steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (07/31/85)
** I said: > >> > > Citing Kohomeni to make arguments about Islam in general > >is analogous to quoting Falwell to make arguments about Christianity > >in general.... > > > > The Shi'i and the Suni'i are quite different. The idea > >of an Inman, a leader who is divinely inspired and incapable > >of error is a Shi'ite belief. Bill Oliver replies: > > Well, perhaps, if you want to make a very bad analogy. Khomeini > and Falwell are similar in that they are both so-called fundamentalists. > > in fact, one can make > statements about Christianity as a whole, with the caveat that > no statements are universal. Exactly my point about Islam. Islam is a major religion and it has been practiced for nearly 1000 years. You make generalizations saying "Islam says . . ." My analogy is a good one because it lead you to the exact point I was making. It is not appropriate to characterize Sufi beliefs with quotes from Kohomeni. > > Sure, Shiites get their jollies from blowing away lots of people. All of them do? Even the Sufi? The Sufi are Shi'ites. > everyone on the net agrees is a no-no. The Sunni mostly just like to blow > up Israelis, which seems, on the net, to be OK. > The Koran specifically protects Jewish people. They are "of the book." Certainly practicing Moslems do not blow up Jewish people arbitrarily. [1] > > > > Western culture owes a vast debt to the Islamic empire. > > > (paraphrase) > Moslems did a bunch of neat stuff a few centuries back. > Better than the West. > > Sure. Does this make them tolerant? No, it does not make them tolerant. My point is that you are also not tolerant. I would not want to live in the code of law that the people in Islamic countries accept, but I don't live there. You would not be any more tolerant of their customs here than they would be of yours there. > > Without addressing your accusations against the West, let me > remind you that my article was in response to Mr. Heddeya`s assertions > of Islamic tolerance. If you are saying that Islam is justified > in it`s intolerance, that is a different question altogether. > You are correct, I am saying that the Islamic people are justified, and it is a different matter. But Islam is practiced in many countries. The Sufis of India are Moslem mystics and are completely peaceful. There are many brands of Islam besides Sunni and Shi'i. The statement "X is a fundamentalist" implies that some people are not. Are there Islamic pantheists? If Mr. Heddeya says that he was taught tolerance, how can even a quote from the Koran prove that he was not? The posting points out that Iran and many Arab states are theocracies. Having religions control government is bad news. We are lucky that it is prevented here. Some of the punititive measures in Islamic law came out of the same Bible the Christians use. What do you think this country would be like if Don Black and the Identity Christians were to run the place? The Islamic people have a different world view. I am sure the word "tolerance" means something different to them, it is an abstract concept and it must vary more from culture to culture than it obviously does from person to person. I cannot dispute that there are facets of Islam that make me uncomfortable. If they tell me that they think they are being tolerant, I have to take it at face value. It seems that if an Islamic person were to say that he or she believed that Islam was tolerant, Bill Oliver would argue that that person is be incorrect in their belief. By what standard do he judge? We each have our own beliefs. There is no objective standard of tolerance. A little more than 100 years good Christians full of Christian tolerance eliminated almost the entire Native American population. Less that 60 years ago in rural Japan, girl babies were killed or sold. Not long ago the majority of the German population decided that it was better to eliminate large groups of people than to tolerate them. In short, lack of tolerance does not seem to be confined to any group of people or religion. Our "advanced" civilization only thinly restrains our intolerance, and then only at times. Since there is no objective standard of tolerance, there is no way that either of us can win an argument proving or disproving that someone is tolerant. But surely (see I got it right, not Dorthy, Shirley :-)), using pergoritives to describe the beliefs of others is also not tolerant. What do you propose be done about it anyway? Suppose Islam is more inherently intolerant than other world religions? What should be done? A final solution to the Islamic problem perhaps? [1] The Majesty that was Islam, Montgomery Watt, p. 32. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/07/85)
>you to the exact point I was making. It is not appropriate to >characterize Sufi beliefs with quotes from Kohomeni. > >> >> Sure, Shiites get their jollies from blowing away lots of people. > > All of them do? Even the Sufi? The Sufi are Shi'ites. Sorry. Sufi are not necessarily Muslim, and certainly do not all belong to one sect. Islam has been hospitable to Sufi, but Sufism transcends formalized religion, and in fact is pretty well antagonistic to any such formalism. The different sects of Sufism, by their very existence, deviate from Sufi teachings. Idris Shah even claims that Mediaeval European orders of knighthood were derived in some cases from Sufi origins. (I know this isn't politics, but I don't want to start a discussion on the subject, and the matter was brought up in net.politics.) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt