteric" ruling priestly class from completely screwing over the common people.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
Oi, ignorant fellow. How many of the names you did and did not write down are Kurdish people yet they have been divided into either Arab or Persian or any other nationality with the excuse that Kurdish is not a nationality?

How many, then? Please do tell. Unless you are just talking in the air and have no idea. Odd that these people would write their own autobiographies and have other people write their biographies and be born and grow up among other people in Mainland Arabia and Yemen and Khorasan, and meet with other people in these areas, and yet magically be kurdish, when Kurdistan and the surrounding areas is nowhere near these places. I'd be VERY interested if you can provide any reliable information on how these people were secretly Kurdish.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the many MILLIONS whom you seem to forget when it's about you, you, you. So again, why do people FLEE from those countries instead of to those countries? Simple question one would think.

Odd. You specifically addressed me in your previous post, and now you say you aren't talking about me? I WAS confused as to why my travel habits were any business of yours, actually...
Does the reason behind people fleeing from these countries really confuse you? I'd think a looming invasion by western forces would make anyone run for their lives.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
Since when did Iranians invade a country?! Or Kurdish people?! Oh you ignorant person...

Are you claiming to be Iranian or Kurdish now?

reply to post by babloyi

What has mysticism got to do with progressiveness?

WHAT?!

The Freemasons are mystical.

I don't think freemasonry is a religion or a branch of a religion.

The Zoroastrian religion is pretty mystical.

Zoroastrianism is not a religion, nor can it be practiced as one due to insane amounts of Zoroastrian knowledge erased by 1. Alexander and his burning of the library in Persia. 2. Arabic Islamists and their burning of any books that they did not agree with. So for you to claim anything about Zoroastrianism; that it's a religion - let alone that is a mystical religion(the facts would disagree with you here, it's pretty straight forward and with the tiniest bit of mysticism - if any) is kind of...awkward.

Didn't stop the the "Elite", "esoteric" ruling priestly class from completely screwing over the common people.

You'll find that those rulers were part of organized religions. And you will find that Catholicism and Islam are the champions when it comes to "ruling elites" and "priestly classes".

How many, then? Please do tell. Unless you are just talking in the air and have no idea.

Uhuh, sure, it's me that has no idea. Obviously.

Odd. You specifically addressed me in your previous post, and now you say you aren't talking about me?

I asked how many people fled from those countries. I didn't ask what you were doing there. Quite frankly, I don't care...simply because you closed your eyes to the people there.

I WAS confused as to why my travel habits were any business of yours, actually...

I care as much about your travels as you care about the Palestinian cause. Nothing really...until I can use it in an argument. *WINK*

Does the reason behind people fleeing from these countries really confuse you? I'd think a looming invasion by western forces would make anyone run for their lives.

So wait a second here...you are telling me that "looming invasion by western forces" is the reason for MILLIONS upon MILLIONS fleeing their home countries? And not brutal dictators and theocracies that beat everyone into submission?

Are you claiming to be Iranian or Kurdish now?

I can claim both. But ignorant folk don't understand these matters. You just keep your focus on speaking in defense of Islam and any argument against Islam, even those that make sense, while you live in a non-Islamic country. It makes tons of sense, really. Bye bye now.

reply to post by InfoKartel

Originally posted by InfoKartel

What has mysticism got to do with progressiveness?

WHAT?!

Exactly what I said. Mysticism is often, by its very definition esoteric, and therefore restricted to a few people who are deemed "worthy". Seems a perfect set up for an elite ruling class.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
Zoroastrianism is not a religion, nor can it be practiced as one due to insane amounts of Zoroastrian knowledge erased by 1. Alexander and his burning of the library in Persia. 2. Arabic Islamists and their burning of any books that they did not agree with.

Errr....the Parsi people (still very much around today) would beg to differ. Sure, they aren't at the level of prominence as they were back then, but they don't deserve to be told they don't exist.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
You'll find that those rulers were part of organized religions.

Umm....just because a religion or branch of religion is "mystical" doesn't make it not an organised religion. As I said, the esoteric and exclusive nature of such religions make them likely candidates for "organisation". In fact, Sufi tradition (to use the example in this thread) moves in a very organised fashion from master to diciple, with many recognised "Schools" all of who claim to be able to trace their authenticity all the way back to the time of Muhammad and his followers.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
Uhuh, sure, it's me that has no idea. Obviously.

Interesting how you totally dodged the question.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
I asked how many people fled from those countries. I didn't ask what you were doing there. Quite frankly, I don't care...simply because you closed your eyes to the people there.

You specifically asked me why I wasn't in a "country with Islamic Law" anymore. People flee many countries. They flee because of war. They flee because of hunger. They flee because of better opportunities elsewhere. These problems aren't exclusive (or even related, if you ask me) to Islam or muslims.

reply to post by babloyi

And are you sure about the area? I've checked both mechon-mamre.org and blueletterbible, and they both use a specific word for the Euphrates (פְּרָת, Perath).

My mistake. It's Nachal (river) to the Perath - but, the euphrates is a very large river. Is the entire Euphrates being treated as the boundary between the future Israeli state and surrounding areas? Or is it a point along the Euphrates? Or, conversely, is this simply a metaphor that isn't to be interpreted literally. These are all Halachic matters that Israels religious and political leaders will have to tackle - in a spirit of both pragmatism and traditionalism.

According to you, the Word of God is therefore meaningless, because, as you say, it can be negated by man.

Let's be real for a second: There is no "one theological doctrine" that all Jews agree to. Amongst the orthodox, there are those who hold to a more stringent, rationalist (in Maimonides, as their patron authority) method, and then there are those of a mystical bent - as in Islam. Even amongst those of a mystical bent, there are very different views and opinions; some unwittingly hold to a gnostic doctrine without realizing it's logical consequences (which developed later on in Sabbateanism and Frankism) i.e. in antinomianism, while others shun certain mystical ideas and favor a more mystical philosophical (a metaphysical doctrine, in the traditional sense) approach. Me, I feel most persuaded by the learned and erudite theology of Elizer Berkovits. In his system of thought, which he makes amply clear by culling quotes from the Talmud which directly contradict explicit commands in the Torah, the Torah is seen as the word of God, but which works at a purely intellectual and abstract level - as theory - but this theory, or rule of law, has to be reconciled with the human heart, with mans emotion - another equally valid command. The solution to this antimony between these two strains, which Islamic thought is more inclined to give complete favor to reason (and in a sense, dehumanizing man) is a rapprochement: for the two inclinations to meet at a reasonable pitch.

It is very odd that the Talmudic rabbis consistently find ways to attenuate the significance of applicability of explicit biblical commands. For instance, they say that not once was a son brought before a rabbinical authority and killed for his disobedience to his parents, although, undoubtedly, such disobedience at times occurred. At another time, it says that a court which executes more than 1 person in 50 years is a "killing court" - and indeed, this is a staple of Jewish law: the law should seek to come to a proper estimation of the litigants fault, and unlike in western law, and undoubtedly completely absent in Islamic law, in Jewish law, the persons emotional and social condition becomes a factor in the final verdict - hence, how the law is ultimately attenuated.

No religion has been demonized for worse reason like Judaism has. I am honestly astonished - they're pilloried for being obsessed with the "law" when their law is more compassionate/lenient then gentile law! Even in our vernacular, a 'pharisee' is a hypocrite, one who acts one way but who's inner state is out of harmony.

And you wonder why I'm seriously seeking a deeper layer, or undercurrent, beneath the historical phenomenon of antisemitism: simply read a tract of hermeticism, and see how obviously apparent the strain between Hebraic morality and 'traditional aryan' morality is. The former bases itself on 'emotion' - hence, Jewish law - while the latter, despite thinking itself more rational (as a matter of fact, all thinking is based on some emotion) arbitrates only in 'absolute' terms - of facts, numbers, figures - the more stripped they are of 'sentiment' the better. And yet, sentiment is what is human. A religious philosophy or way of life that deprives man of this invigorating element, deprives man of a life worth living.

The Talmud has some pretty bad stuff as well, but man can overrule man much more easily than man can overrule God.

I agree, but nothing so egregious as commands to kill apostates etc. Almost all the accusations made against the Talmud have been libels - mistranslations, taken out of context, or pure fabrications - and this as well is proof of some nefarious agenda to generate antisemitism online.

