Revolt in Paradise

#81 by masadi

Thanks. So does it follow that the Pope was using the interpretation of an isolated scholar who rejected `reason` to convey that God in `Islam` is unreasonable? If he was, then certainly the Pope is either incompetent or a Bush/Blair co-conspirator.

Masadi, nothing is a waste time. If you really believe in what yousay, and have the courage of your convictions, you will repeat yourself more and more till you convince people of your argument.
People will always question you, and expect answers from you. The reason is simple, you have a message which is contrary to popular beliefs. Hence you will have questions thrown at you.

Its like a child who repeatedly asks the same question n-times. you repeatedly give the same answer. The one time you change the words or the sequence of words, the child repeats its question. The adults will say you hypocrite you changed!

Be bold and go boldly where no man has gone before!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Now, why do you resort to name calling? Your arguments just lose their vigour. Please note I did not call you any names.

This, name calling, has always been the weakness of the overtly religious and weak minded.

Please calm down. You have a long day of fasting ahead of you. Me, I have finished mine.

re #82:

Of course idiots will respond not with any counter argumentation but with BS, that is why it is a waste of time discussing anything with them/

Re: # 81 They were able to do it inspite of their religion should tell you something.

Your hogwash about colonialism etc is just that. Masadi you really need to get out of the trench you have dug for yourseslf. Self the air, its nice and will not poison you.

Liberate yourself from you cherished marxists ideas, and dump religion into the corner where it should be.

The moment you suggest everything is in the book, you have just dug a deeper trench for yourself. that is something you need to recognise.

Zeemax in #79 <<< Ibn Hazm maintained that ``The socalled principles of reason are in fact derived entirely from immediate sense experience... >>>

Revelation has to pass through that immediate sense experience does it not, and contemplation based on sense experience (to guard against the flaws or short comings of sense experience is why we discover instruments and use other checks like sampling etc) is much superior to contemplation based merely on what somebody said, i.e. authority regardless of whether that authority is claimed to be ``god``, note the Quranic statement in 2:79, how would you decide which is which if you don`t use reason and fact as criteria?



#80 s_d writes <<< As a results we can also agree that the Muslims were way ahead of the rest of the world....More importantly - pertaining to todays world....zero zilch.I am sure you can, given your ability, prove me wrong. Please do so. >>>

Actually I have nothing to prove to you because your argument of the current-day loses all logical validity when you note that ``Muslims`` that you are describing using religion were once the foremost in all of that. If therefore Islam was the cause of their current decline then they would not have been at the top at one period, get my point. What happened to Muslims that brought them down therefore has to be something other than Islam, as causation and it is quite clear, their problems are not too different from other previously colonized folk around the globe regardless of religion, look at what is going on in the Middle East today, the majority of the wealth is used by a few elites (that do not describe Muslims) and the West they serve, if not outright occupied by the US, such conditions do not set a social structure in place in which innovation and discovery fluroishes, subsistence is what they are busy with. IN addition to that surely their position of decline was catalyzed by sectarianism, traditionalism and how they corrupted (or ``bastardized``) Islam by abandoning the Quran and distorting it.

Now I have addressed similar question 1001 times before, how many more times do I have to address them? Everytime a new member comes along he rewords and repackages the same question. Please refer to previous posts if you want further elaboration.

Re: # 71
MASADI: here are few points of agreement between us

(a) muslims were the first
(b ) they did things better than the rest
(c ) they were scientifically, technologically, economically, and phylosophically way adavnced cmapred to the west.

As a results we can also agree that the Muslims were way ahead of the rest of the world.

Now the question: Why are they so mired in the do-do? Why are they the dick-heads of this world? Why are they stuck in a world which the majority of the worlds population left behind more than a few generations back? Where has this knowledge gone?

More importantly - pertaining to todays world

(a) What is the new Philosophical contributions that they are making to the world as it stands?
(b ) what new economic thought are they brining forward to better the human life?
(c ) what new technological developments are they forging?
(d) What new things are they doing to better human life?

In each one of these- I will say naada, zero, zilch. I am sure you can, given your ability, prove me wrong. Please do so.

Re the debate on `reason`, it appears from later details that Pope`s comments are a mixture of quotes from the Byzantine emperor, his German translator Theodore Khoury, a medieval Muslim scholar named Ibn Hazm, and the Pope`s own musings. In combination, they seem to suggest that Islam`s idea of God is so oblivious to the virtue of reason that it tolerates unthinking violence in Allah`s name. (Time)

The choice of Ibn Hazm for an authority on interpretation is selective at best, and malicious at worst, since his school of thought was rejected by contemporaries and later scholars alike, and has been long extinct (though traces remain in some extremist schools). Ibn Hazm maintained that ``The so­called principles of reason are in fact derived entirely from immediate sense experience. Thus reason is not a faculty for independent research, much less for discovery.`` By submitting humans exclusively to the word of God, Ibn Hazm`s literalism frees them from any choice of their own. (Muslim Philosophy)

Comments masadi?

