[thechat] Why?

[Chris Marsh]

> > Syed very often represents himself as a devout muslim.
> 
> Did I ever claimed so?

Are you now saying that you are not a devout muslim? Yes? No? This is a
straightforward question, but you appear incapable of answering a direct
question with a direct answer. If you do not consider yourself a devout
muslim, then say so. In this case I will apologise for my
misunderstanding of your religious beliefs. If not, then don't ask
stupid questions. I would like to believe that you are being
disingenous, but I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you don't
have even the potential capacity for intelligent debate.

> > He also
> > represents views that I consider to be against the muslim ethic.
> 
> Islam has nothing to do with your considerations.

This statement is meaningless. Yet again you have failed to show that I
am incorrect. Again, in the absence of any kind of meaningful rebuttal,
I must assume that you find me to be correct in my assertions.

> > I
> > suggested that the prophet Mohammed would not approve of 
> some of the 
> > views that Syed puts forward.
> 
> How much do you know about Prophet Muhammad?

Again, tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that Mohammed would have approved of a
third party advocating war when none was necessary. Go on, I dare you.
Back it up with references from a recognised English translation of the
Quran. If not, then concede that regardless of the *depth* of my
knowledge of Islam, in this respect I am correct.

> > He then failed to respond to any specific
> > question or contention I offered. He didn't even manage to 
> attempt any 
> > kind of rational argument as to why I was wrong, instead 
> indulging in 
> > the kind of tosh that I would not usually expect from the 
> denizens of 
> > this list. Thus showing a long streak of hypocrisy.
> 
> I deliberately refused to answer to your questions because of 
> following reasons:
> 1.    Your previous record of responses

What? You feel that you must respond to my posts, but you feel incapable
of answering direct questions? Why do you feel the necessity to respond
if you have none of the answers that I require? Why not educate me, if
you feel that I am in error?

> 2.    Your readily readiness not to accept

I don't accept *anything* unless I have considered it first. Life is a
series of calculations of probability. Nothing is absolute, one simply
works out the probability of a given thesis being correct and accepts it
if within ones personal frame of reference it reaches an acceptable
level of probablility. The level of probability is a personal issue, but
you will find that for a physicist the level of probability adjudged as
acceptable is much higher than a social "scientist". Likewise, religion
is based on faith so the level of probability  required for belief will
necessarily be lower. This does not make it any less valid a manner in
which to run ones life, but the common factor is consistency.
Scientists, savages, christians, muslims or whatever all live by rules
that they impose on themselves. The rules are derived from the series of
calculations of probability that have been conducted in the past.

> 3.    Comparing Islamic principals with your own and 
> rejecting which don't match
> with yours

The majority of Islamic principles match mine. The majority of Christian
principles match mine. The majority of Islamic principles match those of
Christianity. Curious, then, that there has been so much bloodshed
between the followers of both religions. Do not mistake my rejection of
some of your assertions for rejection of Islamic principles. You are an
individual, responsible for your own thoughts and actions.

> Islamic books and other related content is very common and 
> not hard to find. I would suggest you Google.

<sarcasm level="high">What is this "google" you speak of? Sounds
interesting...</sarcasm>

> > If his problem was
> > with hypocrisy in general, perhaps it would have been more valid to 
> > choose an example that didn't involve large-scale death and 
> > destruction being the result of NOT being hypocritical.
> 
> Death and destruction is everywhere. Even in the hearts and 
> minds of oppressed people. How can I close my eyes?

You don't have to close your eyes. You think I like death and
destruction? You think I agree with US foreign(or domestic for that
matter) policy? You think I agree with foreign and domestic policy
within my own country? To clarify, I don't, I don't and I don't. I
welcome debate on these issues, and even believe that if enough people
engage in meaningful dialogue we will spread awareness which could lead
to change. Repeating biased reporting, propoganda and extreme views
based on nothing more than empty opinion is *utterly* counter-productive
if you are actually trying to effect change. One can only guess that
sometimes you are actually seeking to perpetuate the current situation
with your seperatist and xenophobic opinions. Do you *seriously* believe
everything that you read without any kind of qualification? Dude...

> Are you afraid of death?

Why would I be afraid of death. According to my beliefs death is the
end. There is no consciousness after death, so what is there to be
afraid of?

> > Anyone who tells me that I will shake with fear upon reading a 
> > religious tract or anyone that assumes that I am ignorant 
> of religions 
> > simply because I choose not to follow them is grabbing 
> their religion 
> > and beating me with it, as if it is a bludgeon.
> 
> I had no intention to offend you. I am sorry if you were so 

I'm not offended. Neither am I particularly sensitive. In fact, if your
previous statements are to be believed it seems that you feel me to be
particularly insensitive.

> sensitive. I was just telling you one of many experiences of 
> some of those non-Muslims who later became Muslims.

They were not muslims and they literally shook with fear upon reading
the Quran? Were they mentally unhinged? The last time that I literally
shook with fear upon reading *anything* was about 25 years ago and the
subject was Rumplestiltskin.

[..]

> > Syed is
> > very quick to take offense at perceived slights on him or his 
> > religion,
> 
> I don't take offence on myself until it is very extreme. Yes, 
> when it comes to religion, I do take offence very quickly.

Er, yes. That's what I just said. Grow a skin, dude.

[..]

> > In my mind Syed is a very nice guy,
> 
> Thanks for your GENEROSITY!

We are not friends. I have never met you. I make no effort to be
politically correct. If I say that I consider you to be fundamentally a
nice guy then it is merely an expression of my opinion. I am not
flattering you, and neither am I being generous. I don't expect you to
think the same of me.

> > but tainted with hatred for the
> > West.
> 
> Not West! I don't hate West. West is not just West. It is a 
> part of our beautiful Earth; the only living planet in the 
> solar system and all other planetary systems to which the 
> boundaries of our knowledge reach. Think of Earth and Humans. 
> There are some humans who are exploiting their own fellow 
> beings. Some humans are polluting whole planet just because 
> they want to earn more money and clearly refuse to take steps 
> to stop the pollution from their resources of pollution. 
> Don't they care about their own generations to come? A group 
> of people is destroying other countries and killing their 
> people just because they want to dominate and access their 
> natural resources illegally to earn more money and resources. 
> Is it Humanity?

Yes. Unfortunately yes. But in this respect there is no fundamental
difference between nations, only a difference in their size and power.
The mistake is to think of things in terms of the good guys and the bad
guys. All conflict is caused by two (or more) factions who *both*
consider that they are the good guys. It's not like the movies, where
Ming the Merciless decides to do something evil for the sake of
evilness. *Everyone* thinks that they are doing "the right thing".

> >If only he could maintain his religious views and a worldly  
> >objectivity side by side perhaps his views would become less 
> extreme. 
> >My  personal belief is that this would make him a happier person.
> 
> In one line: For a Muslim religion and world cannot be 
> parallel; they have to be collinear.

QUESTION everything, Syed. Draw your own conclusions. Religion and the
world MUST be in parallel. Religion is a mechanism to understand the
world and your spiritual place within it.

> > Granted. But asking why the USA is not advocating MORE death and 
> > destruction is a particularly silly way to do this.
> 
> I never asked USA to advocate MORE death. USA doesn't need to 
> advocate. It is doing it by its own hands (military resources).

"According to American definitions of terrorism and reasons for military
actions, Indonesia's military action in Aceh is completely justified.
Why doesn't USA consider it?"

Syed, military action = more death. That's just the way it is. If an
alternative path exists, it should be taken. Regardless of whether or
not you think that the party pushing for peace is being hypocritical.

Regards

Chris Marsh