The more I read into the western magical-hermetic tradition, into gnosticism, and its confluence in Islamic and Eastern thought, the more clear the contours of a conspiracy against the Jewish people becomes. Even within the Jewish people, a 5th column, the outgrowth of 17th and 18th century mystical heresies, gave birth to the 'reform' movement. This is what Gershom Scholem has to say about the connection:

In 1850, a consciousness of this link between Sabbatianism and reform was still alive in some quarters. In circles close to the moderate reform movement, a very remarkable and undoubtedly authentic tradition is that Aron Chorin, the first pioneer of reform Jewry in Hungary was in his youth a member of the Sabbatian group in Prague. Prossnnitz and Hamburg, both in the eighteenth centers of Sabbatian propaganda and the scene of bitter struggles between the orthodox and heretics and their sympathizers, were among the chief strongholds of the reform movement in the beginning of the nineteenth century. The sons of those Frankists in Prague who in 1800 still pilgrimed to Offenbach near Frankfort, the seat of Frank's successors, and who educated their children in the spirit of this mystical sect, were among the leaders, in 1832, of the first reform organization in Prague. The writings of Jonas Wehle himself, the spiritual leader of these Prague mystics around 1800, already display an astonishing mixture of mysticism and rationalism. Of his extensive writings, and extremely interesting commentary to the Talmudic Aggadoth is extant in manuscript from which it is clear that his particular pantheon has room for Moses Mendelssohn and Immanuel Kant side by side with Sabbatai Sevi and Isaac Luria. And as late as 1864, his nephew, writing in New York, lengthily praises in his testaments his Sabbatean and Frankist ancestors as the standard-bearers of the "true Jewish faith", i.e. of a deeper spiritual understanding of Judaism". – Gerhom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, pg.304, Shocken Books

Today, even the prominent Rabbis and Rabbinical doctrines support some pretty violent stuff.

Care to provide some examples?

PS: Does "Halakha" really translate to a "religious decree"? The definition doesn't seem to think so. I'd say it is much more accurate to say it is "way to behave" or...well..."religious commandments". Instead of "fatwa", a better comparison with Islam would be "Sharia".

Halacha has a dual meaning: it can correspond to Sharia as the general term for Jewish law, but it can be used in the active sense as "the halachah". Each Rabbi gives his own Halachic interpretation of a particular subject and that final decision is called his "halacha" - in this sense it corresponds to the Islamic 'fatwa'.

Originally posted by GmoS719
Islam calls for violence against persecutors of Islam.
Christianity calls for peace and for you to turn the other cheek.
Any religion that promotes violent is a false one in my eyes.
You however are free to believe in what you want.

Surah 2:190-193
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they first fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression."

edit on 17-4-2012 by GmoS719 because: (no reason given)

Did you fall asleep in history class?

Originally posted by InfoKartel
If it was that much better than a Christian or Jewish or Secular country, why leave?! Why do people FLEE FROM those places instead of to those places?

Better ask why so many americans are leaving U.S. ?
Dare to answer that ? ? ?

Originally posted by InfoKartel
Judea-Christian doctrines and the lack of love it brings.

. . .you can say that again,
en.wikipedia.org...

the rule of law goes above the rule of religious law, In fact, a lot of these Western countries used to be ruled by churches, ie. religious law. But not anymore. Ask yourself WHY.

Do you speak for israel and
it's bankers ? ? , reality says the opposite.

________________________________

reply to post by ToneDeaf

Better ask why so many americans are leaving U.S. ?
Dare to answer that ? ? ?

Before there was an Islamic regime there were a handful of Iranian refugees WORLDWIDE.

From the time the Islamic regime came to power until now; 9 MILLION Iranian refugees worldwide and counting.

Remember, I say "fleeing" while you say "leaving". How many of those fleeing from the US are political refugees, meaning, their lives are in danger in America? Well?

. . .you can say that again,

Ever read the new testament? No? Okay.

Do you speak for israel and
it's bankers ? ? , reality says the opposite.

What are you even talking about. Why would I speak for Israel or bankers? And why does reality say the opposite? You guys are clueless.

reply to post by babloyi

Exactly what I said. Mysticism is often, by its very definition esoteric, and therefore restricted to a few people who are deemed "worthy". Seems a perfect set up for an elite ruling class.

See, and that's where your lack of knowledge comes in. The Sufi that I know and have been told about are not like that, AT ALL.

Errr....the Parsi people (still very much around today) would beg to differ. Sure, they aren't at the level of prominence as they were back then, but they don't deserve to be told they don't exist.

They exist. But Zoroastrianism doesn't exist anymore. Because it simply can't.

Umm....just because a religion or branch of religion is "mystical" doesn't make it not an organised religion.

Yes but using semantics to circle jerk, organized could be applied to EVERYTHING in this universe.
But you know what I mean.

You specifically asked me why I wasn't in a "country with Islamic Law" anymore. People flee many countries. They flee because of war. They flee because of hunger. They flee because of better opportunities elsewhere. These problems aren't exclusive (or even related, if you ask me) to Islam or muslims.

Before Islamic regime, Iranian refugees worldwide were a handful, not more.

From '79 until 2012; 9 million refugees and counting.

You want to tell me that has nothing to do with the Islamic regime. Well, you are clueless. Totally clueless. And really, if you feel that way about Islam and Islamic countries, go live in one where they practice sharia. Go to Saudi Arabia and enjoy your life. I hope you do go live there and I hope you get a few daughters...then you'll experience shariah and I bet you'd be fleeing from that country as well.

reply to post by dontreally

Hey dontreally!
Nice to hear back from you finally. I am appreciative of your attempt here to explain where you are coming from, it provides some useful context. I don't see the appeal to and reverence of emotion in Talmudic Law that you are referring to (rather just pages and pages and pages of discussion among Rabbis that is then sometimes stringently codified or sometimes differing and contradicting opinions are both written), but as I said, it provides context for where you are coming from.

I certainly don't believe such a system is exclusive to Judaism: While unlike how you understand the Torah, the Quran definitely has the ultimate say, however, the vast swaths of law that some people call shariah (although I'd say the term "fiqh" is more accurate) are not "set in stone", rather are opinions of various jurists from various points in time that are DERIVED from the Quran and the Hadith. Even the punishment of death for apostasy which you so easily call out Islam on isn't based in the Quran. It is based off the opinions of Jurists on the significance of certain hadith. Some hadith support it, so some jurists support it, some hadith deny this punishment, so some other jurists redact this supposed discrepancy and explain that it only applies to those people who abandon the community and switch allegiance over to an enemy (i.e. treason) who they can provide with insider knowledge.

Originally posted by dontreally
My mistake. It's Nachal (river) to the Perath - but, the euphrates is a very large river. Is the entire Euphrates being treated as the boundary between the future Israeli state and surrounding areas? Or is it a point along the Euphrates? Or, conversely, is this simply a metaphor that isn't to be interpreted literally. These are all Halachic matters that Israels religious and political leaders will have to tackle - in a spirit of both pragmatism and traditionalism.

Let us hope they err on the side of pragmatism, or at least take the same attitude towards God's gifts as you seem to take towards his commandments, because otherwise people will get the impression that they have the right to much of Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and most of habitable Egypt. If the whole thing IS a metaphor, not meant to be taken literally, then there seems to have been a pretty big mix-up in 1948!

Originally posted by dontreally

The Talmud has some pretty bad stuff as well, but man can overrule man much more easily than man can overrule God.

I agree, but nothing so egregious as commands to kill apostates etc.

While it is true that the application of capital punishment in Rabbinical Judaism was decreased to almost nothing through implementation of stricter criteria, the Rabbis (and consequently the Oral Torah) never denied that the apostate should be put to death (as is commanded in the Written Torah) by stoning.

Originally posted by dontreally

Today, even the prominent Rabbis and Rabbinical doctrines support some pretty violent stuff.

Care to provide some examples?

Sure.
It came out in the news last month how Colonel Rabbi Eyal Qarim had suggested in an answer tio the question of permissibility of rape during war that prohibitions against immorality were removed during war involving Israel (the "this is a mitzvah war thus it is okay" is an excuse Rabbis seem to make a lot) because to mainting the army's fighting ability, and with the success of the whole in mind (i.e. the ends justify the means) it is permitted to satisfy evil urges.
Now Eyal Qarim isn't some fringe lunatic. The excuse the IDF is making is that he was out of uniform when he made these statements. However, they still called him back, and at one point even considered him for the position of Chief Rabbi of the Military Rabbinate.

