Where else but on ps.com can one find such an intellectually stimulating debate intertwined with good zingers? Richard and Warrior-Mentor argue their respective points better than most lawyers I know.

I'm on top...riding this beast. You won't know I'm there until I have to take a leak. :p

Delighted, they all returned to the city. After each one had gone back to his quarter, the people asked: "Did see the elephant?"

Each one answered yes.

They asked: "What does he look like? What kind of shape has he?"

Then the first man in the first quarter replied: "The elephant looks like a shield."

And the second man in the second quarter: "The elephant looks like a club."

The third man in the third quarter: "The elephant looks like a pillar."

And the fourth man in fourth quarter: "The elephant looks like a seat."

And inhabitants of each quarter formed their opinion in accord; with what they had heard.

13th Century CE Persian mystic and philosopher `Aziz ibn-Muhammad-I Nasafi in the context of criticism of exoteric theologians who, according to Nasafi, grasp only a part of the object of their study and claim this part represents the whole.

I'd stock up on those Depends. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

I've seen what's casting the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave.

I'm trying to get you to stop staring at the wall - to turn around and see what's casting the shadows...

http://caveofplato.com/wp-content/up...scave-copy.jpg

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html

Doesn't such resolute conviction support Plato's theses regarding the Cave's allegorical arguments of man's illusory limitations of reality as he - man - sees it? :confused:

Perhaps we need to move back into that allegorical cave and look at those shadows once again - Rorschach-like, they may not be quite what some of us think they are. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

...back on track...
 

You hijacked the thread when you knew that you'd been beat.


This has been an interesting digression, but would really like you to get a copy of Reliance of the Traveller, or any other accredited source of islamic jurisprudence

(The Distinguished Jurist's Primer Volume I?)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/185...P85GNRBVDBJ4V1

...and let's go. Show me it doesn't say what I'm telling you.

Have you read "The Al Qaeda Reader"?

Hijack? Beat? Digress? :confused:

Obviously, my experiences, thoughts, and expectations regarding what has been, what is, and what may be in regards to scripture and humans - where words do not always pragmatically equate to deeds - are much different than that of some others.

In our country are evangelists and zealots of many different political, economic and religious persuasions whose fanatical conviction is that all thought is divinely classified into two kinds - that which is their own and that which is false and dangerous.

- Robert H. Jackson

And so it goes...

Richard

We are having two different conversations.

You are stating your opinion- to which you are entitled.

I am footnoting FACTS.*

You are entitled to your own opinion.

You are not entitled to your own facts.




_____________
*See fact
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact
  /fækt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fakt]
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.
—Idioms
6. after the fact, Law. after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact.
7. before the fact, Law. prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact.
8. in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived.

Upon review, the 'facts' misrepresent the assertions.

Fight for your opinions, but do not believe they contain the whole truth, or the only truth.

- Charles A. Dana

However - YMMV.
__
BT

Richard

Without data, you're just another guy with an opinion.

Such zeal and focus of purpose is admirable - however - the adamant unwillingness to consider any possibility other than what someone has decided to believe without ever considering that it may not be as certain as they so stridently proclaim - especially when the theological historical record shows otherwise - brings to mind the words of Lord Chesterfield: "In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool."

Enjoy the search as much as I do - for there is far for us to go.

Richard

Richard makes sense
 

Warrior-Mentor,

I’ll read the suggested books when they arrive. In the interim I accept your assessment of the facts contained therein to be an accurate description of the structures, laws, and punishments set forth in the Islamic books.

Even so, look at the universal nature of human beings, and the historic evolutions of religions. Human beings all have basic needs for survival; they also have wants which I don’t believe can be fully suppressed by adhering to culture. Culture is formidable; the Judeo/Christian West has a hard time understanding the Kamikaze pilots or suicide bombers. Western soldiers may find surrender extremely distasteful, but it isn’t morally reprehensible to the culture once certain conditions are met. If it was there would be a consistent ongoing shortage of Frenchmen. The Bushido code and Jihad however have markedly opposite concepts of the value of a life, and what constitutes acceptable conduct for soldiers. The human nature element however doesn’t change. Soldiers throughout history knowing they would soon face death have sought comfort in alcohol and the arms of women. I don’t consider the 9/11 suicide pilots to be soldiers, they were murderers of innocent civilians, but the tip of the spear for their cause. Can you show me a more motivated Muslim? A good Muslim is not supposed to drink or engage in immoral acts, so why would these highly motivated zealots on the “eve of their martyrdom” knowingly booze it up at strip clubs like many a man knowing his death was imminent? Why pollute yourself with these Devilish Western excesses? Given the rigid bylaws of Islam, arguing extenuating circumstances, interpretations etc, is a slippery slope if this religion is singularly unlike all the others, even if it was will the human followers always blindly adhere? So why wouldn’t Islamic women given exposure to the kind of life Western freedoms provide give in to these wants at the expense of Radical Islam?

Religions have evolved with time as well. Islam is about 1400 years old. Christianity at that age had markedly different characteristics and tolerances as well. The Spanish Inquisition, heretics, burning people at the stake for witchcraft, suppressing art, all of this happened. So while I concede the written laws to be as you describe, I still believe if we play our cards right the human followers of Islam will opt for a better life.

Finally, as an example of there often being more to the whole truth than just the facts I humbly offer up the example of Deion Sanders. Yes Deion Sanders. Growing up a Cowboy’s fan in TX I maintained Sanders was the dominant cornerback of his generation. A statistics minded friend asked me what’s the job of a cornerback. I replied, cover receivers, intercept passes, and help tackling ball carriers. She said so I assume he has the most tackles and interceptions for his position? Actually he rarely tackles, and never once led the league in interceptions. She said his numbers don’t support your argument. Taken alone that is valid, but 9 Pro Bowls and 2 Super Bowls do, and the reason he had so few interceptions was opposing QB’s figured out quickly it was too risky to throw to his entire half of the field, he was too dangerous with the ball in his hands, that rare level of respect signifies dominance and explains the stat deficit. Facts while very important are not the whole truth.

Thank You,
AKV

Taking bets
 

I'm taking bets here.

What will come first.

That Little Mermaid in Copenhagen has to wear a burka full time (or is destroyed) or a Christian Church is build in Saudi Arabia with the full blessing of the House of Saud.

Any takers?

I don't purport to know what muslims think (any of them). I'm telling you what their LAWs say. When compared against the actions of their most devoted followers (those willing to kill other human beings and themselves in the process) and the speeches of their leaders eventually you notice a pattern.

Read the al qaeda reader when you get it. Lights will come on.

The threat is real. It is made more immediate by refusing to acknowlege the enemy. For those who insist on denying the goals of the Islamist Jihad (taken from the prophet's own words and expounded upon by centuries of his followers), I wish you the just rewards of your dhimmitude. I for one am not willing to surrender to a religion that seeks to incorporate the entire world into "Dar al Islam" with Kill, Convert, or Enslave the required fate of non-Muslims. If it continues the way Europe looks to be going your daughters will wear head scarves, your granddaughters will wear burkas, and your great-granddaughters will be sold in the market to pay the jizyah. It brings to mind a quote from our first struggles for independance:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen! Samuel Adams