To Noah: It is all about 'vasudev kudumbakam'
Reader comment on item: How the West Could Lose
Submitted by Plato (India), Mar 10, 2007 at 07:19
"...You make grand claims, they get shot down, and you then admit to ignorance on the matter. ..."
Grand claims? What are they. I would love to hear what you think are my grand claims. And shooting down claims is the 'dharma' of these blogs and you wouldn't be posting here otherwise. I have never claimed to be a pundit in any field just a layman using knowledge that has come his way to get a handle on what is happening in the world, if they are shown to be demonstrably wrong I have no hesitation in admitting my ignorance in the matter. I do not go about dishonestly claiming I am right in everything I say.
Plato, it is drummed into their heads from birth that they should lie to "infidels" any time it serves a purpose (for Muslims). They are told this by their clerics, by their immams, in their mosques, madrassahs, and homes. Even their Koran and holy scriptures authorize this.
mandate - n. -to authorize or decree (a particular action); a command or authorization to act in a particular way
Muslims have a mandate to lie to everyone else.
Noah, all I see you doing here is try to drum into the readers' minds that it is drummed into the heads of muslims from birth that they should lie to infidels as a matter of their religious duty. The only proof you presented was from Gazzali, which turned out to be just permission to lie, not a mandate.
"If you were not aware of the true meaning of the phrase, then you have no business arguing about it. That's the problem with people like you and Michel. You argue without understanding what you're arguing about. This is covered in what? Third grade theology in Christian schools? It's not some "mystical" meaning that only scholars know about. Ask any 5th grader in a Catholic school and he can explain it to you"
Here is what I originally wrote:
'2) & 3)The mystical meaning of the 'meek inheriting the earth' I admit I was not aware. I took it more in its literal sense, so Christian nations who went about conquering other people did not follow this mandate of the Bible. Does it now sound topical? What I am trying to show is that people of all faiths pick and choose what they want to follow of their religion.....'
The blog posters are there to enlighten me. This by your lights is probably one of my 'grand claims'. Is the Bible only interpreted in the metaphorical sense? What about the literalists/fundamentalists. All scriptural interpreters claim metaphorical meaning when confronted with something uncomfortable in them. They forget Ocam's Razor and complicate matters. Your interpretation of the 'meek inheriting' is only one interpretation not the only one.
"I am not a Bible scholar but from what little I know of it I am not aware of any place where Jesus says he has come to supercede the OT instead he is clearly stating that he has not come to destroy the OT laws."
Clearly, far from being a scholar, you are not even familiar with the religion, thus you are not entitled to an opinion on the matter and have no business discussing it..."
So is this forum only for scholars who combine in-depth knowledge of Islam, Christianity, Vedanta, Buddhism, Military strategy and tactical thinking, psychology and mental states of Muslims, history, virology, uses and effects of WMDs all of which I am not and so not entitled to an opinion?
"In other words, all other laws derive from and are also subject to these two great commandments....."(Matt 22:37-40 )Is that your particular take on Matt 22:37-40 or the accepted interpretation of it? This would supercede Matt 5: 17-18. Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the Sermon on the Mount was perhaps the most sacrosanct of the Bible. Which one abrogates which a la the Koran?
I looked through
He has done a good job of prooving the moon is made of green cheese. He is only slightly more sophisticated that Moderate Muslim in his last post trying to prove the moderatenessof Islam. Here is the author labouring to show that the NT abrogates the OT and yet it does not:
The Old Covenant is to the New Covenant what promise is to fulfillment. How did, does, and shall Jesus Christ fulfill the promises of the Old Covenant?
"That story is complex. Christians are commanded to read the Old Testament and are allowed to benefit from it, but they do not take everything in it as final. Christians honor the Old Testament as the Word of God, just as Jesus did. But they read it, ultimately, through the vision of Jesus and the Spirit-inspired authors of the New Testament books and epistles.
Not everything as final? What parts still apply to them today, if any?
Many Christians misunderstand this important issue, so it is not surprising that Muslims do too. On some websites and in articles, Muslim polemicists refer to the Old Testament to justify, for example, executing homosexuals in Islam. The Bible did this, so why do Christians complain? The polemicists seem to imply that all of humanity should march backwards 1,400 years BC via the diluted and distorted old-new law of Muhammad and re-impose the old commands on everyone. But the polemicists fail to understand the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Maybe this article will help clarify this issue for Christians and Muslims alike."Read the underlined sentence. Christians are commanded to read the OT but whether they follow it or not is left to the individual, a convoluted way of saying that the OT is outdated. What is final is something else.
I see the Muslim point here. Why did God have different laws for people born before Jesus. They are not saying humanity should march backwards they are saying that a God who changes his laws over time is not much of a God. They can't digest the idea of God's commands getting old. The exception is Allah who can abrogate verses with gay abandon.