Rabbi Michael Broyde (again, not some fringe lunatic, but instead a well-respected mainstream Rabbi) talks about how collective punishment is justified, i.e. the entire community of a people could be killed for the actions of even one person among that community. He cites not only the Torah to back his opinion, but also Maimonides and Nahmanides. And this isn't some rare or deviating opinion. The Torah MiTzion, again using the excuse that any war involving Israel is a mitzvah war (and Israel has been engaged in one since its inception), says that there is NO requirement to differentiate between civilian and combatant, EVEN if the civilians aren't even taking part in the fighting.

Rabbi Ya'akov Ariel, again not some fringe character, but at one point considered for the position of Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi, echoed this opinion in claiming that once in war, the entire community of the members of the participating nations is considered as a whole, and any damage to any part of this body is justified, EVEN children on infants, as their actual innocence is irrelevant. He called this "striking the soft belly of the aggressor", and again, justified it through the scripture. To clarify, continuing this idea of "the entire nation as a whole", he condoned even non-government aggression (i.e. doesn't have to be by Israeli soldiers, even individuals such as Israeli settlers are justified in this). Rabbi Michael Broyde agrees with Rabbi Ya'akov Ariel on all this, except the last point: he considers that only soldiers can be justified in these actions.

Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, Chief Rabbi in Safid, again no fringe character, goes even further, and advocates "revenge" killings of civilians and even implored the government to "hang their children from the trees". His solution to ending the fighting is carpet bombing civilian populations: "Kill 1000 civilians. If that doesn't work, kill 10,000. If that doesn't work, kill 100,000 or a million."
His father, who was Sephardi Chief Rabbi for all of Israel, in fact said there was no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza, and claimed they were all collectively guilty, and in fact, to kill 1000 innocents for every Israeli killed.

Rabbi Michael Broyde agrees with this, and insists that these revenge killings in no way go against the Scriptural prohibition against murder.

Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli supported the indiscriminate killing of civilians (specifically mentioning the Qibya massacre- 69 palestinians, mostly women and children) on the grounds that they could've provided some form of support (even if it wasn't material or monetary- it could be verbal or spiritual) to combatants. They were condemned, and their slaughter was justified under some convoluted application of din rodef.

These mostly focused on Rabbinical opinions towards killing of innocents, but I hope these are enough for now! As you can see, this supplanting of the importance of the Torah with the importance of Rabbinical tradition is a double-edged sword. Just as the Rabbis can take something not so good from the Torah and contradict it, likewise, they can take something good from the Torah (Ezekiel 18's prohibition for killing the son for the father's sin or the father for the son's sin and the commandment not to murder) and contradict it.

reply to post by InfoKartel

Originally posted by InfoKartel
See, and that's where your lack of knowledge comes in. The Sufi that I know and have been told about are not like that, AT ALL.

My lack of knowledge? I personally know many sufi practitioners as very good friends. One of them- of western origin, became somewhat religious a couple years ago, and tended towards Sufism in the same way you talk of it- generalised terms with ideals and concepts floating in the air. As he studied more deeply, he started seeking out teachers, and attached himself to a "lineage" of Sufis and their teachers and leaders.

Soon he gave away all his shirts and pants (western clothing), even though they had all conformed to religious requirements covering the necessary parts of the body, and now exclusively wears a turban and that arab "robe" thing- clothing which have absolutely no connection to his culture or background. He gave up meeting all his female acquaintances at all, and then got into an arranged marriage after knowing the girl for barely a month. On his wedding he almost had a falling out with his (western) uncle when his uncle unknowingly entered a room where they were sitting with his wife having her abaya veil (look it up) removed.

Now I'm not saying he's not a great guy, and his odd little quirks are his own, but I was just giving an example to show you how your concept of sufis as some sort of "muslim-lite" is very much mistaken. In fact, this very same friend told me that it is only after the "outward" rites and regulations have been fulfilled that one can truly reach the "inward" apex of spirituality.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
They exist. But Zoroastrianism doesn't exist anymore. Because it simply can't.

Again, the Parsis, and for that matter the Iranis of India (not Irani in the sense of the nation, that is what they religiously call themselves) ARE of the Zoroastrian religion. It seems odd you are disputing this fact.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
Yes but using semantics to circle jerk, organized could be applied to EVERYTHING in this universe.
But you know what I mean.

