A
Ardross
Guest
Anyone read it ? I feel I ought to.
Crikey Ardross, I thought you were putting it up on the 'books to recomend' thread for a second.
I haven't read it, (and have no intention of doing so) but do have a copy of the most widely read book in the world (or certainly used to be) - and it ain't the Bible
I haven't read it, (and have no intention of doing so) but do have a copy of the most widely read book in the world (or certainly used to be) - and it ain't the Bible
Not to my knowledge :brows: Unless your question is an oblique reference to something which I'm afraid I'm failing to get?
And I nearly got arrested when inserting a copy of it in the hands of one of those plastic statue thingys of Colonel Sanders that they have outside KFC's!!! Luckily the interior policeman standing behind me as I was lining up the photograph had a sense of humour, and interpreted my action as mocking American consumerism I believe.
Should also say that I can't read a word of it, so it's more of curio item, although I do have an English translation as part of another collected works etc
In fairness though Ardross asked the question about the Koran and its unfair and wrong of me to hijack the thread into something approaching Warblers bookshelf
And I nearly got arrested when inserting a copy of it in the hands of one of those plastic statue thingys of Colonel Sanders that they have outside KFC's!!! Luckily the interior policeman standing behind me as I was lining up the photograph had a sense of humour, and interpreted my action as mocking American consumerism I believe.
Should also say that I can't read a word of it, so it's more of curio item, although I do have an English translation as part of another collected works etc
In fairness though Ardross asked the question about the Koran and its unfair and wrong of me to hijack the thread into something approaching Warblers bookshelf
I had an English translation of it, but if you're going to read any books regarding Islam, there was a terrific Penguin put out some 20, more, years ago called 'Islam' and written by a Frenchman. I'm guessing wildly now, since I don't have it any more, that his name was Alfred Guillaume. Anyway, it was an excellent little factual primer, setting out Koranic basics and briefly outlining the different sectarian beliefs with Islam - Sunni, Shi'ah, Sufi, etc. I'd recommend buying a book like that to put the Koran in its proper context, as in 'of its time'.
Frankly, it's a much more straightforward text than the Bible. For a start, there's only Mohammed doing the writing, not a load of apostles having a crack at it over many periods of time, each bringing his own slant to the topics he's writing about. It's written in one period of time, too, not with an 'Old' and a 'New' bit, and there's certainly none of that hippy-trippy Revelations stuff, either. Plenty of straightforward logic on inheritance, marriage, divorce, the bringing up of children, zakat (charity tax - not an option, you pay 2.5% annually on whatever you earn to charities for the poor), the treatment of the elderly, animals, etc. Of course, a lot of it gets jettisoned or twisted to suit individual desires or ambitions, as does any religion, but it struck me as being more of a 'how to live' manual, although with as much emphasis on the hereafter as the Bible.
If one bears in mind that both texts were written in eras when only the elite could read and write and that leaving home, or one's village, was virtually unheard of, the Koran probably offers the most 'ordinary' rules and values for living sensibly within one's community.
It's certainly worth getting a good translation, Ardross. You won't find it more draconian than the Bible's occasional outbursts of thundering about an eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth, and a vengeful God, etc., or even the incitements to ethnic cleansing within Deuteronomy.
Frankly, it's a much more straightforward text than the Bible. For a start, there's only Mohammed doing the writing, not a load of apostles having a crack at it over many periods of time, each bringing his own slant to the topics he's writing about. It's written in one period of time, too, not with an 'Old' and a 'New' bit, and there's certainly none of that hippy-trippy Revelations stuff, either. Plenty of straightforward logic on inheritance, marriage, divorce, the bringing up of children, zakat (charity tax - not an option, you pay 2.5% annually on whatever you earn to charities for the poor), the treatment of the elderly, animals, etc. Of course, a lot of it gets jettisoned or twisted to suit individual desires or ambitions, as does any religion, but it struck me as being more of a 'how to live' manual, although with as much emphasis on the hereafter as the Bible.
If one bears in mind that both texts were written in eras when only the elite could read and write and that leaving home, or one's village, was virtually unheard of, the Koran probably offers the most 'ordinary' rules and values for living sensibly within one's community.
It's certainly worth getting a good translation, Ardross. You won't find it more draconian than the Bible's occasional outbursts of thundering about an eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth, and a vengeful God, etc., or even the incitements to ethnic cleansing within Deuteronomy.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,462
That's the Old Testament. The New Testament is much more enlightened and influential.
BrianH
At the Start
Reminds me of a Terry Pratchett quote:
"Oh, come on. Revelation was a mushroom dream that belonged in the Apocrypha. The New Testament is basically about what happened when God got religion."
"Oh, come on. Revelation was a mushroom dream that belonged in the Apocrypha. The New Testament is basically about what happened when God got religion."
Perhaps a silly question, but where do you buy a copy of The Koran? Is it something that can be bought form a bookshop or Amazon? I did my Higher Grade Religious Studies at school and Islam formed a large part of the syllabus. I also remember something called The Torah?, which I think was some sort of supporting text to the Koran.
Muttley
At the Start
The Torah is Jewish ....
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Well, like the Bible it`s a famous work of fiction so maybe i`ll give it a go one day.
The big difference between both is that the Bible is not interpretated literally while muslim do it with the Koran.
The Bible is Not the law here while the Koran is there.
When things start to go much worse economically in occident(and will be soon) is when people here will realise how a threat the Islam has became.
It is quite easy for the muslim leaders to persuade their illetarate people that occident is the source of their problems .
The Bible is Not the law here while the Koran is there.
When things start to go much worse economically in occident(and will be soon) is when people here will realise how a threat the Islam has became.
It is quite easy for the muslim leaders to persuade their illetarate people that occident is the source of their problems .
BrianH
At the Start
Warbler, I think that you should know that sunybay is Spanish and that English is not his first language.
DO: yes, thanks, I'm aware that most of the exhortations to murder your first born as a tribute to God are in the Old Testament, but as it has remained an integral part of the Bible right up to now, it'd be revisionist, wouldn't it, to deny that such exhortations exist in it? Let's not get too Pollyannaish about Christian doctrine!
Suny, if you examine any religion's history, you'll find that they were all taught to mostly illiterate and totally uneducated people. That's one of the points I made (see above). It is the purpose of ALL religion to indoctrinate, rather than educate. Millions of Christians passed through the hands of centuries' worth of priests, nuns, vicars, bishops, etc., without any of those leaders of the Word bothering to teach those before them in how to read the Bible, let alone interpret it, for themselves. Christianity was and still is primarily interested in saving souls, not giving people ideas above their station. The Church did nothing to improve the lot of the poor - in fact, it benefitted enormously from their desperate state by running poorhouses, workhouses, laundries and a host of other forms of menial, hard work for little return - usually one's keep only - and as long as those 'benefitting' from such charity continued to attend church and behave in accordance with the strict rules imposed upon them. Keeping the business of the church going was often more of a priority than helping the illiterate and the destitute towards the goal of personal betterment. True, there are hundreds of missions throughout the world bringing the word of Christ to the non-Christian, and to do that nowadays usually involves teaching reading and writing, too, but first and foremost it is with the idea of assisting with prosletyzing, not helping the kids learn how to read Harry Potter.
As a matter of possibly very slight interest to you, since you're rabidly biased against anything Islamic, Islamic schools were very keen to teach their students how to read - if only because they expected them to commit the Koran to memory, which is probably only achievable by reading by rote . Today's madrassas, or religious schools, are filled with earnest little scholars READING their Korans, rather than having them intoned piously to them.
Remember: it has never been the goal of religion to teach the masses how to think for themselves. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Suny, if you examine any religion's history, you'll find that they were all taught to mostly illiterate and totally uneducated people. That's one of the points I made (see above). It is the purpose of ALL religion to indoctrinate, rather than educate. Millions of Christians passed through the hands of centuries' worth of priests, nuns, vicars, bishops, etc., without any of those leaders of the Word bothering to teach those before them in how to read the Bible, let alone interpret it, for themselves. Christianity was and still is primarily interested in saving souls, not giving people ideas above their station. The Church did nothing to improve the lot of the poor - in fact, it benefitted enormously from their desperate state by running poorhouses, workhouses, laundries and a host of other forms of menial, hard work for little return - usually one's keep only - and as long as those 'benefitting' from such charity continued to attend church and behave in accordance with the strict rules imposed upon them. Keeping the business of the church going was often more of a priority than helping the illiterate and the destitute towards the goal of personal betterment. True, there are hundreds of missions throughout the world bringing the word of Christ to the non-Christian, and to do that nowadays usually involves teaching reading and writing, too, but first and foremost it is with the idea of assisting with prosletyzing, not helping the kids learn how to read Harry Potter.
