To Noah: the 'avidya' of the snake and the rope

1)I am not sure if the analogy exactly fits, but

2)"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."

3)Do the meek inherit it? This 'mandate' was disproved abundantly during the occupation of the Americas and other colonies.

4)"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5)Jesus did not come to destroy the OT laws. The OT laws are no better than Islamic laws. How many Christians swear by them now?

Let us go through this again.

You say indeed mandated (= and authoritative command or order) by their religion to lie. Even what you have quoted from Gazzali does not sound like a mandate but only talks about permissibility (something that is allowed).

And if you have read some of my posts to Susan I am a confessed masochist (I must be, to take some of the 'thrashings' you have been meting out to me). So let me explain in detail what I intended in stating 1 to 5.

1)When Jesus told Christians to show the other cheek it sounds more like a mandate than what Gazzali has stated. But how many Christians do you think would follow this mandate?

2) & 3)The mystical meaning of the 'meek inheriting the earth' I admit I was not aware. I took it more in its literal sense, so Christian nations who went about conquering other people did not follow this mandate of the Bible. Does it now sound topical? What I am trying to show is that people of all faiths pick and choose what they want to follow of their religion. The Christians did not believe that the meek shall inherit the earth. So even if it is mandated (show me in the Koran or Hadith where it is MANDATED, not just permitted) no parent will tell his children to go out and lie to infidels.

4) &5) I am not a Bible scholar but from what little I know of it I am not aware of any place where Jesus says he has come to supercede the OT instead he is clearly stating that he has not come to destroy the OT laws. It seems to be your claim just as it is your unilateral claim that Muslims are MANDATED to lie to infidels. In fact, unless there is some mystical meaning, when Jesus says he has not come to destroy the law, in my book at least, it would also mean he has not come to supercede it, as if you supercede a law it would mean also its destruction. It can no longer be in the books. The law is ipso facto dead. Have I wasted my breath?

No one except Jesus according to you! How bizarre!

Noah, go back to any post of mine and show me anywhere I have disagreed with you that Islam as a religion is a violent, aggressive and cause of misery wherever it is found. You are crowing for no reason. My disagreement is only on the basis that because Islam is all you claim to be, practically all Muslims are also violent, aggressive and bent on jihad.

All you say above is premised on your statement that Muslims are MANDATED to lie. You are welcome your BELIEF.

Okay I have made a lot of concessions. But what about you with a whole lot of assumptions about knowing how Muslims think, how they define things and claiming they are MANDATED to lie to infidels? University dons, sociologists and psyschologists with plenty of IQ and good science have been at it for some time and I have yet to come across any agreement on how exactly all Muslims think and define things. But you seem to have bettered all of them and reached a very definitive conclusion. Congratulations.

The Upanishads on maya (positive) or sometimes avidya ( its negative aspect):

As the Isha Upanishad (15) tells us: The veil that covers the truth is golden. It so dazzles and is so gaudy that it takes the mind of the observer away from the inner contents. (the dazzle of 9/11, suicide bombings etc. Well of course I am sort of extrapolating. The truth referred to here is the ineffable Self, Brhaman)

The Katha Upanishad (II, 5):

Self-wise, puffed up with learning, some

Turn round and round (imprisoned) in unwisdom's realm (avidya);

Hither and thither rushing, round they go, the fools,

Like blind men guided by the blind!

This is what I wrote: "Since you are a Vedantist let us bring in the concept of 'maya', illusion. 90% of terrorism world wide is Muslim inspired so jumping to the conclusion all Muslims are terrorists certainly has the hallmark of maya to me. The reality of Islamic terrorism gives you the illusion that all Muslims are terrorists."

Now the most often quoted example of maya is that of a rope viewed in darkness creating the illusion that it is a snake. When light falls on it the illusion disappears and the true nature of the rope presents itself to the viewer.

You are seeing 90% of all terrorism being the handiwork of Muslims. You do not see the Muslims, the very large majority, hidden from you who are not terrorists. They are barely visible because they do not speak, demonstrate or go on bombing missions. You need the right kind of torch to see them as the harmless ropes they are instead of the snakes you think them to be in the dim light of polls, demonstrations and some personal experiences with reptiles.

Your 'verifiable truth' comes from polls you believe in and the dazzle of the jihadis. Re: Isha and Katha Upanishads.

Mohammed says he is the last apostle of Allah. What is the proof. It says so in the Koran! What is the proof that Muslims are even more violent than the polls show? I, Noah, have repeatedly stated so.

Except possibly for the exact sciences not even the dismal science, economics, is able to extrapolate the most likely outcome despite huge data bases available for the past and present. And you find it simple to predict human behaviour. You should be able to put psychologists, sociologists and assorted other ologists out of business.

That Islam is a threat is a given. How to deal with it is what the debate is about. They way you wish to deal with it you will end up becoming what you want destroyed.

When tongue-in-cheek I suggested a solution (the virus) you shot it down as far-fetched, though it turns out it is not so far-fetched after all. The other suggestions had you spurting iced tea from all your orifices. As to Islam committing another mass terror attack (even by a home-grown Islamic unit) resulting in MOABing and neutron bombing of the world of Islam it will be a war crime to end all war crimes. The Nazis perfected that. 'Sanitize' a whole city block or village for an attack by a few individuals. And all power to you for executing your standard procedure of deporting and isolating 2 million (or is it 1.2 billion)?

We will never know if the good side wins because the victor always gets to write the history. All the ghazwas of the Prophet were for righteous reasons we are told!

The Arizona rally is getting to be a cause celebre with you. Because of that rally 1,200,000,000 minus 30 = 1,199,999,970 are the number of terrorist Muslims in the world. Your math prove that?

My calculator tells me 1,999,700 were not at the rally. It does not tell me anything further. Perhaps your your special calculator tells you there are 1,999,700 terrorists just waiting to set off suitcase n-bombs?

Did you see the millions that did not celebrate? You saw only the snake not the rope. We need a light here.

I see the rope you the snake.