Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

mailman.videolan.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 737 posts

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#681

Post by Shihan »

madeofpalk wrote: post #612
Shihan wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Their prophet raided caravans, fought against anybody who did not want to convert to his new religion or even sanctioned slave owning and stoning of women (it's all in authentic hadith that belong to mainstream Islam). So how can muslim distance themselves from such things? They really can't but they try anyway by saying "has nothing to do with my religion" to avoid the argument. A better solution would be t…

I read your comment and could apply the exact same thing to Christianity. The problems you described are not exclusive to Islam, so it seems very short sighted to blame their prophet. It does have something to do with religion, but only because that is being used as _motivation_ to do bad things which isn't inherit to just Islam. I mean, Klu Klux Klan > Klan members had an explicitly Christian terrorist ideology, bas…

Well, I'am an atheist, but I wouldn't directly compare Christianity to Islam just because they are two Abrahamitic Religions. For example a huge difference is the way the "holy" books of those religions were created and are treated. The content of the Koran is more or less dictated by one person and is seen as the direct word of the religion's god (this is a mainstream islamic view). Bible was written over centuries and is only seen by a fringe group as the direct word of god.

What is your motivation in protecting islam? Why the finger pointing to Christianity and other religions? Sure, they also got problems, but do we currently really have a huge problem with those religions? What you are doing is like saying: "Well national socialism isn't that bad because other totalitarian ideologies also are stupid. Look at communism and how many dead people resultet because Stalin distorted the true teachings of marxism. See, national socialism isn't the problem."

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#682

Post by DanBC »

Shihan wrote: post #681
madeofpalk wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read your comment and could apply the exact same thing to Christianity. The problems you described are not exclusive to Islam, so it seems very short sighted to blame their prophet. It does have something to do with religion, but only because that is being used as _motivation_ to do bad things which isn't inherit to just Islam. I mean, Klu Klux Klan > Klan members had an explicitly Christian terrorist ideology, bas…

Well, I'am an atheist, but I wouldn't directly compare Christianity to Islam just because they are two Abrahamitic Religions. For example a huge difference is the way the "holy" books of those religions were created and are treated. The content of the Koran is more or less dictated by one person and is seen as the direct word of the religion's god (this is a mainstream islamic view). Bible was written over centuries…

Yes, we do currently have massive problems with other religions. But when I list those problems you're going to say things like "but those aren't christians" or "those are a distortion of christian teachings" -- exactly what the vast majority of Muslims will tell you.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#683

Post by madeofpalk »

Shihan wrote: post #681
madeofpalk wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read your comment and could apply the exact same thing to Christianity. The problems you described are not exclusive to Islam, so it seems very short sighted to blame their prophet. It does have something to do with religion, but only because that is being used as _motivation_ to do bad things which isn't inherit to just Islam. I mean, Klu Klux Klan > Klan members had an explicitly Christian terrorist ideology, bas…

Well, I'am an atheist, but I wouldn't directly compare Christianity to Islam just because they are two Abrahamitic Religions. For example a huge difference is the way the "holy" books of those religions were created and are treated. The content of the Koran is more or less dictated by one person and is seen as the direct word of the religion's god (this is a mainstream islamic view). Bible was written over centuries…

I'm not comparing the two because they're both Abrahamic. I compare the two because if you're looking hard enough in both texts you'll find justification for evil. Extremist 'Muslims', ISIS, (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Muslims') find justification in their text. Extremist 'Christians' (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Christians') found justification in the Bible.

I'm not trying to protect Islam or bring Christianity down. I honestly don't care either way about any of them. What I'm trying to explain that blaming Islam is the wrong thing to do, is pointless, and if anything it helps disenfranchise the at-risk, on-the-fence-extremeists who are (getting) upset at how everyone else deals with their religion.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#684

Post by DanBC »

madeofpalk wrote: post #683
Shihan wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'am an atheist, but I wouldn't directly compare Christianity to Islam just because they are two Abrahamitic Religions. For example a huge difference is the way the "holy" books of those religions were created and are treated. The content of the Koran is more or less dictated by one person and is seen as the direct word of the religion's god (this is a mainstream islamic view). Bible was written over centuries…

I'm not comparing the two because they're both Abrahamic. I compare the two because if you're looking hard enough in both texts you'll find justification for evil. Extremist 'Muslims', ISIS, (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Muslims') find justification in their text. Extremist 'Christians' (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Christians') found justification in the Bible. I'm not trying to…

The other reason blaming Muslims is weird is that Muslims are overwhelmingly the victims of fundamentalist attacks and not the perpetrators.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#685

Post by ptaipale »

hahainternet wrote: post #295
ptaipale wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really have to go back in time to find these examples. Their dates of terror operation are 1970's, 1980, 1980's, 1995 and for one which doesn't very well compare, 2010. And then they were largely hounded down and imprisoned (or executed, for McVeigh). Islamist terrorism is a newer and also much bigger trend (even in the West, although the vast majority of people killed are in Muslim countries). I see this line of…

> You really have to go back in time to find these examples I remember the centre of my local town being blown to shit when I was a teenager. 1996 is not that long ago. You really shouldn't discard it as 'the past'. What's funny is, large segments in the US actively supported these terrorists. All their rhetoric and they're just as guilty.

Yes, 1996 is not that long ago, but the overall picture is that many brands of terrorism have declined drastically after 1991, the fall of Soviet Union.

There's much less logistical support for various left-wing movements. After 2001, American authorities no longer approved of funding and supporting IRA operations in Britain so any hopes of "military" achievements by Irish nationalists dwindled. Also support for ETA and similar movements in Europe have declined.

RAF (Red Army Fraction) and various Arab groups used to work together; that seems nowadays negligible. But jihadist violence has increased its profile.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#686

Post by acqq »

madeofpalk wrote: post #683
Shihan wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'am an atheist, but I wouldn't directly compare Christianity to Islam just because they are two Abrahamitic Religions. For example a huge difference is the way the "holy" books of those religions were created and are treated. The content of the Koran is more or less dictated by one person and is seen as the direct word of the religion's god (this is a mainstream islamic view). Bible was written over centuries…

I'm not comparing the two because they're both Abrahamic. I compare the two because if you're looking hard enough in both texts you'll find justification for evil. Extremist 'Muslims', ISIS, (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Muslims') find justification in their text. Extremist 'Christians' (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Christians') found justification in the Bible. I'm not trying to…

> I compare the two because if you're looking hard enough in both texts you'll find justification for evil.

Wrong again. You're not actually comparing. Go to the sources. It's not about "looking hard" it is on almost every page of Quran. Please try the reading sample, Sura 9:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/009.htm

All those are considered to be the direct words of god by Muslims. As long as they declare them so, the problems will remain. But suggesting them not to declare that is probably worse than suggesting to the Catholics to give up having the Pope. They surely need some kind of reformation. Unfortunately, "back to the original texts" can't be the basis of reformation as they are really filled with violence and intolerance. The only reformation that isn't disastrous for humanity can only be "don't take these original texts too seriously." Other Abrahamic religions managed to move in that direction, for Islam it's going to be much harder.

What I don't understand is that effectively not a single person of those who claim that there is equivalence in the holy texts of different religions try to read them themselves, because once they'd read they would not be able to even say such sentences like "if looking hard enough."

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#687

Post by acqq »

DanBC wrote: post #684
madeofpalk wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not comparing the two because they're both Abrahamic. I compare the two because if you're looking hard enough in both texts you'll find justification for evil. Extremist 'Muslims', ISIS, (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Muslims') find justification in their text. Extremist 'Christians' (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Christians') found justification in the Bible. I'm not trying to…

The other reason blaming Muslims is weird is that Muslims are overwhelmingly the victims of fundamentalist attacks and not the perpetrators.

> Muslims are overwhelmingly the victims of fundamentalist attacks

The Muslims from the another "sects" are also considered "unbelievers" by the fundamentalists (unless they join them), so it perfectly fits their ideology to do to them "what Mohammad did."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza

"All Males who reached puberty and 1 woman beheaded"

Directly from the holy texts:

"No woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords."

(The "Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him)" is how Muhammad is referred to in the texts. Whenever we write just "Muhammad" it already sounds "improper" to his believers.)

The fundamentalists know the content of the holy books of Islam.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#688

Post by acqq »

mercurial wrote: post #522
acqq wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ISIS beheadings are a matter of form, a propaganda tool Wrong. The beheadings are the things Mohammad did, as written in their holy books, so they just do that, following their role model even without the cameras.

If you think ISIS doesn't have a carefully planned PR strategy, I have a bridge or two to sell you. Of course they're using medieval methods, since their branding is "pure, original, undiluted Islam". But it's absolutely calculated.

> their branding is "pure, original, undiluted Islam"

That's actually true, and it's not just "branding," nobody can deny them that they are qouting the words in the primary holy books. And still some people believe in "peacefulness" of that "pure, original, undiluted Islam." It's the opposite: only by "diluting" (honestly reforming) it can the violence induced by it be avoided long-term. But it's easy to imagine how those that don't want the reform will behave: more "pure, undiluted" acts.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#689

Post by drinchev »

cmdkeen wrote: post #375
drinchev wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your honest answers. Let me respond to your counter question. I'm considering myself as an atheist. I graduated law and (but) I'm currently working in IT. What I found about myself and my own beliefs ( good vs. bad ) is basically a consequence of thousands of years of human civilization absorbed and morally embeded in human beings and in logically written laws. So basically what I believe doing is good…

Ethics and law are two very different things. An act can be lawful and yet not good, an act can be illegal and yet good. Rosa Parks broke the law when she sat in her seat. I'm not saying that had she been an atheist she couldn't have acted, merely that you don't obey the law just because it the law. Plus almost all legal systems have a Judeo-Christian basis thanks to history, colonialism and international trade. Even…

Yes they are very different things, but they don't contradict [1] most of the time. According to legal theory of positivism [2] what is written rule is a set of validated moral laws.

And indeed, as I said my way of thinking gives me huge library that suggest me what to do and what is good and what is bad.

Most importantly I think that human beings ( and animals in that matter ) have really big spectrum of emotions that we carry over thousands of years that are not here today, because we need to fight them.

Fear can save your life sometimes ;

Anger ( adrenalin ) can make you a better fighter in time of trouble ;

Jealousy sometimes give motivation of doing good deeds ;

etc.

If the results of those emotional decisions are not regulated by law and only by moral ( of your cultural ancestors, family, education, etc. ) then I really think it's up to me to decide, otherwise we will all be copies of the moral we inherited and there will be no change at all

1 : http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/shavell/pdf/4_Amer_Law_Ec...

2 : http://www.iep.utm.edu/legalpos/

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#690

Post by Shihan »

madeofpalk wrote: post #683
Shihan wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'am an atheist, but I wouldn't directly compare Christianity to Islam just because they are two Abrahamitic Religions. For example a huge difference is the way the "holy" books of those religions were created and are treated. The content of the Koran is more or less dictated by one person and is seen as the direct word of the religion's god (this is a mainstream islamic view). Bible was written over centuries…

I'm not comparing the two because they're both Abrahamic. I compare the two because if you're looking hard enough in both texts you'll find justification for evil. Extremist 'Muslims', ISIS, (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Muslims') find justification in their text. Extremist 'Christians' (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Christians') found justification in the Bible. I'm not trying to…

So, you are saying that they (ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram, Hizbollah, Al Qaida etc.) are not real muslims? They are also followers of Allah, see Mohammed as their Prophet and the Koran is their holy book. What makes them not real muslims in your eyes? Because they have a different (wrong?) interpretation of verses and hadith?

Morally wrong, sure, from my PoV. From their PoV they are the good guys.

Islam is a religion that teaches a few good things in verses and hadith from the early times of the religion when it was weak and had few members. So they needed to be tolerant and also wanted the Jews and Christians to be tolerant towards them.

Later, after the immigration to Mekka Mohammed changed his teachings and they become more and more intolerant and violent. The religion became more political as the teachings contained more and more text/rules about how to treat non-muslims. According to the koran, "Allah" knew that some verses contradict others, the later (more intolerant verses) abrogate (replace) the earlier peaceful verses (sura 16:101 and 2:106) - so you see that there is a bit of a problem with different verses telling different things.

Don't get me wrong, I would hope that all muslims would only follow the earlier peaceful teachings (and ignore the concept of abrogation) and many already do. But I don't think it helps in telling the others are simply "wrong" becaus that helps avoiding a much needed discussion (self-criticism). It would be better to acknowledge that there are intolerant verses and to understand why they are there and finally to come to the agreement that such intolerant teachings should no longer be accepted as part of the doctrine (well, only as some kind of "rejected part").

Post reply on HN