As a matter of possibly very slight interest to you, since you're rabidly biased against anything Islamic, Islamic schools were very keen to teach their students how to read - if only because they expected them to commit the Koran to memory, which is probably only achievable by reading by rote . Today's madrassas, or religious schools, are filled with earnest little scholars READING their Korans, rather than having them intoned piously to them.
Remember: it has never been the goal of religion to teach the masses how to think for themselves. Quite the opposite, in fact.
BrianH
At the Start
Unfortunately suny that is not true where millions of fundamentalist Christians in the USA are concerned. Even more unfortunately some of them have the ear of the president.
Suny - have you actually bothered to read the Bible AND the Koran? You make sweeping and silly statements which make me feel you have read neither. The Bible says that God made the Earth within seven days. Not millions of years, but seven days. As far as a fairly significant number of Christians are concerned, that is God's truth. Everything was made in six days, as on the seventh He rested. We may call these people Creationists, but they exist in large numbers, and they are absolutely convinced that they are right, and that anyone preaching evolution is not only WRONG, but is not going to Heaven when they die, because they don't take the word of the Bible literally.
There are also - as we just saw on Channel 4, the 'End-Timers' or the believers in the Apocalypse (Revelations), who believe that this section of the Bible quite literally tells us just how the World will end, and they also believe that the end is not coming in 5 billion years or so, when the Sun's orbit decays enough to burn up the Earth, but any minute now.
Please, don't insult my intelligence with such statements that Christians don't take the Bible literally, or that only the Koran - which does NOT support such nonsense - is taken 'literally'. Once upon a time, if you remember your history lessons (unless they don't teach them in Spain), the Church and State were completely intertwined. The Church's doctrine was the law of the land, and, in fact, some kings were deluded enough to believe that they were appointed by God. Which meant that whatever they wanted done, was done, right or wrong, because the Church supported them (in a duality of power and control).
The Koran sets out - as I've already described - the way in which Muslims should live their lives in a PRACTICAL sense: that is called Shari'ah Law. In Muslim countries, Shari'ah Law is practised, and it governs (as I said) all aspects of life - family law, business dealings, criminal law, jihad, giving to beggars, burial of the dead, dietary restrictions, circumcision, respect of one's mother, etc., etc. All mostly common sense, and an effort to impose rationality upon what could be very violent, warring tribal factions. So of course the Koran IS taken 'literally' in that it informs Shari'ah Law, and Shari'ah Law informs the conduct of Muslim society.
If you live in a Jewish society and are Jewish, you obey the teachings of the Torah, which also sets out strict dietary restrictions, rules on marriage and separation, inheritance, and so on. So of course you would take that LITERALLY, too, and if the government of the country were not secular, but Jewish, then the Torah would inform the behaviour of society.
There is no surprise in taking the Torah, the Bible or the Koran literally if you believe in those religions. You are supposed to take them as sacred word. The fact that some Christians don't agree with the Creationists, having found a place for evolution which they can still view as Divine, doesn't mean that the Creationists shouldn't continue to have their belief in the world taking six days to make. It's just when these sectarian beliefs begin to fight against each other that there's trouble. Curious, when all the religions try also to teach tolerance and peace (goodwill on Earth), that it should be anything but that within their own ranks.
There are also - as we just saw on Channel 4, the 'End-Timers' or the believers in the Apocalypse (Revelations), who believe that this section of the Bible quite literally tells us just how the World will end, and they also believe that the end is not coming in 5 billion years or so, when the Sun's orbit decays enough to burn up the Earth, but any minute now.
Please, don't insult my intelligence with such statements that Christians don't take the Bible literally, or that only the Koran - which does NOT support such nonsense - is taken 'literally'. Once upon a time, if you remember your history lessons (unless they don't teach them in Spain), the Church and State were completely intertwined. The Church's doctrine was the law of the land, and, in fact, some kings were deluded enough to believe that they were appointed by God. Which meant that whatever they wanted done, was done, right or wrong, because the Church supported them (in a duality of power and control).
The Koran sets out - as I've already described - the way in which Muslims should live their lives in a PRACTICAL sense: that is called Shari'ah Law. In Muslim countries, Shari'ah Law is practised, and it governs (as I said) all aspects of life - family law, business dealings, criminal law, jihad, giving to beggars, burial of the dead, dietary restrictions, circumcision, respect of one's mother, etc., etc. All mostly common sense, and an effort to impose rationality upon what could be very violent, warring tribal factions. So of course the Koran IS taken 'literally' in that it informs Shari'ah Law, and Shari'ah Law informs the conduct of Muslim society.
If you live in a Jewish society and are Jewish, you obey the teachings of the Torah, which also sets out strict dietary restrictions, rules on marriage and separation, inheritance, and so on. So of course you would take that LITERALLY, too, and if the government of the country were not secular, but Jewish, then the Torah would inform the behaviour of society.
There is no surprise in taking the Torah, the Bible or the Koran literally if you believe in those religions. You are supposed to take them as sacred word. The fact that some Christians don't agree with the Creationists, having found a place for evolution which they can still view as Divine, doesn't mean that the Creationists shouldn't continue to have their belief in the world taking six days to make. It's just when these sectarian beliefs begin to fight against each other that there's trouble. Curious, when all the religions try also to teach tolerance and peace (goodwill on Earth), that it should be anything but that within their own ranks.
Warbler
If I were irish I would write in english correctly and I would think Moscow Flyer was better than Azertyuiop.
About the subject of the topic.
I dont read the Bible or Koran every week but I have readquite a lot in the past.
I dont think we are going to arrive to an agreement,I know what I think and I just wonder what you would think and write when Bush leaves the White House and the islamist terrorism continue doing what they do so well:terrorism.
If I were irish I would write in english correctly and I would think Moscow Flyer was better than Azertyuiop.
About the subject of the topic.
I dont read the Bible or Koran every week but I have readquite a lot in the past.
I dont think we are going to arrive to an agreement,I know what I think and I just wonder what you would think and write when Bush leaves the White House and the islamist terrorism continue doing what they do so well:terrorism.
:lol: Let's face it, Bush did nothing when IN the White House to prevent the worst terrorist atrocity his country has (yet) experienced, suny, so why wouldn't it continue AFTER he's left it?
In fact, there's a slight chance that with a rational being in the White House (I realize that's a very slight chance) whose agenda is not entirely self-serving in terms of directing campaigns which will serve to create more millions in personal wealth for himself and his cohorts in government, the terrorism will reduce. Especially if we would ever see an American president unafraid of being assassinated by Mossad if he were to put pressure on Israel to back off its aggression and contribute to the reduction in Islamic terrorist activity.
As it is, America continues to assist the perpetuity of Al-Queda and its offshoots by supporting everything that Israel does, including its illegal and immoral actions. You have to then start to wonder if that isn't really the bigger game at foot, since it means that there's always a ready market for US military materiel and personnel, meaning that their Defense budget is always kept higher than any other, and ensures that the US remains, militarily, anyway, the world superpower. Thus, it can do what it likes when it likes, etc., etc. to ensure the supply of oil which it craves to support its bloated lifestyle. Of course it needn't sign up to Kyoto and cut down on its fossil fuel consumption as long as it can continue to invest in keeping 'the war on terrorism' alive, invade, destroy, and bomb into submission by its proxy poodle - Israel - or by direct action (Iraq - on the basis of 1,000 lies), and keep its supply lines open. And as cheaply as possible, please, while the rest of Europe and especially the passive UK pays through the nose.
