Another Religious Discussion

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[WilliB]

I don't think it is. I don't think that this is even close to the question posed by OP. I think you are creating a strawman argument using a deliberately inflammatory term. Sorry, but there it is.

It is the nose of the camel in the tent, as the Arab proverb goes. Once you accept that islam (or another religion, but islam is the one that comes with countless Shariah rules) takes priority over existing rules, then there is no end to it. I just said that this should be nipped in the bud right from the start. Sorry, but there it is.

If you fund the kissing Arafat funny is of course up to you... sorry for assuming too much.

[lbb]

Sweet suffering god. You want to make sweeping pronouncements about all Muslims but you don't want to get called on it. You want to selectively cherrypick from Muslim theology and behavior, hang it all up on the wall and alternately tsk-tsk and laugh at it, and not own what you're doing. You speak as if your views on Islam were self-evident and not the product of intellectually dishonest "reasoning" and bigotry. I'm done discussing this with you, because you're a broken record. I'm not done speaking out against Islamophobia, but as you don't have anything new to add, I consider that I've said my piece and it will stand for itself just fine. Feel free to have the last word.

[C. David Henderson]

You want to make sweeping pronouncements ... but you don't want to get called on it [or] own what you're doing.

+1

[Janet Rosen]

+1

(sigh) yep, add me in

[WilliB]

If we want to serve God and Allah we first must understand the will of the most high.

I will ask my student to follow his own criteria when it comes to accepting the etiquette and tradition that he himself expects of people entering his faith. He will live by his own set of rules.

I am not sure what you are saying --- that you are asking him to observe the etiquette in your dojo, or that you make it optional for him?

By the way, careful... God and Allah are very different concepts. The commands of one are obviously very different from the other. Note also that in Malaysia, non-muslim citizens are probited by law to use the name Allah for God, in order not offend the sensitivities of the muslim Malays.

[Rabih Shanshiry]

By the way, careful... God and Allah are very different concepts.

"Allah" is simply the Arabic name for God. The Arabic etymology of the word comes from al + ilah. "Al" is the definite article "the." "Ilah" means "god," lowercase "g." So "al ilah" means "the god." Put them together you get "Allah" or God, with a capital G.

If you enter any Christian Church where the mass is performed in Arabic, you will find them praying to "Allah." If you open any Arabic language Bible (Old or New Testament), the word used for God is "Allah."

The same way God in German is Gott, in French is Dieu, in Spanish is Dios.

I would suggest you take the time to read an introductory text on Islam. That may correct some of your misconceptions. I would be happy to suggest some written by Christian, Western academics if you are so inclined.

[Flintstone]

By the way, careful... God and Allah are very different concepts.
Oh, is that so?

[Aikido Alive]

The term Allāh is derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ʼilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the [sole] deity, God" (ho theos monos). Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic. Biblical Hebrew mostly uses the plural form (but functional singular) Elohim. The corresponding Aramaic form is ʼĔlāhā אֱלָהָא in Biblical Aramaic and ʼAlâhâ in Syriac.

[WilliB]

"Allah" is simply the Arabic name for God. The Arabic etymology of the word comes from al + ilah. "Al" is the definite article "the." "Ilah" means "god," lowercase "g." So "al ilah" means "the god." Put them together you get "Allah" or God, with a capital G.

If you enter any Christian Church where the mass is performed in Arabic, you will find them praying to "Allah." If you open any Arabic language Bible (Old or New Testament), the word used for God is "Allah."

Please explain that to the Malaysian muslim government then:

http://www.zeenews.com/news596153.html

[Flintstone]

Please explain that to the Malaysian muslim government then:

http://www.zeenews.com/news596153.html
You still get weird facts from the internet and treat them as the rule and representative of Islam. And yet you don't find the flaw in your arguments.

[lbb]

Alejandro. Dude. Don't you know that selectively cherrypicked weird internet factoids = Revealed Truth?:hypno:

[Flintstone]

Alejandro. Dude. Don't you know that selectively cherrypicked weird internet factoids = Revealed Truth?:hypno:
I gess I should have known that by now... :D

[Keith Larman]

Confirmation Bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)

[Rabih Shanshiry]

Please explain that to the Malaysian muslim government then:

http://www.zeenews.com/news596153.html

The Malaysian government can say and do what it wants. Doesn't change the truth of what I said any more than what you write here on Aikiweb.

