Many Key Liberal's Don't Back Israel

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The terminilogy is given meaning by the politicians of the day, i.e. the Mulahs and Clerics who politicize religion for their own agendas, and then exploit their follwers to fulfill their wishes.

This has nothing to do necessarily with the text or the wishes of an author.

For goodness sakes, we saw Reagan quoting Bruce Springsteen....when Springsteen was clearly not intending to support Reagan's positions, and we know, because Springsteen said so.

Quote from spect8or:

I accept that he 'tolerated' Judaism and Christianity. Zoroastrianism, too. The principle was that these groups had a written scriptures and worshipped the one God. Thus they are known as "People of the Book". The fate to be meted out to pagans and polytheists is far harsher.

This 'tolerance', however, is a far cry from what the term means in the 21st century. There were all sorts of humiliating conditions imposed on Jews and Christians that came under Muslim rule, such as having to pay a poll tax (which Muslims didn't), having to dismount from their donkey when a Muslim passed by, not being permitted to build new churches (or even repair rundown old ones), and many other such.

Mohammed also condemned to death anybody that would leave Islam. That, too, cannot be considered particularly tolerant. Mohammed can also fairly said to be a murderer and a plunderer (I'll dig up sources on request), as well as a paedophile, given that he was attracted to a six year old, and had sex with her when she was nine. I honestly find very little to like about Mohammed. In fact, my main problem with being more accepting of Islam is that I find its founder such a despicable character.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So activist clerics and Mulahs have disregarded the real meaning of Islam.

So much for your "logic."

The stupidity of your comment about "plain" language underscores the ridiculousness of your position, as there have always been different ideas on what words of a Constitution or scripture mean.

If the words were plain, we wouldn't need a legal system to argue against or for what those "plain" words are supposed to mean.

This will always happen when the authors of Constitutions, or founders of religions are not around to tell us exactly what they intended.

Even the plainest of language can have varying interpretations, especially in the hands of social reformers.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

So too can religious text have symbolic and spiritual meaning that is interpreted literally and incorrectly by religious fanatics.

No one can prove that when Mohammed was speaking, that he was speaking only to his local followers with no intention that others follow those words literally.

My own opinion is that he spoke on two levels. On a practical level to the people of that time, and on a spiritual level for coming generations.

Infidel in a spiritual sense, is not outside, but within the mind. The infidel mind that seeks materialism versus spirituality.

All it takes is such a simple shift in point of view in perception to change the meaning of scripture for a reader.

The Jihad is intended to mean, in my opinion, the internal Jihad against materialism....nothing at all political in nature as it is currently understood and practiced.

Quote from spect8or:

Even the plainest of language can have varying interpretations, especially in the hands of social reformers.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The terminilogy is given meaning by the politicians of the day, i.e. the Mulahs and Clerics who politicize religion for their own agendas, and then exploit their follwers to fulfill their wishes.

This has nothing to do necessarily with the text or the wishes of an author.

In general terms, no, such politicizing need not necessarily have anything to do with texts or wishes of authors.

In the case of Islam, some commands are written in such plain language that it would require 'politicizing' (of the most extreme kind) to give them a meaning concordant with 21st century principles of tolerance.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So too can religious text have symbolic and spiritual meaning that is interpreted literally and incorrectly by religious fanatics.

So how would you go about convincing fanatics of that? A rather tall order, wouldn't you say, especially when you consider that Islamic legal scholarship has for centuries exercised a literal interpretation? Wouldn't it, in that case, be fair to blame the text, at least a teeny-weeny bit?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Plain...horseshit.

As if you have the real understanding of what Mohammed was saying....and what he intended for future generations.

Quote from spect8or:

In general terms, no, such politicizing need not necessarily have anything to do with texts or wishes of authors.

In the case of Islam, some commands are written in such plain language that it would require 'politicizing' (of the most extreme kind) to give them a meaning concordant with 21st century principles of tolerance.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:


My own opinion is that he spoke on two levels. On a practical level to the people of that time, and on a spiritual level for coming generations.

Infidel in a spiritual sense, is not outside, but within the mind. The infidel mind that seeks materialism versus spirituality.

All it takes is such a simple shift in point of view in perception to change the meaning of scripture for a reader.

The Jihad is intended to mean, in my opinion, the internal Jihad against materialism....nothing at all political in nature as it is currently understood and practiced.

Well that's just beautiful. Now, how to convince radical Muslims to see it your way?

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Plain...horseshit.

As if you have the real understanding of what Mohammed was saying....and what he intended for future generations.

Well Christ, Zzz, as if you do!

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

It takes time, and support of non fanatical leadership.

Just like dealing with racist sexist bigots like you, it takes time to reach a closed minded person.

Islamic legal scholars don't know, they too are guessing.

Just like we see with Biblical scholars...non one knows.

Those who are spiritual see the spirtual, those who are material see nothing but the materialistic point of view in scripture.

We see that in this "Christian" country, where materialsim and greed is rampant, where wealth and greed is put as a target of "Godliness" yet it is clear that wealth is an impediment to spiritual progress and salvation to anyone who reads the "plain" text of the New Testament.

Quote from spect8or:

So how would you go about convincing fanatics of that? A rather tall order, wouldn't you say, especially when you consider that Islamic legal scholarship has for centuries exercised a literal interpretation? Wouldn't it, in that case, be fair to blame the text, at least a teeny-weeny bit?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Do you know that I do not?

Quote from spect8or:

Well Christ, Zzz, as if you do!