HP #77 two points

You say <<< The US companies doing business with Germany is NOT a proof that the US was supporting the Nazis. >>>

US companies were not as isolated from the US political establishment, neither were they operating in secrecy in that period for the US to be innocent in this affair especially after German aggression where their business helped its war machine.

Second, you say <<< Just remember that the Soviet Union signed a deal with Hitler to keep itself away from the war to protect its national interest. The US did no such thing. >>>

There was good reason for the Soviets to do that since they were directly in the line of fire, and they probably understood US/UK intentions, the US was oceans away, Hitler would be tolerated by them as long as he went against the Soviets and both bled and then as they say, the rest is history, the prize was collected at the end. I don`t think any of this is `conspiracy` the details might be but not the broader facts which are quite clearly in the open.

#74 by SR
“I have no wish to dissect your post line by line and issue rebuttals.”

Why not? Is it because you really have no rebuttal and can’t justify your theory or I should rather say conspiracy theory?

“Come on, be real. Surely you know of the ``Roaring 20`s`` also called the ``Booming 20s``... It was an era of unprecedented economic prosperity in the US.”

This reply unfortunately tells me that you really don’t know what are you talking abt. I brought up the 20s in a specific context, which was mostly political and diplomatic. I referenced US isolationism, which was a major force in the US political circles in the 20s. A little search on Google would get the whole info on that.

“During the 1920`s and 1930`s, America was in isolation, and took little part in international relations (conferences and treaties between the nations) .In addition America, isolated herself in terms of trade. Tariffs (import duties) were put on foreign goods to protect American industry. (Because they could not sell their goods to America, European countries could not afford to buy agricultural goods (farm produce) from the USA. This was one of the causes of the Depression.)”

Some conspiracy theorist and other analyst have made a big deal out of the US companies such as FORD and IBM doing business with Germany in the 30s and some companies did continue after 1939. First thing, we need to remember that there were no restrictions from the US government to do business with Germany after Hitler took over that country. Nor was there any need to force such restrictions. The US companies were not breaking any laws. The US companies doing business with Germany is NOT a proof that the US was supporting the Nazis.

The US stock market despite the 1929 crash, was still one of the major markets in the world, many countries had invested money in the Market, and Germany was no exception. Some German owned banks legally operated in the US until the war started, and at that time, those banks were confiscated as enemy property. Bush’s grandfather was also a Director in one of those banks and it was no crime before the war to be a director of a German owned bank.

Hardly any US company did business with Germany during the war.

Urstruly in his post #48 despite some melodrama makes some valid points. The US was responsible for the fall of the British Empire and closer home, Indian independence and the British rushing the things through was due to the US pressure too.

I see a reference to circumstantial evidence. There is no such thing as circumstantial evidence in politics. Countries make friends and enemies based on the political interest. If the US played Germany against the Soviet Union then it was all part of the game. Just remember that the Soviet Union signed a deal with Hitler to keep itself away from the war to protect its national interest. The US did no such thing.

I need to clarify that I am in no way implying that the US is beyond reproach. In the modern times, especially after the WW2, the US has managed to bring lots of sorrow to this world and the US must be held accountable for many things that have happened in this world in the last 60 years. However, there is no need to rely on conspiracy theories to oppose the US policies.


PS.
GT, Refer your posts. I hope this helps.

Re: # 32

You are right in your observation MG!.

When we subordinate the reason to emotions we ignore flaws of of one we admire or love. That is what happens everyday, when we raise our heros to immortality.

Kamath

Re: # 73 by SR

SR:

Thanks for your reply. I wasn`t really interested in a `proof` per se. Here was my original question:

``I would like to know the answer to your question, if you have credible sources.``

You seem to be saying that you remember some documents from the NY archives which could provide some credibility. If you are right, then it would really be interesting. Hope someone does some research on this. But till then, allow me to remain skeptical.

Re: # 22 HP {``...I have noticed that he does tend give in to conspiracy theories rather easily. ...``}

Brother HP, let`s not get so warm under the collar. There is no need to address me in the thrid person singular. I am your humble servant, at your service.

I have no wish to dissect your post line by line and issue rebuttals. You are entitled to your views just as the rest of us are to ours. I`ll make it very brief and only take a couple of small points, almost at random.