Yes I do. But I am not sure you do. While some countries have employed "Religious leaders" as part of their government, ISLAM ITSELF has no hierarchy, no organisation of clerics and some head cleric (except in the sense I already mentioned, i.e. teacher and student). Ancient Zoroastrianism, however, DID. Near the end (and probably one of the reasons contributing to their diminishing), they had a priestly class that was entwined with the ruling class, that FULLY exploited the common followers.

reply to post by babloyi

Now I'm not saying he's not a great guy, and his odd little quirks are his own, but I was just giving an example to show you how your concept of sufis as some sort of "muslim-lite" is very much mistaken.

You have a concept of Sufi's in the west, I have a concept of Sufi's in the east...where the core is, where there aren't any wannabe's who overly express their faith in a bid to "belong".

It seems odd you are disputing this fact.

And it seems odd that you can't comprehend that a religion cannot be complete without its scripture.

While some countries have employed "Religious leaders" as part of their government, ISLAM ITSELF has no hierarchy, no organisation of clerics and some head cleric

now that's a joke and completely out of touch with reality.

Ancient Zoroastrianism, however, DID. Near the end (and probably one of the reasons contributing to their diminishing), they had a priestly class that was entwined with the ruling class, that FULLY exploited the common followers.

So what Cyrus the Great did was exploit people...

The reason for the loss of Zoroastrian scriptures was: 1- the burning of the library by Alexander. 2- The invasion by Arabs in 642~ AC and the subsequent murdering of people who did not convert to Islam.

I don't know what kind of Zoroastrianism you've done research on, but it's nothing like you're making it out to be. Zoroastrianism was simple and very clear, with only 3 main behavior rules and 3 tenets.

reply to post by babloyi

Now I'm not saying he's not a great guy, and his odd little quirks are his own, but I was just giving an example to show you how your concept of sufis as some sort of "muslim-lite" is very much mistaken.

You have a concept of Sufi's in the west, I have a concept of Sufi's in the east...where the core is, where there aren't any wannabe's who overly express their faith in a bid to "belong".

It seems odd you are disputing this fact.

And it seems odd that you can't comprehend that a religion cannot be complete without its scripture.

While some countries have employed "Religious leaders" as part of their government, ISLAM ITSELF has no hierarchy, no organisation of clerics and some head cleric

now that's a joke and completely out of touch with reality.

Ancient Zoroastrianism, however, DID. Near the end (and probably one of the reasons contributing to their diminishing), they had a priestly class that was entwined with the ruling class, that FULLY exploited the common followers.

So what Cyrus the Great did was exploit people...

The reason for the loss of Zoroastrian scriptures was: 1- the burning of the library by Alexander. 2- The invasion by Arabs in 642~ AC and the subsequent murdering of people who did not convert to Islam.

I don't know what kind of Zoroastrianism you've done research on, but it's nothing like you're making it out to be. Zoroastrianism was simple and very clear, with only 3 main behavior rules and 3 tenets.

reply to post by InfoKartel

I...really don't know what to say. You claim to be some great font of knowledge on easternness, yet you don't even know of the existence of Parsis. Check a dictionary? Check wiki? Check anything? Talk to a parsi, even? There are probably one or two parsi members here.

There are zoroastrians today. And I'm not sure where you get the idea that their scripture doesn't exist.

I'm really, sorry, I can't think of any way to say this that doesn't sound insulting, but...read up? The Avesta: the gathas, yasna, the yasht hymns, it is all there.

PS: Cyrus the Great was nowhere near the end of the Ancient Persian Empire. He existed over 1000 years before its end.

Having read the OP and the various postings, the following can be stated:

No one religion is correct in its assessment of the world views. The time of such has come and gone, and they should be relegated to the points of history. And the reason is not cause of what is written in any holy book, tomb or cannon, but cause of the followers that will pick and choose the passages that they see fit to use in every day lives and against those that they view as being heretical or against their particular view points.

If you look at history, Islam was at the forefront of math and science, of which many things today would not be possible to figure out. Christianity led the way to revolutions and better things. But those days are over, long gone. The texts and messages are correct, but the people are all screwed up. No 2 people can read the same passage or books without coming up with different opinions as to what was meant and implied. And thus the problem comes up. A few bad apples that gives the whole a bad name. While we could sit and list off each and every problem with the texts and their followers, how much of a problem that they have become for the world, and yet fail to realize that is the ultimate problem with religion in itself.