"Once again you twist my words. Unfortunately for me, you and Michel do not own a newspaper, because I would become rich overnight with all your libelous claims. I am saying that there are virtually no Muslims out there who are reform minded. Those who fight for actual reform of Islam are a microscopic aberration. Those who do not fight for reform are at best willing accomplizes and at worst active terrorists. Either way, they are enemies of freedom. The mass migratory attack is part of their war plan. Only a blind, deaf, and idiotic fool would fail to understand that."No court of law will let you get away with claiming 'virtually no Muslims out there are reform minded'. What is your proof? Eavesdropping on or spying on some mosques and madrassas in your neighbourhood, those special polls in which you believe, the Arizona rally and the Detroit muslims? Our lawyers and the justices would laugh you out of court and we will laugh all the way to our banks.
"Go to any mosque, madrassah, or Islamic center and you will hear it........But as I said, I have seen the reality of Muslims in America first hand, and what I have seen is not good by any definition."Mere anecdotal evidence does not translate into reality. Eva Braun, Geobbles, Hermann Hesse would have had a lot of good things to say about Hitler. So Hitler was a loving kind person? To quote you: Only a blind, deaf, and idiotic fool would fail to understand that.
"Okay I have made a lot of concessions."
You are forced to because you clearly do not know what you are talking about. That's the very problem with these discussions - people not knowing the subject matter."Yes because I am not someone who combines in-depth knowledge of Islam, Christianity, Vedanta, Buddhism, Military strategy and tactical thinking, psychology and mental states of Muslims, history, virology, uses and effects of WMDs.
"You're committed an error of definition there. An assumption is a proposition or supposition that is taken for granted without benefit of proof. That is clearly not what I am doing. Each and every one of my claims and opinions derives entirely from direct observation of reality, study, factual analysis, and historical precendence. I do not even offer claims without first knowing that I can back them up no matter how fierce the opposition. So again you show that you do not understand what we're doing here. You simply want to fight with me because you don't like what I have to say."
I agree with what you have said last: I don't like what you have to say. Why? Not because of your superior knowledge of most of the subjects under discussion but because of the conclusions you reach from them. Sankaracharya, the Vedantist par excellence, when confronted with the fact that he scampered up a tree when chased by an elephant despite knowing that the world is an illusion replied that what his disciple saw was also an illusion. Your 'direct observation of reality, study, factual analysis, and historical precendence' has resulted in the illusionary elephant of a Muslim migratory attack chasing you up the flagpole. That elephant is visible to only a very select group who are stuck up that flagpole.
Assumption also has the meaning of:presumption; arrogance. And that meaning applies to your statement: '
"First of all, your understanding of the Vedas is about as shaky as your understanding of the Bible. So let's not even go there. There's nothing worse than having to argue with an "internet scholar". Second, the very large majority of Muslims are not hidden from us. We see who they elect when they vote (Hamas), we see what they say in their polls, we see what they rally for and against, and what they fail to rally for and against. We see historical patterns being repeated, with identical signposts popping up along the way. The problem is that you don't dig deep enough, you don't look beneath the surface, you don't see the big picture. And thus, you cannot see the problem clearly."Noah it is time you started haunting what you consider are more scholarly blogs. This one is for more pedestrian types like me. Here I am willing to learn from all types, the scholarly and even the ones you describe as 'blind, deaf, and idiotic fools'. You seem to think that only scholars in their particular fields should open their mouths here. I hope my pedestrian posts also contribute to the debate on this blog.
And you did give us a peek into your knowledge of the Vedas and what they stand for. The supreme Vedic principle of 'vasudev kudumabakam' seems to have escaped you completely. Noah, 'vasudev kudumbakam' IS the big picture you should be looking at.
I wrote:"You need the right kind of torch to see them as the harmless ropes they are"
You write: "If you truly believe they are "harmless" then you're as clearly delusional as Michel. Once again, look at what they are doing in places like Detroit. You're living in denial of reality."Detroit and the perennial Arizona rally seems to the limits of the reality you have confronted.
I wrote: "WhAnd you wroteAnd assumption as in 'presumtion, arrogance' also blinds a person to reality
"It's a shame you have so little understanding of reality and so little faith in our ability to perceive truth...."Yes its a shame, our having little faith in your ability to perceive truth.
"...We make predictions all the time, based on direct observation of reality, and those predictions prove true...."In science yes, show me where you have predicted a complex sociological event not childish ones like the results of polling Saudi Arabians on the rights of women or Jordanians on what they think should be done to Israel. You saw what came out of those sophisticated polls by the US university and by the Pew organisation. You wanted those pollsters thrown into the dungeons for being traitors.