{``... reality is that in the early 20s the US was not in a position to take up a long-term project ...``}

Come on, be real. Surely you know of the ``Roaring 20`s`` also called the ``Booming 20s``... It was an era of unprecedented economic prosperity in the US. Europe lay in ruins. The US was unquestioned super-rich, super-power of the world. Joined the War in 1917 and walked away with the prize. The Empire was ready to be transferred from the UK to the US just then. It didn`t have to wait until after the Second War. But they just decided to turn inwards and were absolutely paranoid about communists and anarchists. Just like today its terrorism and drugs. Totally out of proportion. If the resources were not there in the US, where else could they have been? In Ethiopia?

Well, that`s just one point. I meant to take a couple more, at random... but I`m really bored. Have no wish to convince you or anyone else. Please believe what you may.

...SR

GT {``...my question to SR remains unanswered. [i.e., proof of US government involvement]... I would not be surprised if the US govt. did indeed support Hitler. I simply want to know...``}

You have narrowed it down to a very fine point. Unfortunately, the issue is more nebulous. Therefore, a specific, rasor-sharp answer would be ``NO``, there is no proof of US Gvernment (meaning White House and Capital Hill) involvement.

Now, that`s not the end. It`s seldom as clear cut as that. Let me give you an example to illustrate a point.

Suppose that there were an organization that was believed to carry out various acts of terror in several countries around the world. Suppose also that there was a poor under developed land-locked country in one of the big mountain regions of the planet where this organization supposedly had its shadowy presence. Imagine also that there was another underdeveloped country run by its military that boardered the land-locked country. Now if it were so that elements in the second country (the one with the military rule) were to give aid and comfort to the terrorist organization on its border so as to get their assistance with another cross-border clandestine operation elsewhere, they would probably take care not to leave too many historical documents. We are unlikely to get our hands on a Memorandum of Understanding signed by officials of the second country. They would not be recording their unwritten pacts.

How then could you know what they were up to? You couldn`t, yet you could in a way. Your ``evidence`` would not stand up in a western court of law. Yet historians would piece together various reports and documents that may have been unrelated, but formed a part of a pattern that could paint a fairly plausible picture. Some would call it circumstantial evidence, other would say it was a conspiracy theory. Still others would shrug their shoulders and say something like, ``interesting``, or, ``may be``... etc. Soem would look at it with an open mind others would simply take the official line of the military government of the second country and reject out of hand any possibility that something not quite kosher may have been going on.

Like wise, in the case of the US, we run into another confounding factor. Unlike a third world country where the be-all and end-all of everything is the government, the power structure of the US is a huge multiplex of which ``the government`` is only one piece.

(This brings us to another very vast question as to WHAT or WHO is America? But that`s another long debate.)

So, I don`t know that your focus on the US ``government`` involvement is necessarily conducive to getting a true picture of things.

Urstruly, for instance, thinks that ``most of the record of business in the war period between US and Germany has been made to disappear`` because the ``Jews have vested interest`` and that such matters have ``been swept under the rug of obscure history.``

I do not think he should drag all the Jews into this issue. It is neither helpful nor necessary. Commercial Interests may be a better label to blame a group, if indeed a group needs blaming at all. Records are very much available, they just may not be available on the internet. We live in the lazy age where if you cannot find it on-line, it doesn`t exist. Like I said in my earlier message, go to the New York Public Library. Maybe I am just technologically challanged. But I can remember a time when serious research did take place and there was no internet. Back in the early 1980s I`ve spent a lot of time in the New York Public Library finding all kinds of gems in their archives. As an amature history buff I looked up many old newspapers and magazines from earlier years and the things that one finds are not on the internet. At least not for free. At least NOT YET. Let`s ask Urstruly, maybe he`ll tell us that the Jews own the internet, that`s why. I think, its just not in the Commercial Interest of the powers that be to simplify life.

...SR

The GOOD news is that the United Satan is getting Zaleeled all over the world.
InshaAllah the Kalb-i-Azams {Top Dogs} of the mongerels & mutts from the Cantonement Kennels, Colonies, and Laal-kurtis [the servant quarters of the Uniformed Langoors]
will soon be yelping and whimpering at the feet of higher civilisations.

Setting back the Calendars to 1492 isn`t that difficult after all.

Venezuela leader Chavez calls President Bush `the devil`


Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took his verbal battle with the United States to the floor of the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, calling US President George W Bush ``the devil`` and denouncing what he said was US imperialism.

The impassioned speech by Chavez, a leftist and one of the Bush`s staunchest critics, came a day after the US president and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sparred over Tehran`s disputed nuclear programme but managed to avoid a personal encounter.

``The devil came here yesterday,`` Chavez said, referring to Bush`s address on Tuesday and making the sign of the cross. ``He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world.`` Standing at the podium, Chavez quipped that a day after Bush`s appearance: ``In this very spot it smells like sulfur still.``

Chavez held up a book by American leftist writer Noam Chomsky ``Hegemony or Survival: America`s Quest for Global Dominance`` and recommended it to everyone in the General Assembly. The leftist leader, who has joined Iran and Cuba in opposing US influence, accused Washington of ``domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world.``

``We appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our head,`` he said.

Chavez`s diatribe reflected the difficulty Bush faces in his key mission at the UN - convincing a largely skeptical world audience that his administration`s fight against terrorism was not one targeting Muslims.

The main US seat in the assembly hall was empty as Chavez spoke. But there was a ``junior note taker`` there, as is customary ``when governments like that speak,`` the US ambassador to the UN said.

Ambassador John Bolton said that Chavez had the right to express his opinion, adding it was ``too bad the people of Venezuela don`t have free speech.``

``I`m just not going to comment on this because his remarks just don`t warrant a response,`` Bolton said. ``Serious people can listen to what he had to say and if they do they will reject it.`` Describing the UN as an ``important world stage`` on which leaders represent their citizens, State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey, said such personal attacks were ``disappointing.`` ``You know, the UN is an important world stage, and an important forum, and leaders come there representing their people and their country,`` Casey said in Washington. ``And I`ll leave it to the Venezuelan people to determine whether President Chavez represented them and presented them in a way they would have liked to have seen.``

Chavez drew tentative giggles at times from the audience, but also some applause when he called Bush the devil. Chavez spoke on the second day of the annual ministerial meetings, which were overshadowed by an ambitious agenda of sideline talks.

The West Asia peace process also was in the spotlight, with ministers from the Quartet that drafted the stalled road map - the US, the UN, the European Union and Russia - planning to meet. The Security Council also was scheduled to hold a ministerial meeting on Thursday that Arab leaders hope will help revive the West Asia peace process.

On Wednesday, Bush met with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and described him as ``a man of peace`` who can help move forward the stalled peace process.

The meeting followed up on his speech a day earlier before the General Assembly in which Bush tried to advance his campaign for democracy in the West Asia during his address to the General Assembly. Bush said extremists were trying to justify their violence by falsely claiming the US is waging war on Islam. He singled out Iran and Syria as sponsors of terrorism.

Bush also pointed to Tehran`s rejection of a Security Council demand to stop enriching uranium by Aug. 31 or face the possibility of sanctions. But he addressed his remarks to the Iranian people in a clear insult to the government.

``The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation`s resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons,`` the US leader said.

``Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions,`` he said. ``Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran`s pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power programme.`` He said he hoped to see ``the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace.``

Ahmadinejad took the podium hours later, denouncing US policies in Iraq and Lebanon and accusing Washington of abusing its power in the Security Council to punish others while protecting its own interests and allies.

The hard-line leader insisted that his nation`s nuclear activities are ``transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye`` of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog. He also reiterated his nation`s commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Earlier this month, Ahmadinejad proposed a debate with Bush at the General Assembly`s ministerial meeting after the White House dismissed a previous TV debate proposal as a ``diversion`` from serious concerns over Iran`s nuclear programme.

Although the two leaders spoke from the same podium, they skipped each other`s addresses and managed to avoid direct contact during the ministerial meeting.

Also on Wednesday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai warned that terrorism is rebounding in his country and said efforts to build democracy there had suffered setbacks over the past year as violence increased, especially in the volatile south where NATO forces have been battling Taliban militants in some of the fiercest battles since the hard-line government was toppled in 2001. ``We have seen terrorism rebounding as terrorists have infiltrated our borders to step up their murderous campaign against our people,`` he told the General Assembly.

He said the situation was so bad it had contributed to a rise in polio from four cases in 2005 to 27 this year because health workers were unable to reach the region.

But he said the problem had to be fought beyond Afghanistan`s borders as well as within.

``We must look beyond Afghanistan to the sources of terrorism,`` he said. ``We must destroy terrorist sanctuaries beyond Afghanistan.``

He also expressed concern about ``the increased incidents of Islamophobia in the West,`` saying it does not ``bode well for the cause of building understanding and cooperation across civilizations.``

The crisis in the ravaged Sudanese region of Darfur also was on the agenda on Wednesday, with the African Union`s Peace and Security Council meeting to discuss breaking the deadlock over a plan to replace an AU force with UN peacekeepers.

The bloc decided to extend the mandate of peacekeeping forces in Darfur through the end of the year, ensuring that international troops will remain in the war-torn Sudanese province for now. The United Nations will provide material and logistic support to the mission, though Sudan is still resisting demands that the UN take over the mission from the AU, said Burkina Faso President Blaise Compaore, head of the AU Peace and Security Council.