|
|
 Sun Jul 08, 2007 17:36 pm The idea of "the Middle Way" |
|
|
| Ahmadov wrote: | | Jamie (K), thanks for patiently discussing this issue. However, there are a number of points in what you say that completely contradict the Koran, like killing Christians. Actually, the Koran says that the people close to Muslims are Christians, which is because there are modest preachs among them (Chapter Maideh). The other thing is that there is no difference between women and men in punishing them for adultery. This is clearly said in Chapter Nur. There are lots of things in Muslims societies done in accordance with local tradition rather than the Koran. These local conservative traditions are mistakenly attributed to Islam. You can even see some societies not allowing women to study, which completly contradicts the Koran... |
People who grew up on the outer fringes of the Islamic world tell me things like this all the time, but I don't believe them, because people who grew up closer to the part of the world where Islam originated are more likely to believe in the atrocities of shariah law and in other savagery. Rather than assuming that people who live close to the Arabian Peninsula have deviant interpretations of Islam, I find it more plausible to think that the Islam of people who live on the outer fringes is mixed with other influences, such as traditional Polynesian culture, the Orthodox or Western Christianity that the local population practiced before being forcibly converted to Islam, or even Marxism-Leninism. After all, if you go far enough out to the edges, you'll meet a Bosnian or Albanian who will insist to you over a pork dinner, between sips of vodka, that nothing in Muslim scripture forbids the consumption of alcohol. One Bosnian even claims he challenged an Arabic Muslim to find a passage in the Koran that forbade alcohol, and he insists the Arab couldn't find it.
Part of the problem is that so much in the Koran is internally contradictory. If I'm not mistaken, I think I ran into a passage in which Allah is castigating people for thinking he shouldn't contradict himself. The idea was evidently that God has the power and the right to teach one thing and then turn around and teach the opposite. It was comical to me, and it reminded me of a French novel from the 1300s, where the author claims the reader is a heretic if he doesn't believe a baby much larger than his mother could be born out of his mother's ear. Since God can do all things, then not believing it was supposedly tantamount to denying God (at least according to the humor in the story).
Also -- and I hate to say this -- in my experience devout Muslims from Muslim countries lie more than other people. In those schools where I teach in which most of the students are from Muslim countries, it's hard for the teachers to function administratively, because the students constantly lie about almost any sort of matter, big or small. Often they forget their original lies and make up new ones every week, and sometimes you can't even figure out what the purpose of their lying was. I don't know if they lie to us because we're "infidels" and it's okay, or if they just lie in general, but we never encounter the monumental level of lying in students from East Asia, Europe or South America that we do in people from the Muslim world (excluding Indonesia or Malaysia). For this reason, when some Muslim shows me chapter and verse from Islamic scripture that calls for Muslims to commit some atrocity or other, and then another Muslim tries to put a smiley face on it, I assume the smiley Muslim is lying, because he usually can't deal effectively with the scriptural passages the other Muslims have provided, or because the two people point to clearly contradictory scriptural statements. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4227
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Sun Jul 08, 2007 17:55 pm The idea of "the Middle Way" |
|
|
Jamie:
The intestine affairs of the nation.
the domestic affairs of his country.
The internal affairs of a country or nation.
Aleaf, look up the word "intestine", please! Why LOLS?I think all of the above sentences are acceptable.
_________________
Try to change youself before you try to change others. |
|
aleaf
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 340
|
 |
| Sun Jul 08, 2007 20:37 pm The idea of "the Middle Way" |
|
|
aleaf
The word "intestine" doesn't work here -- intestines are (specifically) innards that help in the digestive process.
"domestic" and "internal" are both fine
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee. |
|
prezbucky
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2055
Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
|
|
| Sun Jul 08, 2007 22:46 pm The idea of "the Middle Way" |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | Things get even more horrid when you look at the hadiths, where Muslims are called to do very despicable things, such as murder women for adultery and murder anyone for converting to another religion. To behave peacefully, Muslims have to ignore many direct, open-ended commands of Mohammed.
|
I am afraid your information is extremely weak, Jamie! Nowhere in the Holy Koran would one find:
| Quote: | | ...murder anyone for converting to another religion. |
If someone has given you the following information--then don't be so easily influenced by them. They are altogether wrong.
| Quote: | | adulteresses (but not adulterers, of course) should be killed. |
The problem is that you seem to have made up your mind about Muslims. A lot, I would repeat, a lot in the Holy Quran or the Holy Bible cannot be understood without the complete knowledge of the background. And when one does try to do that, one is likely to be misled.
Yes, adultery is fiercely condemned by Allah, and the committer of this should be punished severely, according to the instructions given in the Holy Quran. |
|
Tom
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1976
|
|
| Mon Jul 09, 2007 0:25 am The idea of "the Middle Way" |
|
|
| aleaf wrote: | Jamie:
The intestine affairs of the nation.
the domestic affairs of his country.
The internal affairs of a country or nation.
Aleaf, look up the word "intestine", please! Why LOLS?I think all of the above sentences are acceptable. |
You are right, Aleaf. 'Intestine' as an adjective can be figuratively used to mean 'internal', 'domestic' or 'not foreign'. |
|
Conchita
Language Coach
Joined: 26 Dec 2005
Posts: 2702
Location: Madrid, Spain
|
|
| Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:14 am The idea of "the Middle Way" |
|
|
| Conchita wrote: | | You are right, Aleaf. 'Intestine' as an adjective can be figuratively used to mean 'internal', 'domestic' or 'not foreign'. |
No, he's not right, Conchita. People don't use the word "intestine" in this way. You can find the term defined that way in some dictionaries, but not in those for normal use. I had to look through three British and American ones before I found it defined as meaning "internal".
Just to demonstrate that people don't use the term that way, try searching Google on the exact phrase "internal affairs". You will get more than 2 million hits. When you search the exact phrase "intestine affairs", you get only 14 hits, and six of those are written in Chinese. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4227
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:08 am The idea of "the Middle Way" |
|
|
| aleaf wrote: | You're ignoring the fact that sometimes a dictator can get so much power and weaken his people so much that it is impossible for the people of his country to overthrow him. In cases like this, it is necessary and merciful for another country to step in.
Jamie in the civil war of china (1945-1949), the United states supported Jiang jieshi (The National Party), but most of the chinese people didn't like the party at that time.
Do you dare to say even without economic interest the united states still will help these countries? |
Again, you're using filtered history books. History books written under the auspices of a communist government always say that "the people" favored the communist takeover. However, communist governments and historians use the terms "the people" and "the proletariat" in strange, innovative ways. Usually those who agree with the communists are described as "the people", and those who disagree with the communists are described as "enemies of the people". It doesn't matter which group is larger. And since communist governments take over or shut down opposition media, and make dissent illegal, there is no way to question the notion that "the people" wanted the communist revolution.
Often the term "the proletariat" is not used in communist texts to mean the ordinary working people, which is its true meaning. They frequently use it to refer to the communist party elite. This results in absurd statements like the ones that can be found in some Russian books, which state that "the proletariat" often uses language that cannot be understood by "less educated, working people". What they mean is that the REAL proletariat can't understand the gobbledygook written by communist party members.
In any case, are you claiming that most of the Chinese people really knew what they were in for if the communists took over? I think you're wrong. At that time, great masses of the Chinese were illiterate, and in addition to that, even highly literate people have trouble slogging through the writings of Marx, Lenin and any of their admirers. (Communist revolutions are never led by "the people", but by highly educated members of the middle and upper classes.) The depth of ignorance about who the communists were and what they were bringing can be shown just by the fact that many landlords put up posters calling for the capture or killing of "Su Wei Ai", thinking that the Chinese word for "Soviet" was the name of a person. If supposedly literate landlords were confused, the average Chinese must have been quite ignorant of who the communists were and what their plans were.
There is also the problem that in some countries the people make bad choices that are difficult or impossible to reverse. In Germany, they elected Hitler to office, and soon they found they couldn't get him out. It took a world war to dislodge him, and by that time he'd killed 10 million people, not counting the soldiers who died.
The United States and its allies had already seen the disastrous results of the communist takeover in Russia -- which was NOT the will of the people, but a coup d'?tat. By the time Stalin died, his government had killed 30 million people. The communist revolution in China did not occur independently. The Chinese communists could not have won without massive financial assistance, guns and military consultation from Stalin's Soviet Union. Supporting the Kuomintang against the communists was an attempt to prevent a similar bloodbath in China, and also to stop the external aggression that communist governments usually engage in. The communists won in China, and, as predicted, Mao's government ended up killing 70 million people. China remained a Third World country, with masses of people dying from starvation and execution, while the Kuomintang transformed Taiwan into a prosperous First World nation that respects human rights.
Yes, the US and other countries often intervene where there is no direct political or economic interest other than the fact that peace, human rights and free trade are in our best interests. We could have stayed out of Bosnia and let the European Union intervene, but the Europeans have a tendency to talk and talk and let people die while they "reach a consensus". We had to go in and stop the genocide, even though it should have been someone else's job. President Jimmy Carter intervened in many ways that were actually AGAINST the political and economic interests of the US. Instead of supporting the Shah of Iran, he told him to step down and let the Ayatollah Khomeini take power. This resulted in the murder of masses of non-Muslims, a refugee problem for the US, and most of the terrorism problems we're seeing today. Carter sent financial and technological aid to Romania, even though the money was diverted to foolish uses and the technology was handed over to assist our enemies. There was probably no strategic interest for the US in Somalia, but our government sent the military in there to try to stop all the carnage, a battle which we lost. We don't need to send aid to tsunami victims or to sub-Saharan African countries, but we do. We pour huge amounts of money into the United Nations, even though it generally acts in ways intended to damage us. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4227
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:19 am The idea of "the Middle Way" |
|
|
| Tom wrote: | | If someone has given you the following information--then don't be so easily influenced by them. They are altogether wrong. |
They say you're wrong! And they read Arabic better than you do.
| Tom wrote: | | The problem is that you seem to have made up your mind about Muslims. A lot, I would repeat, a lot in the Holy Quran or the Holy Bible cannot be understood without the complete knowledge of the background. And when one does try to do that, one is likely to be misled. |
Explain to me why Muslim countries -- even "civilized" Muslim countries, like Turkey and Algeria -- punish religious conversions, do not allow non-Muslims to proselytize, and forbid Christians to freely build new churches or even to repair the ones they have. They basically deny to non-Muslims all the rights that they demand that non-Muslims give them in other countries.
| Tom wrote: | | Yes, adultery is fiercely condemned by Allah, and the committer of this should be punished severely, according to the instructions given in the Holy Quran. |
Yes. You're supposed to murder her, which is quite outrageous. And by killing her instead of converting her, you lose the opportunity to save other misguided people. In Christian countries there are many converted prostitutes and porn actresses who work full time at pulling women out of that type of life. These women are good for society, but in Muslim countries they'd evidently prefer to kill them all. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4227
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Mon Jul 09, 2007 14:32 pm The idea of "the Middle Way" |
|
|
Again, you're using filtered history books. History books written under the auspices of a communist government always say that "the people" favored the communist takeover.
I am not using the filtered history books. It is just your imagination.  In fact I questioned the books when i was a child, i didn't believe what was said in the books so I consulted my grandparents from both my mother and my father.My grandfather and grandmother from my father were farmers and my grandfather from my mother was a businessman and my grandmother from my mother was a housewife. At least all of them told me that they didn't like National Party. Could you tell me a reason why we should thought the Party a good one? At that time china was in chaos. Everything was terrible.The national party got the support from the USA but they lost the war. Can't the result prove everythng? And nowadays china is developing at a rapid pace and the living standards are improving as well despite that there are problems in china, but we are trying to adjust. Isn't it enough?
The communists won in China, and, as predicted, Mao's government ended up killing 70 million people. China remained a Third World country, with masses of people dying from starvation and execution, while the Kuomintang transformed Taiwan into a prosperous First World nation that respects human rights.
At that time, because of the different social system from others china was refused by other countries especially those western countries.we also had disputes with Soviet Union at that time because we disagreed with the political point of views. At that time te Soviet union retreated all his economic assistance and askd us to repay all money. All these plus 3- year natural disaster and the great cultral revolution as well, we missed the chance to develope. On the contrary, at that time Tianwan got great help from the USA, both from military and economy.
The only reason that the USA supported Jiang was the USA could get huge economic benefit from Jiang government but if communists rule the country the USA can't do just he pleases. But the USA bet on the wrong person. The USA provided Jiang's military advanced weapons (American munitioners made big money .  , even nowadays Taiwan is still the chief constantly-cheated customer of the American arms industry. )but Jiang neither has talents on economy nor military. And the serious problem was he fell from favor with the people.One of the key points of the victory of a War is that whether one has got the public support or not．
This is also true of Korean war, Vietnam war and world war II.
Without the help of the USA, Japan wouldn't have recovered so quickly including South korean. At that time in order to proof Communism was a mistake, the USA really made great efforts
I absoultely doubt about it. The USA gets richer after each war.
human rights and free trade are in our best interests
Maybe it is your intention. Free trade means disater and unequality to some countries because some countries don't have the capacity to open their market to the outside world entirely because of the weak economic basis.That is why china open its market step by step.
Many rules and regulations are set and have developed in some countries for ages and ages, but to some countries these rules and regulations are strange to them.These countries are newcomers.They need time to learn and adapt to them.
Just the same as in olympic games, some countires have outstanding superiority in certain games so that they win the first place again and again.Games are just sports events.What the loser lose are just medals but If a country loses in the international market, people of that country will suffer from it.
We pour huge amounts of money into the United Nations, even though it generally acts in ways intended to damage us.
You pour huge amounts of money but you get more from it.
The United Nations doesn't want to damage you. the reason is what you have done doesn't satisfied other countries.the USA accuses of dictatorship of other countres. In fact the USA is the monocrat of the world.
_________________
Try to change youself before you try to change others. |
|
aleaf
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 340
|
|
| Mon Jul 09, 2007 14:48 pm The idea of "the Middle Way" |
|
|
Hi, Jamie
Maybe what I'm about to write is a bit off the topic but...
The other day I watched one episode of South Park (100 episode) and they
conveyed to me the idea of America which was manifested in Franklin time (in the founding father's time):
America sits on the fence about wars - on the one hand it goes for wars and on the other - against.
The first part of America thrils the other part of the world to bits about its great power and the other -
prevents people of the other countries from hating Americans for being inhumane and cruel.
Does it make sense to you ? Do you share this point of view ?
_________________
Alex
A native speaker of Russian
 |
|
lost_soul
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 1739
Location: South Park, Colorado, USA
|
|
| Mon Jul 09, 2007 15:58 pm The idea of "the Middle Way" |
|
|
Aleaf, before I respond to some of your points, I have one question: When you doubted the account of the Chinese communist revolution, why did you only ask your own relatives? If you got a universally negative view of the Nationalist Party from them, it would have made sense to seek out people who had sided with the Nationalist Party and find out why they did so. Why didn't you look up the conflict in non-communist textbooks and history books, and in old newspapers and magazines that favored the Kuomintang?
My guess is that anyone who had favored the Kuomintang had either fled to Taiwan, been killed or exiled by the communist government, or was afraid of being punished if he gave his opinion. My guess is also that there were no books, newspapers or magazines that gave an alternative explanation, because they had all been destroyed by Mao's government. Am I wrong? |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4227
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Mon Jul 09, 2007 17:16 pm The idea of "the Middle Way" |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | Conchita wrote: | | You are right, Aleaf. 'Intestine' as an adjective can be figuratively used to mean 'internal', 'domestic' or 'not foreign'. |
No, he's not right, Conchita. People don't use the word "intestine" in this way. You can find the term defined that way in some dictionaries, but not in those for normal use. I had to look through three British and American ones before I found it defined as meaning "internal".
Just to demonstrate that people don't use the term that way, try searching Google on the exact phrase "internal affairs". You will get more than 2 million hits. When you search the exact phrase "intestine affairs", you get only 14 hits, and six of those are written in Chinese. |
When you say, 'people don't use the term that way', you must be referring to the average citizen, Jamie. Because, although the adjective 'intestine' isn't commonly used, it appears to have a very specific use meaning 'internal with regard to a country or state', as in 'intestine strife', 'intestine affairs', 'intestine conflict', 'intestine disorders', 'intestine calamities' or 'intestine war'. The term can be found in most dictionaries as well as in the media (and not only the Chinese one  ). |
|
Conchita
Language Coach
Joined: 26 Dec 2005
Posts: 2702
Location: Madrid, Spain
|
|
| Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:42 am The idea of "the Middle Way" |
|
|
the conflict in non-communist textbooks and history books, and in old newspapers and magazines that favored the Kuomintang?
I know the content of them even without reading them. Any a history book is written by people of different ideology. so it is hard to say "objective".
Who sponsred those old newspapers and magazines?
Those who didn't favor the National Party had been killed by the Party. Li Gongpu, Wen Yinduo and so on who were famous at that time and numerous people whose name were unkown were killed.
Cai Hesen was crucified to wall.
Mao's wife was torched in water prison and that time she was a mother of three children.
General Yang Huchen who assisted Zhang Xueliang in the Sian Incident and then was put into prison as well as his son was killed before Jiang run away to Taiwan.
...
Have all these been mentioned in your textbook? I guess never.
My guess is that anyone who had favored the Kuomintang had either fled to Taiwan, been killed or exiled by the communist government, or was afraid of being punished if he gave his opinion.
What do you think the communist government should do if those who opposed the govenment and made every effort to create chaos(murder, explosion, etc) and undermine the government? What do you think any a government will do if the government faces the same problem?
gave an alternative explanation, because they had all been destroyed by Mao's government. Am I wrong?
I am sure you are right because what they wanted to do was just overthrew the government and protected their own interest from being taken away so their reports were not objective.
_________________
Try to change youself before you try to change others. |
|
aleaf
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 340
|
|
|
| Adjusting to Eastern Expectations: China and 'chabuduo' | Funny but respectable |
