Plato and Mansoor

Submitted by B. K. Nambiar, Middle East (United Arab Emirates), Mar 5, 2008 at 05:34

I found that the more Plato attacks, the more Mansoor is not agreeing to any of Plato's points and vice versa. Criticism makes anyone more defensive. Mansoor is saying what he genuinely believes and Plato says what he believes. A deer cannot argue with very valid rason (to live and let live) to a tiger jumping on it for eating because tiger's purpose of existence depends on deers or the like. Likewise Mansoor believes Islam will truly save the world - and doesnt want change his opinion.

People believe in religions because they want to believe in that way only. Open minded dialogue is not there on both sides. Plato is trying to put 21st century values to those actions of past centuries when it was perfectly acceptable to all people, and Mansoor 100% believes those actions are perfect and to be followed until the end of solar system.

If Plato has no remorse for eating beef steak or a tomato (both were the creations of God/nature with their own purpose - not to go to the mouth of Plato) can we have the right to challenge other's purpose of life? So I suggest either Plato go centuries back or Mansoor come forward a little - and try to agree atleast some points on both sides. Meanwhile I congratulate Plato on his bold attempt to study other scriptures in its originals.

B.K. Nambiar, Middle East

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".