In fact, there's a slight chance that with a rational being in the White House (I realize that's a very slight chance) whose agenda is not entirely self-serving in terms of directing campaigns which will serve to create more millions in personal wealth for himself and his cohorts in government, the terrorism will reduce. Especially if we would ever see an American president unafraid of being assassinated by Mossad if he were to put pressure on Israel to back off its aggression and contribute to the reduction in Islamic terrorist activity.
As it is, America continues to assist the perpetuity of Al-Queda and its offshoots by supporting everything that Israel does, including its illegal and immoral actions. You have to then start to wonder if that isn't really the bigger game at foot, since it means that there's always a ready market for US military materiel and personnel, meaning that their Defense budget is always kept higher than any other, and ensures that the US remains, militarily, anyway, the world superpower. Thus, it can do what it likes when it likes, etc., etc. to ensure the supply of oil which it craves to support its bloated lifestyle. Of course it needn't sign up to Kyoto and cut down on its fossil fuel consumption as long as it can continue to invest in keeping 'the war on terrorism' alive, invade, destroy, and bomb into submission by its proxy poodle - Israel - or by direct action (Iraq - on the basis of 1,000 lies), and keep its supply lines open. And as cheaply as possible, please, while the rest of Europe and especially the passive UK pays through the nose.
prince regent
Conditional
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 589
thats it kri
blame the victims
oscar bin laden is innocent ok
even though his orrible
and he aint what youd call a lady
god save oscar and his fascist regime
he makes you a moran
a suicide bomber
a potential h bomb
but millions upon millions of english know that mf was the better
even oscar bin laden knows this hs painted his koran in mf's racing colours :lol:
blame the victims
oscar bin laden is innocent ok
even though his orrible
and he aint what youd call a lady
god save oscar and his fascist regime
he makes you a moran
a suicide bomber
a potential h bomb
but millions upon millions of english know that mf was the better
even oscar bin laden knows this hs painted his koran in mf's racing colours :lol:
I think this is entirely possible, and dovetails with a few things I was told back in '97.
The other thing I wouldn't under estimate is that UBL acts as a very convenient cloak to bring through a whole raft of legislation such as the patriot act, ID cards, and selected extended surveilence powers. Western governments have wanted to do this for years but feared the electoral consequences, now they can invoke this shadowy figure who 'can hurt you' from no where as a reason for scarring us into accepting it. America most definately isn't the land of free, and selling this concept of Freedom, represents one of the biggest confidence tricks in the post world era. My God they've even attached the label to fries, the replacement for the WTC etc
You only need to try and enter the country to know how tightly monitored they are, (I've encountered less difficulty getting into communist countries) they even require you register in the international transit lounge which I can't recall having had to do any where else. My telephone calls were routinely listenend to when I was last there too, as they use key word recognition software, which requires you to try and talk through oblique references
All of which begs the question of does UBL exist?
I remember posing this question to an Amercian friend of mine, who of course said yes. How do you know I said?
"I've seen him on telly"
"No you haven't." I pointed out.
"You've seen a man with a beard firing an AK47 who you are told is UBL"
If he does exist (for what its worth I believe he does) then who is he? The corproate connections between the Bin Liners and the Bush's are well documented. There's certainly been 2 accounts reported and attributed to Amercian soldiers who reckon that they've had him holed up twice, and were prevented from going after him. Indeed, their accounts said the Americans helicoptered him out for fear that someone might 'take him out' - (for dinner probably). They've certainly had opportunities to get him in the past, and for what ever reason don't seem to have prosecuted them. The soldiers who made these claims incidentally died shortly after in mysetrious circumstances (shades of what's become known as the 'Clinton body count') if anyones interested in that particular statistical quirk which is increasingly denying the laws of averages. Certainly it suits the arms industry, and intelligence agencies to keep him alive, and also the threat he poses upper most in our minds and sub-concsious
Perhaps you'd care to read the PNAC Suny. This isn't a conspiracy theory, its a body of work that was produced by way of a very right wing and ruthless think tank. Clinton dismissed it, and so its authors set about finding someone they could manipulate and run for President to adopt it. Guess who they identified. You should find it on the internet. If not, put in 'Project for the New American Century'. You might care to look at some of the authors names. I think you'll find a few familiar ones. Their corporate backers are even more shadowy, but as insight its frightening