We can debate opinions but when we start arguing facts, there's nothing more to be said.

[WilliB]

The Malaysian government can say and do what it wants. Doesn't change the truth of what I said any more than what you write here on Aikiweb.

What I said was: "Note also that in Malaysia, non-muslim citizens are probited by law to use the name Allah for God, in order not offend the sensitivities of the muslim Malays."

You protested, and I produced a link to prove it.

If you personally agree with the Malaysian government or not, is an entirely different topic. Please don´t shift the goal posts.

[Rabih Shanshiry]

What I said was: "Note also that in Malaysia, non-muslim citizens are probited by law to use the name Allah for God, in order not offend the sensitivities of the muslim Malays."

You protested, and I produced a link to prove it.

If you personally agree with the Malaysian government or not, is an entirely different topic. Please don´t shift the goal posts.

The statement of yours that I and several others protested was:

"By the way, careful... God and Allah are very different concepts."

I don't have time for games. Out of respect for Jun and the original topic of this thread, I am now "bowing out."

[David Yap]

I am not sure what you are saying --- that you are asking him to observe the etiquette in your dojo, or that you make it optional for him?

By the way, careful... God and Allah are very different concepts. The commands of one are obviously very different from the other. Note also that in Malaysia, non-muslim citizens are probited by law to use the name Allah for God, in order not offend the sensitivities of the muslim Malays.

I am a Malaysian. Law, what law??

[Flintstone]

I am a Malaysian. Law, what law??
Are talking about your own anecdotal experience? That's no value in here, bro :D .

[David Yap]

Are talking about your own anecdotal experience? That's no value in here, bro :D .

No, not my anecdotal experience :D If you guys choose to quote news sources on Malaysia I suggest that you do more in-depth research. Here we have both secular and sharia laws. Anyway, here is not the place to discuss.

First, you should research into our draconian Internal Security Act.:D

[WilliB]

The statement of yours that I and several others protested was:

"By the way, careful... God and Allah are very different concepts."

I don't have time for games. Out of respect for Jun and the original topic of this thread, I am now "bowing out."

God and Allah are obviously very different concepts. Just compare the commands they give to mankind. IFyou believe they come from the same source, then you must logically believe that God/Allah is schizophrenic.

My reference to Malaysia was simply to underline that at least the Malaysian shariah authorities make that distinction; that was simply an illustration, not the main point.

[David Yap]

...My reference to Malaysia was simply to underline that at least the Malaysian shariah authorities make that distinction; that was simply an illustration, not the main point.

Now, this is an anecdotal experience. When have these "authorities" been known to make distinctions? Please show proof.

[Flintstone]

God and Allah are obviously very different concepts.
Yes. As obvious as your lack of understanding about the etymology, the religions, the cultures and the people.

[WilliB]

Now, this is an anecdotal experience. When have these "authorities" been known to make distinctions? Please show proof.

The proof is in the law itself. If you did not make the distinction, the law would be meaningless. Think about it.

[Flintstone]

The proof is in the law itself. If you did not make the distinction, the law would be meaningless. Think about it.
The man lives there. He doesn't need to think about it. He lives it.

[WilliB]

The man lives there. He doesn't need to think about it. He lives it.

And I suggest it would be a good idea to try thinking, regardless of where you live.

Of course, free thought and Shariah do not go well together.

[Aikido Alive]

God and Allah are obviously very different concepts. Just compare the commands they give to mankind. IFyou believe they come from the same source, then you must logically believe that God/Allah is schizophrenic.

C'mon Willi, we all understand that. No need to state the obvious. The teachings coming out of different religions are different :eek:

But when we bow we don't bow to a Japanese Okami as opposed to the Christian God the father or the Islamic Allah. We cannot bow beyond our own comprehension so therefore all of us has our own little perspective of what's going on, and our own preferences to what it means to us.

All I meant is that the word "God" or "Allah" means or represents the highest, the One, the undivided truth absolute before and beyond distinction. In your world that means and represents one thing and in another it means something different. But if there is such a thing as an Absolute Principle that is One in its essence, then this One has many names and many expressions (of which love can be said to be the first and the last).

When we all bow to the shomen, the kamidana, we bow to that which encompasses all other things; the unlimited sense of self, unknown and beyond. Yet it can be brought to bear on us as aikidoka's. Let it fill your spirit and encompass the whole dojo, harness its power to filter through to saturate and influence the mode of the people training. Your spirit can be large or small and it will affect those that train under you. Suddenly misogi begins to make sense; spiritual purification in order to be able to disseminate the spirit of love to the greatest effect.

