OT -- Re: random cover of a range

Tue Feb 17 02:43:56 PST 2009

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:31:23 +0300, Yigal Chripun <yigal100 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:56:04 +0300, Yigal Chripun <yigal100 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:28:33 +0300, Christopher Wright
>>>> <dhasenan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>>>>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Yigal Chripun"<yigal100 at gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:gn9qp7$apa$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>>>>>>> A millennium ago, Europe was in the midst of the dark ages while
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> scientific advances were made by Islamic scholars (know  
>>>>>>>>> Algebra?),
>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>> christian world went on holy crusades to fight the evil
>>>>>>>>> "barbarians", now
>>>>>>>>> a millennium later the wheel had turned and the Islamic world is
>>>>>>>>> in its
>>>>>>>>> own dark-age (Iran is prime example of that) and the Islamic
>>>>>>>>> extremists
>>>>>>>>> are calling for Jihad against the corrupt and evil heretics of  
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> west.
>>>>>>>>> Non of that is present in Judaism.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm no theology expert, but from what I understand, the Islamic
>>>>>>>> concept of
>>>>>>>> Jihad really refers to a person's internal good-vs-evil struggle,
>>>>>>>> not an
>>>>>>>> external struggle. The so-called "Muslims" that take Jihad to mean
>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>> committing violence against other people are bastardizing thier  
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>> religion
>>>>>>>> in the same way that some people bastardize Christianity into
>>>>>>>> allegedly
>>>>>>>> being pro-"white power".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not quite so. Jihad is one of the pillars of Islam, and has about 4
>>>>>>> sub-categories one of which is _Jihad_by_sword_
>>>>>>> here's a quote for example from
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_of_Islamic_scholars_on_Jihad :
>>>>>>> <quote>
>>>>>>> Ibn Rushd, in his Muqaddimāt, divides Jihad into four kinds:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jihad by the heart; Jihad by the tongue; Jihad by the hand and
>>>>>>> Jihad by the sword." He defines "Jihad by the tongue" as "to  
>>>>>>> commend
>>>>>>> good conduct and forbid the wrong, like the type of Jihad Allah
>>>>>>> (swt) ordered us to fulfill against the hypocrites in His Words, “O
>>>>>>> Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites”
>>>>>>> (Qur'an [Qur'an 9:73]). Thus, Seraj and Ahmad Hendricks have
>>>>>>> expressed a view that Muhammad strove against the unbelievers by
>>>>>>> sword and against the hypocrites by tongue
>>>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the only link between Judaism to Christianity is that supposedly
>>>>>>>>> Jesus was
>>>>>>>>> Jewish.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Umm...Judaism and Christianity share an entire Bible. Of course,
>>>>>>>> Christianity adds another Bible (the "New Testament") but they
>>>>>>>> equally
>>>>>>>> revere what they call the "Old Testament", which *is* the Jewish
>>>>>>>> Bible. As
>>>>>>>> part of that Bible, both religions contain The Ten Commandments,
>>>>>>>> Moses,
>>>>>>>> Abraham (this particular part also being shared by Islam), Adam  
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> Eve,
>>>>>>>> Noah's Ark, and probably some other things. I'm not sure where you
>>>>>>>> get the
>>>>>>>> idea that Jesus's religion is the only connection between Judaism
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> Christianity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christianity has mostly redefined out of existence most of the
>>>>>>> Jewish concepts if not all of them as they appear in the bible (the
>>>>>>> old testament), and the new testament which overrides the old one
>>>>>>> defines different, and contradicting new concepts.
>>>>>>> Christians use different interpretations of the bible and the
>>>>>>> christian faith basically broke backwards compatibility (to borrow  
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> software concept) with Judaism.
>>>>>> You seem to be assuming that modern Judaism is identical to
>>>>>> first-century Judaism. It clearly isn't. In particular, (1) the
>>>>>> destruction of the temple required significant "breaking of backward
>>>>>> compatibility" (not to anywhere near the same extent as  
>>>>>> Christianity,
>>>>>> of course), and (2) Orthodox Judaism recognizes the Talmud, which  
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> written down later than the New Testament.
>>>>>> Also Christianity retains the Tanakh(Old Testament) word-for-word  
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> regards it as authoritative. This put strict limits on the extent of
>>>>>> possible divergence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Divergence of belief in the historical content of the text, yes. (I
>>>>> know that Christianity has some divergence on whether the text is
>>>>> completely and literally accurate in all aspects. I don't know  
>>>>> whether
>>>>> there are any young-earth creationists among non-Christian Jews, or
>>>>> anything like that.)
>>>>>
>>>>> However, there are a lot of commandments given down regarding what is
>>>>> clean and unclean, and how to distinguish, and treatment for being
>>>>> unclean in various ways. That is universally ignored. Doctors do
>>>>> better at healing people than priests who follow the Torah exactly.  
>>>>> In
>>>>> case of an infestation of mold in your house, you are going to call
>>>>> someone who specializes in that issue, and they're not going to  
>>>>> follow
>>>>> the Torah, even if they are the strictest of orthodox Jews. And I
>>>>> haven't seen any Christian who felt compelled to avoid eating
>>>>> shellfish due to biblical restrictions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know one - Jesus.
>>>>
>>>> There is also "Jews for Jesus" organization that follow kosher diet.
>>>> And I've also heard of christian old-believers in Russia that don't  
>>>> eat
>>>> pork and shellfish.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know many ultra-Orthodox Jews; do any of you know a Jew who
>>>>> would go to his priest regarding a rash before he would go to a  
>>>>> doctor?
>>>>
>>>> I've heard many Jews refuse to do the blood transfusion even if it  
>>>> costs
>>>> them their life.
>>>
>>> Where did you hear that?
>>> I doubt that since the preservation of life is a holy jewish principle
>>> and which cancels all other commandments in the bible.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I was wrong. These are indeed Jehovah's Witnesses.
>>
>>> for example, driving on the Shabat is a a sin but if we're talking
>>> about an ambulance driving to save someone's life than it's becomes
>>> completely "Kosher". As the saying goes: "if you saved one soul of
>>> Israel as if you saved the entire world".
>>>
>>> Kinda the exact opposite of the Jihad concept that other people
>>> believe in.
>>
>>  From Qur'an:
>>
>> "...We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul -
>> unless for a soul[1] or for corruption [done] in the land[2] - it is as
>> if he had slain mankind entirely. And, whoever saves one, it is as if he
>> had saved mankind entirely." [Qur'an, 5:32]
>> [1] i.e. in legal retribution for murder, through the requisite channels
>> of justice.
>> [2] i.e. that requiring the death penalty, again through the requisite
>> legal channels.
>>
>> This verse establishes the sanctity of life.
>>
>> (Taken from  
>> http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/ez/isl/0-sbm/Wanton.Destruction.html)
>>
>
> True Jihad according to Islam is against non-believers (pagans) since  
> from Islamic point of view Jews and Christians are also believers of  
> Allah (albeit with different rituals).

There are two categories of Jihad - greater Jihad and lesser Jihad. Greater Jihad is about fighting yourself, while Lesser Jihad is a warfare. According to Islam Law, Lesser Jihad can only declared by a leader of Islamic Country, i.e. the country where Islamic laws are technically considered to override laws of the state.

There is no such country exists at this moment and thus no-one may start a Jihad.

What you see now is a terrorism and has *absolutely* nothing to do with neither Jihad nor Islam.

> Problems is that, Just like in Christianity there is no requirement to  
> actually *read* the book yourself.

I don't agree. Not only there is a strong requirement to read it (I think you are talking about Quran, don't you?), each district where Muslims live should have at list one person who knows full text of the Holy Qur'an word-by-word.

> Instead there's the religions  
> representative (I forgot the title they use)  that peaches to the  
> public.

Yes, there are. There is a short homily before a pray once in a week (in Friday) in a mosque, that's it.
Modern people are so busy that they spend little (if any) time to read books (of any kind), and that's a great opportunity for them to take a lesson.

> It doesn't really matter nowadays what that book actually says  
> since hardly anyone reads it. what those extremist representatives say  
> is what Muhammad wants and that's it.