Islam is a wonderful religion that has become perverted by a few extremist that are hell bent on reshaping the world in their own perverse image, and ideology. They live in the past, failing to yield to the present and the future. They do not want admit that they just may be wrong in their view of the world, and fail to give tolerance when they should.

Judaism is a wonderful religion as it sets a standard for how to live a well and productive life, showing morals and guidelines on how society should be formed and governed, but its time has come and gone. Gone are the days when people worked and lived in accordance to strict guidelines.

Christianity is a wonderful religion that at one time led the world to higher means and objectives, leading people down paths to do what the viewed as the correct thing, and now they do such in error, failing to follow the very basic tenants of what they believe. It is stated that there are more born again Christians on death row that are very devout than anywhere else in the world.

Reality of the world is that with Islam, you have a group that is going to cause problems and violence against those that disagree with them, seeking to subjugate those who are not followers even killing them.
Reality of the world is that with Judaism, you have a group that has gone through some pretty rough times, even attempted genocide, that are now doing the very same things that were once done to them.
Reality of the world is that with Christianity, you have a group of people that are a bunch of hypocrites, picking and choosing the passages that best suits their point of view.

Reality is not one view point is correct in its assessment of the world, rather it seeks to define a world that no longer can be defined, situations that were never written about that it seeks to constrain and ultimately a people that are just no longer interested in the teachings or the message in any of it.

reply to post by dontreally

Well, for one thing, I think all Americans, and everyone else needs to stop calling Islam "demonic." This is inflammatory speech, and this is one reason they strap explosives around their bodies and blow us up. The other reason is we are killing them off by the thousands every day.
Oh, I agree that they are as brainwashed as Fundamentals are, no doubt of that, something needs to happen to wake all of them up. Religions is the bane is civilized society, IMHO.

reply to post by babloyi

You claim to be some great font of knowledge on easternness, yet you don't even know of the existence of Parsis.

Of course I do. My argument is not that they don't exist, but that they practice a religion that is derived from Zoroastrianism. They do not practice Zoroastrianism, because it is literally impossible - since so much Zoroastrian scriptures went up in flames. You are correct when you say that Cyrus existed roughly 1000 year pre-Attack of the Arabs - BUT, so did the older-than-Cyrus Zoroastrianism. So that's a period of 1000+ years pre-Islam and a period of 1500~ years after Islam. That's roughly 2600-3000 years ago. Now you tell me, with a straight face if you can, that even though most(like 80%) of the scriptures have gone missing, people today can still practice the same religion as 2600-3000 years ago. It's LITERALLY impossible. There would be a need for conjecture and assumption to be able to still practice it, and with that conjecture and assumptions come error of margin and straight up lies and make-belief.

You see?

I'm really, sorry, I can't think of any way to say this that doesn't sound insulting, but...read up? The Avesta: the gathas, yasna, the yasht hymns, it is all there.

That is your claim. The reality is, the bigger part of it went lost.

PS: Cyrus the Great was nowhere near the end of the Ancient Persian Empire. He existed over 1000 years before its end.

Something about Sherlock.

reply to post by InfoKartel

Originally posted by InfoKartel
Of course I do. My argument is not that they don't exist, but that they practice a religion that is derived from Zoroastrianism. They do not practice Zoroastrianism, because it is literally impossible - since so much Zoroastrian scriptures went up in flames.

Since they'd know better about their religion than you, and they themselves claim to be Zoroastrians, I'd say I'd go with them. If I followed your logic, Nobody is a "Real Christian" today, because the Q documents are entirely missing (not to mention all the other documents the Vatican supposedly has hidden away). Or nobody today is Jewish, because the texts must have been mutated in the last 3000 years. It seems a remarkably Abrahamic-centric point of view that religion cannot exist without scripture.

Originally posted by InfoKartel

PS: Cyrus the Great was nowhere near the end of the Ancient Persian Empire. He existed over 1000 years before its end.

Something about Sherlock.

You used Cyrus the Great as an example against my point that near the end, Zoroastrianism wasn't used to exploit the masses. So I pointed out that Cyrus was nowhere near the end of the Ancient Persian empire. In fact, there is no clear documented evidence at all that he practised Zoroastrianism at all (although he was certainly influenced by it). In fact, it was during his dynasty (Achaemenid) that Zoroastrianism became combined with the rulership of Persia. So...something about Sherlock?