[WilliB]

Bjorn Saw:
But when we bow we don't bow to a Japanese Okami as opposed to the Christian God the father or the Islamic Allah.

Bowing has nothing to do with any god. As pointed out many times in all the previous discussions

All I meant is that the word "God" or "Allah" means or represents the highest, the One, the undivided truth absolute before and beyond distinction.
In your world that means and represents one thing and in another it means something different.

In "my world", it means as much as saying "Elvis is alive".
If you mean the world of a Christian, a Zoroastrian, a Jew, or a muslim, the attributes this being as described as having are very different. So they are talking about different concepts. That is a simple statement of fact. Nothing to discuss there, really.

But if there is such a thing as an Absolute Principle that is One in its essence, then this One has many names and many expressions (of which love can be said to be the first and the last).

You are contradicting yourself. First you say, it can be anything. Then you go on to describe which expression is the most important in all cases. Who are you to decide that?

And you completely ignore the polytheists, which have a different take again on the whole issue.

[RED]

All these religious threads. I'm not seeing the issue. Half of what I'm reading, people are arguing over what should be non-issues.

IMO.

[lbb]

Maggie, I think sometimes the argument comes when you have two truly incompatible principles...but more often comes in when someone has a belief they can't budge on, and someone else could be flexible but chooses not to be, because they refuse to recognize the other person's limits. We tend to be very big on asserting our own needs, but not always so good at respecting the needs of others. It's very hard to judge what someone else needs until you've been in their shoes. Consider the case of a person who appears to be able-bodied, but who in fact can't stand up for very long. You may look at them and judge that their need to sit down isn't real, that they could choose to stand, and thus refuse to yield a seat on the bus to them. Does your perception determine reality? I think you would say not in that case -- yet when it comes to religion or matters of principle, a lot of us tend to think that these things can be discarded as a matter of convenience.

If there's no seat on the bus, that's reality, and the person who needs the seat can't ride on your bus. If there is a seat and you choose not to give it, that's reality too, and once again the person can't ride. If you will not give them a seat, there is nowhere on your "bus" for them.

[Rabih Shanshiry]

Maggie, I think sometimes the argument comes when you have two truly incompatible principles...but more often comes in when someone has a belief they can't budge on, and someone else could be flexible but chooses not to be, because they refuse to recognize the other person's limits.

In this recent spate of related threads and comments, I would say its actually more a case of one particularly ill-mannered individual actively seeking to perpetuate conflict on the board. Lord knows I've had my differences of opinon with folks on aikiweb now and again, but most recognize when the time comes to "agree to disagree" and move on. This one - not so much.

[Flintstone]

If you mean the world of a Christian, a Zoroastrian, a Jew, or a muslim, the attributes this being as described as having are very different. So they are talking about different concepts. That is a simple statement of fact. Nothing to discuss there, really.
Well, maybe that a simple statement of fact in your mind. That doesn't constitute a fact, actually.

[WilliB]

Well, maybe that a simple statement of fact in your mind. That doesn't constitute a fact, actually.

You saying so does not make it so. How is Flintstone Ryu coming along? :)

[Flintstone]

You saying so does not make it so. How is Flintstone Ryu coming along? :)
Flintstone Ryu is doing pretty well, thanks. But I don't see the point here.

[Demetrio Cereijo]

All these religious threads. I'm not seeing the issue. Half of what I'm reading, people are arguing over what should be non-issues.
Seconded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UbqZ_oN5do

[lbb]

You saying so does not make it so.

How come this seems to apply to everyone but you?

[WilliB]

How come this seems to apply to everyone but you?

Of course it applies to me. But I wasn´t stating anything that you can´t verify yourself.

[C. David Henderson]

This seems a mere conceit -- you say each iteration of the idea of a supreme deity is a "different concept," that this "fact" may be verified because, surprise, they are supreme deities in different religions.

The fact that you've erected prophylactic barriers between these ideas in your argument doesn't change "the fact" that it is relatively as easy to find commonalities in a number of these religions, particularly those that are historically related, but also based on common themes, values, images.

What's the purpose of the exercise, then?

[akiy]

This thread has seemingly devolved into personal bickering for the most part.

Thread closed.

-- Jun