I wrote: "That Islam is a threat is a given. How to deal with it is what the debate is about. They way you wish to deal with it you will end up becoming what you want destroyed."
Again, completely untrue. This is another example of the Great Lie that Goebbels advocated. Use the same lie and repeat it a thousands times but never argue it or debate it. Never respond to challenges to it. Jst keep lying and people will believe it. Well, those of us who are intelligent will not believe it no matter how many times you repeat it.Alright Noah, let us find out what the great Goebellesian lie you are talking about is. The first two sentences of mine cannot be the lies. The third sentence is my statement, presumption, assumption that you will transmogrify into the Muslim ogres you are fighting. Why is that a lie. Maybe you will say that the Nazis were also fought, defeated and subdued thoroughly and it did not change the Allied powers into Nazis. But then the Allies did not act like the Nazis.
You want to sequester and deport man, woman and child who are Muslims and if they resist, which many will having known no other nation, kill them without mercy. If a few Muslims manage to do what you consider unacceptable damage to the US then MOAB or neutronise all Muslim areas of the world whatever the collateral damage. That in my book is very Nazi-like, which is not very far from being Muslim-like. Now is that a lie?
Another idiotic and false comparison. I'll let the obvious stand on its own."I will let it stand too, what I said.
"We will never know if the good side wins because the victor always gets to write the history."
Another propaganda technique used to obscure the truth. You really do need to find another line of work, Plato. Propaganda is not working for you."Let the readers be the judge of that.
"Once again, that is not my claim, and I will let the absurdity of your misrepresentation speak for itself. Anyone intelligent enough to read this forum can see how you've twisted that."This is what I wrote: This was your reply: This was my counter calculation: In this universe your math proved that there are 1,199,999,970 terrorist Muslims because only thirty turned up at a rally in a town in Arizona. You must be joking Mr Feynman (er Noah).
"It tells me that 99.9999% of them did not care enough to attend the rally and to fight for reform of their religion. It tells me that 99.9999% of them did not care enough to try to make their religion look better. It tells me that 99.9999% of them refuse to stand up and claim their religion from the "tiny minority of radicals" who are "hijacking the religion of peace". It tells me that even in America, land of the free and home of the brave, that Muslims here are just as unlikely to rally for reform as they are in their Islamic homelands. And speaking of the land of the brave, it's an insult that Muslims use the excuse of fear when trying to explain why they refsue to speak out."Even if it were 100% does it make all of them terrorists and terrorists sympathisers including the women and children. You have said they did not care enough, refused to stand up, refused to speak up etc. How many Americans rally to support the war in Iraq, a matter of life and death for many young citizens? Does it mean that the rest of them are against the war or vice versa. How many Americans vote in the elections? Does it mean the rest of them don't care for democracy, and are refusing to stand up and speak for democracy?
"Did we see the hundreds of millions that celebrated quietly in their homes? Did we see the hundreds of millions who thanked Allah for his atrocity? Did we see the hundreds of millions who helped finance the atrocities and who helped them commit the atrocities by their donations to terrorist organizations and their sympathetic "blind eyes" to things going on in their communties? Did we see the hundreds of millions who refused to immediately (or ever, to this very day) stand up and denounce the terrorist attacks and declare war on the terrorists who are "corrupting" their "religion of peace"?Well, I did at least. Noah did you??? Or did you deduce it from some abstruse psycho-mathematical formula?
I wrote: I see the rope, you the snake.
Your reply: "Is that even a sentence?" It has a subject and a predicate. Please correct my syntax.
. I know you refused to acknowledge reality.""The Arizona rally is getting to be a cause celebre with you. Because of that rally 1,200,000,000 minus 30 = 1,199,999,970 are the number of terrorist Muslims in the world. Your math prove that?"Then use math to prove me wrong, don't just claim I'm wrong and then cower from proving that. Show me how, if there are 1.2 billion Muslims on the planet, and only 30 show up for a peace rally, that constitutes a majority of Muslims. Not in this universe will your math prove that.The mathematical calculations you present look suspiciously like the mathematical calculations by the 'science in the Koran' believers when they calculate the speed of light from some vague references in their Book.""As to Islam committing another mass terror attack (even by a home-grown Islamic unit) resulting in MOABing and neutron bombing of the world of Islam it will be a war crime to end all war crimes. The Nazis perfected that. 'Sanitize' a whole city block or village for an attack by a few individuals.":". ...Cowardice is the single personality flaw that most blinds a person to reality."at is the proof that Muslims are even more violent than the polls show? I, Noah, have repeatedly stated so."So again you show that you do not understand what we're doing here.' My disagreement is only on the basis that because Islam is all you claim to be, practically all Muslims are also violent, aggressive and bent on jihad."
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (2100) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes