|
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Jun 2003
Messaggi: 557
|
Quote:
|
Originariamente inviato da dupa
Non è consentito dal regolamento postare quel documento, tempo fa postai il testo con evidenziati alcuni punti che mi sembravano interessanti ma il thread venne chiuso e cancellato in quanto considerato di "propaganda politica", comunque del PDF http://www.leganord.org/documentipol..._Borghezio.pdf che ho linkato ti consiglio di leggere almeno pagina 8 dove si tirano un po' di conclusioni, se poi avrai tempo o voglia, anche leggere l'intero documento è questione di 5 minuti.
Ciao |
Ciao, ho letto l'ottava e settima pagina (ed anche certe parti di qualche altra pagina)  interessante il fatto che parla di aiutare a sviluppare le industrie primarie e secondarie dei paesi soto sviluppati dell' Africa. Pero' sappiamo tutti che questo e' un problema complesso, perche' gli stati occidentali profittano in senso economico dalle economie disastrate di questi paesi africani. Due punti che mi vengono in mente sono 1) il fatto che aiutandoli aumenterebbe e di molto la competizione verso le nostre stesse industrie 2) il ritorno economico di certi investimenti fatte dalle compagnie multinazionali verrebbe diminuito. Questo non tenendo in conto della indubbia non moralita' di questo sfruttamento dalla parte dei paesi piu' ricchi.
Il suo discorso mi sembra un po' troppo da buonista pero', ovvero da falso moralista
Non capisco perche' dice che gli islamici non sono integrabili (nell' inizio della quinta pagina dice proprio questo)? Eppure nella compagnia con cui esco in inghilterra abbiamo due islamici, e mi sembrano (non sembrano, SONO) integrati (uno mi e' persino sembrato italiano meridionale e non affatto pakistano), eccetto che sono astemi perche' la loro religione vieta l'alcol. Il mio migliore amico e' turco e musulmano anche se non lo si direbbe (perche' se ne strafotte della sua religione, e non sembra musulmano perche' anche io ho dei preconcetti erronei su come dovrebbe essere una qualunque persona musulmana, erronei perche' quando il musulmano, specie se ragazzo, e' integrato non lo si puo' piu' distinguere dalle altre persone tranne per certi comportamenti come per esempio il fatto che non mangiano maiale (anche se il mio migliore amico va matto per il maiale e birra, ma questo e' un altro discorso  ))
Queste sono le mie primissime impressioni, dopo leggero' il documento con piu' calma I miei pensieri su Borghezio non si discostano comunque.
Quote:
|
Originariamente inviato da Proteus
P.S. Se tu sapessi come definiscono noi gli islamici ti scandalizzaresti allo stesso modo ?, guarda che non è un complimento la definizione "kafir" di cui ci gratificano pur senza manifestarlo. Persino sul Corano, io ne posseggo una copia, vengono riportate raccomandazioni ad hoc come quella di tenersi mansueti fino a quando sia opportuno per poi sorgere e sottomettere, con la forza ndr, i kafir e forse non sei al corrente delle sure che incitano ad uccidere gli infedeli tendendo loro agguati. Io non ho mai sentito di politici italiani che abbiano incitato all'uccidere un islamico, piuttosto ho udito, in turchia riferitami da turchi, la frase "con le vostre leggi liberiste vi conquisteremo e con le nostre vi domineremo" pronunciato ad un convegno interreligioso dai rappresentanti islamici al vescovo di Smirne, l'attuale Izmir.
|
Proteus, parli molto del sentito dire ma poi esclami sulle "raccomandazioni" di "tenersi mansueti" per poi "sorgere e sottomettere, con forza", e parli persino delle sure che "incitano ad uccidere gli infedeli tenendo loro agguati"? Non e' che hai erroneamente inteso male queste frasi provenienti dal corano?
Voi avete una visione dell' islam asimmetrica, nebbiata, confusa, distorta, per non dire contorta (ironicamente contorta quasi quanto quei fanatici dal nome di Bin Laden et similia) questo perche' non la conoscete, e non vi posso dare torto se alla fine venite influenzati dagli avvenimenti causati da fanatici, perche' in fondo avete timore del diverso, il non noto, e l'islam, la religione che e' sempre stata contropposta alla cristianita' sin dai tempi medievali con le crociate dalla parte dei saccenti emissari cristiani, vi incute timore.
Ora ti allego un articolo scritto da un sito web pro islam. E' in inglese, ma se volete davvero informarvi su questa religione troverete nella maggior parte dei casi articoli informativi scritti in inglese e le altre lingue tranne quella italiana.
Quote:
Over the last few months, neoconservatives and Christian leaders have banded together in an attempt to mar the value systems defined by Islamic ideology and to present Islam to America as a violent, bloodthirsty religion that demands the subversion of the world, or its death. Islam has been decried by many a pastor and priest as a “religion of hate” and a “culture of intolerance.” Neoconservatives claim that Islamic ideology is so foreign and fundamentally different from Western ideology that overlap or mutual understanding is impossible. After all, they reason, how can America come to terms with a society that sends its children to die in the name of God, or a faith that demands its adherent to kill all infidels if they refuse to covert to Islam?
When I first heard these comments, I laughed. I laughed at the sheer stupidity of the people that would suggest such patently false ideas. I laughed at what I thought were their pathetic attempts to wage a propaganda and misinformation war against Muslims in America in an attempt to vilify and marginalize them. After all, what kind of dupe would believe the ridiculous lies they were spreading? Anyone could pick up a book or talk to a Muslim and find out the truth.
Well, I am not laughing anymore.
A lot of thought has gone into planning the war for America’s opinion. The misinformation war that the neoconservatives and Christian right have launched is from two fronts. First, Christian leaders take specific quotes out of the Qu’ran (or Koran), the Muslim holy book, in an attempt to depict Islam as a fundamentally violent faith, as defined by its basic ideology. They are particularly interested in presenting the idea of jihad as a call to war, knowing that this is completely false and that Muslims cannot reject jihad, as it is a central theme in Islam. Secondly, the public opinion spin doctors use misunderstood or poorly documented dogmas in Islam and present them as proof that Islam has a carnal and perverted moral code.
As both of these topics are extremely diverse and complex, I will attempt to answer them in two successive columns.
It seems to me that no matter how loudly we protest that Islam is not a religion of violence, conservative Christians are not willing to listen. They point out specific passages in the Qu’ran that demand Muslims to go to war against the infidels, or to kill the unbelievers wherever we should find them. Passage after passage is recited or detailed with exacting patience and precision; passages that deal with war, death, and punishment. Why is Islam so violent? Why does it demand so much bloodshed and death? Why does Allah command that Muslims kill Christians, Jews, and anyone else who does not convert to Islam?
It is thus with great irony that I would ask the same question of the Christian world. Why does the Biblical God demand the death of enemies or the seemingly brutal subjugation of women?
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . . -- Ex. 21:22-25
"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." -- Genesis 3:16
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." --1 Tim. 2:11-14
In fact, it seems to me that the Bible demands the murder of children!
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." --Psalm 137:9
“… slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.” -- I Samuel 15:3
”… dash their children, and rip up their women with child.” -- 2 Kings 8:12
Of course, the intent here is to illustrate that any quote that is taken out of context can be made to fit the crime. It is not difficult to selectively provide quotes that incriminate or condemn. For instance, take a commonly used quote from the Qu’ran that is used as proof that it is violent:
“...slay (enemies] wherever you find them!" -- (4: 89).
This line does look extremely violent. It is difficult to imagine a viable explanation for such a statement. Indeed, can there even be such a justification? Well, let us take a look at the following line:
"Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them.” -- (4: 90).
The idea that this is “proof” that Islam is violent then is preposterous. The second line is crucial to the message of the text; even in times of war, soldiers must observe the laws of compassion and reason as dictated by the Qu’ran. One wonders why pundits like Jerry Falwell and Ann Coulter do not come across these lines in their search for the truth:
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors." – (2:190)
Do not "take life -- which God has made sacred -- except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority" to demand justice for the death or to forgive it. "But let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped [by the Law]." -- Surah 17
One other ideological process neoconservatives have committed themselves to is the attempt to malign the intent of jihad. Western media have picked up their cry of jihad as “holy war,” which is in fact a western adaptation, reminiscent of crusader mentality used against Muslims during the Church’s holy war against Islam. There is no term for “holy war” in Arabic. The word jihad translates to “struggle.” It refers to the difficult effort that is needed to put God's will into practice at every level: personal and social, as well as political. A very important and much quoted tradition has Muhammad (s.a.w.) telling his companions as they go home after a battle, "We are returning from the lesser jihad [the battle] to the greater jihad,' the far more urgent and momentous task of extirpating wrongdoing from one's own society and one's own heart. Indeed, although jihad can be a struggle to protect the weak or to free the oppressed, a greater jihad is that of one’s own desires; the jihad for spiritual cleanliness and the application of the laws of God into one’s own life. This includes telling the truth, providing for the destitute and the hungry, and the control of carnal desires like gluttony and sleep. Although jihad can be used to defend one’s person, property, or community, it is not some rallying call to arms in an attempt to advocate violence as a way of life or to suggest that all infidels should be put to the sword.
It is clear then that the use of selective quotes out of the Qu’ran is merely an attempt at the legitimization of the false claim that Islam is violent. Indeed, by the examples referenced above, it is unmistakable that neoconservatives are relying on misinformation and lies to propagate their vicious slander. Their attempt to vilify jihad is similar in its intent, if not its process. What could be more in sync with American ideals of honor, self-sacrifice, and courage in the face of adversity? Jihad is not an Islamic invention; it is a global definition of valor and a demand for personal excellence.
It is all the more wretched that these lies are told by men and women that claim to represent the leadership of their faith. If this is what Christianity is, then I am glad that I am Muslim. Now it is time to determine if these leaders represent the exception or the rule. Do these leaders espouse what is commonly believed by the practitioners of their faith, representative of a majority of Christians that would like to see pluralism and interfaith communication perish? Or are these pundits on the leading edge of extremism, delegates of the few fanatics that Christianity generally rejects? From what I see in the media, I am fearful that it is the former.
|
Ripeto, se non siete in grado di leggere questo articolo, o non volete neanche provare, allora dibattere con voi sara' inutile, perche' vi limiterete ad argomenti gia' dibattuti. Quindi leggete questo articolo, cercate di capire cosa stia cercando di dire, decidete se e' il caso di cambiare o mantenere la vostra linea di pensiero, e quindi informatevi nel modo che potiate argomentare piu' efficacemente, se lo deciderete.
Allego una conclusione da un altro articolo, sempre nello stesso sito:
Quote:
|
After the examination of these issues, it becomes very clear what the intent of neoconservatives is with respect to their claims of Islam’s perverted moral code. Neoconservatives have taken values and poorly documented philosophies and twisted them to conform to their propaganda war. These neoconservatives take Christian values and attempt to apply them to Islam, which is an exercise in futility. Islam does not believe in “turn thy cheek,” nor does it have the view that Man was born into sin. Personal decisions and personal integrity determine Man’s ultimate fate, rather than the belief that a “God” died on a cross and in doing so “saved” humanity, irrespective of what sins a man may commit. In Christianity, a sin in thought is the same as a sin in deed; in Islam, no one tells you what you must think. Only your actions are judged, and those actions are judged against your intellectual capacity, your intentions, and your desire for redemption attained through prayer. Islam is not just a moral religion; it is a religion that demands personal integrity, altruism, and moral clarity. It does not offer a blanket guarantee of salvation to its adherents; rather, it asserts that only personal integrity and regret for misdeeds will help the individual find deliverance. To suggest that Islam is morally ambiguous or perverse in nature is not only fundamentally incorrect, it is patently irresponsible.
|
Non credo che io debba ripetere di leggere il quote attentamente vero?
Aspe, vi allego di nuovo un altro quote, questa volta un altra conclusione presa da un altro articolo che parla della divisione razziale all' interno degli stati uniti:
Quote:
The racial divide is one of the fundamental facts about the country, as inescapable as parking tickets. If you drive around any major cosmopolitan city in the United States, you will see a wide variety of churches. You will see a First Baptist Chinese Church, or a Church of the Nazarene for Hispanics. You will find churches for blacks, for whites, for Taiwanese, and for every other minority that exists in this country. Some churches will have two sermons – one in English and one in Spanish. You will find the racial divide present in every facet of America’s Christian community. It is as much a part of America as apple pie.
It is thus interesting to note that there are no black Muslims (other than the black Muslims made by the media today.) or black mosques. There are no Pakistani mosques. There are no Arab mosques. Nor will you ever find a Hispanic mosque or a Chinese mosque. Instead, you will find a community mosque, where everyone is expected to understand English, particularly the Imam leading the sermon. You may find literature in many languages, but you will always find everyone sitting together. Blacks, whites, Pakistanis, Arabs, Mexicans, Orientals, Native Americans, and everyone else sits together, listens together, and prays together. So perhaps the neoconservative dream of color-blindness across an entire society is not some fantasy – it can happen in America. If you are a Muslim.
|
Interessante no? il fatto che esiste una discriminazione razziale volontaria negli stati occidentali per le chiese e le loro comunita' e' verissimo, spesso in america ed inghilterra si possono vedere delle chiese frequentate solamente dai neri, e cosi' via.
Era forse per questo che Malcom X disse che l'islam era una delle uniche religioni che poteva riunire persone di diverse etnie?  Sapete chi era Malcom X no?
Vi allego l'ultimo quote preso da un articolo che parla del JIHAD e cosa vuole veramente dire:
Quote:
Jihad - the new dirty word of the 21st century. Recently, a Muslim student at Harvard University attempted to title his commencement speech "Of Faith and Citizenship: My American Jihad." His title generated so much controversy and neoconservative backlash that Harvard unilaterally changed the title of his speech. That didn't stop people from calling him a radical, however. It didn't stop them from calling him a terrorist sympathizer, a source of funds for terrorists, and a threat to America for the crime of attempting to relate Islamic ideology with American values. Some four thousand people signed a petition objecting to the speech – days before a single word of the speech had been made public.
Indeed, the term jihad has now achieved an almost mythic status in the minds of many Americans. It brings to mind images of airplanes crashing into buildings, or suicide bombers destroying a pizza parlor. We think back to the Middle Ages, and Muslim armies pouring through Asia, Africa, and Europe, decimating the populations of entire cities, all for the crime of refusing to convert to Islam.
Of course, we may fail to bring to mind images of how Muslims all over the world rejected Osama bin Laden’s version of jihad, and recoiled in horror at 9/11. We may also conveniently forget that four times as many children and three times as many civilians have died on the Palestinian side as opposed to the Israeli side. Finally, we may neglect to remember that the images of Muslim armies pouring into Europe may be true, but the only people who converted were the ones who wanted to; the vast majority of scholars, both Eastern and Western, agree that Islam was spread through assimilation and conversion, rather than, say, exterminating the indigenous population of two continents in an attempt to convert them all to Christianity while raping them of their lands and wealth.
No matter how many times Muslims say it, no one will listen. Jihad does not mean holy war. The term jihad is not English; it is Arabic. Jihad translates into English as “struggle.” It is a word that expresses the Muslim need to struggle against his or her inner desires for the good of community and humanity. The more popular “holy war” is a western adaptation.
Although there is not concurrence among Muslims with respect to the different types of Jihad in Islam, people generally accept that there are at least two types: the Greater Jihad and the Lesser Jihad. Much to the consternation of people like Daniel Pipes, the Greater Jihad is the jihad against one’s self; the struggle between a Muslim and his need to speak the truth, to feed and clothe the poor, and to control desires such as sleeping and eating. The Lesser Jihad is the struggle against aggressors; it is a command to protect the weak, to free the oppressed, and to safeguard the lives and property of one’s community.
Clearly, jihad is one of the most moral and most honorable concepts in Islam. It is the definition of altruism and self-sacrifice; it demands adherence to values and ideals that are endorsed by virtually all moral societies throughout the world. It is difficult to imagine any ideology in Islam more in tune to the spirit or the character of America. Despite the fact that every major Muslim leader, Muslim organization, and Muslim country has categorically rejected the jihad of people like Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, America has embraced the idea of jihad as a path of violence. In fact, many Americans believe that jihad is a holy war against “infidels,” rather than a message of self-control. How has this come about?
Much of the blame can be assigned to the neoconservative movement and their need to provide simplistic differences between Muslims and the rest of the world. Casting jihad as a holy war wins a few propaganda wars for them; it creates clear differentiators for Americans to recognize that separate the Muslim community from the rest of America. After all, Americans are a just and peace-loving people; we are slow to anger, perhaps because of our great strength and our responsibilities to the world. War is a last resort, a task we must commit ourselves to when no other choice is left. In Islam, neoconservatives incorrectly point out, war is institutionalized as a principle element of the religion. Nothing can be as un-American as killing in the name of God.
Some neoconservatives attempt the intellectual approach: the meaning of a word is absolute, based upon its idiomatic usage. Jihad means holy war because that is how Americans use the word. Needless to say, this “intellectual” approach is favored by people best described as “neo-intellectuals.” When Daniel Pipes was asked why his own particular interpretation of the word jihad should be used as the definition, rather than the etymological definition of it, his response was typical; Harvard needed to decide which side it was on in the war on terror.
No matter how “neo” Mr. Pipes’s intellectualism may be, this indicates the direction of the neoconservative strategy with respect to jihad. Once jihad is defined as a war against the infidels in order to convert America by the sword, there will be little need for neoconservatives to do much else in their own holy war against Islam. No Muslim will ever reject jihad; after all, it is one of the guiding principles of Islam. At the same time, no Muslim will ever agree that jihad is a holy war against infidels. However, if the neoconservatives are successful in their quest to turn the meaning of the word “jihad” into “crusade,” then the Muslim rejection of jihad as holy war will be a moot point at best. The neoconservatives will win by default; if jihad translates to holy war, then there can be no shared values between Americans and the Muslims that live within their midst. Our jihad against a hostile news media, vindictive pundits, and bloodthirsty hate radio has begun; we must help America understand our message of peace, and we must illustrate the values of honor, integrity, and fearlessness in the face of adversity that we both share.
|
Il tutto e' molto interessante, no?
Credo comunque che questo thread non sia il piu' adatto dove dibattere sull' islam, quindi sarebbe magari opportuno creare un nuovo thread 
P.S. (evviva coi ps, Proteus sto imparando da te  ) La Turchia come ben sai e' uno stato laico e secolare, e quindi mi sembra quasi ossimoronico che questo islamico che ha pronunciato la famosa frase "con le vostre leggi vi invaderemo, con le nostre vi domineremo" non puo' dire altrettando del paese in cui si trova, ovvero la Turchia, dove il laicismo e' preso molto seriamente unidirezionalmente (cioe', la religione non puo' interferire con la politica ed e' quindi censurata quando opportuno, volendo dire che lo stato interferisce con la religione).
__________________
ngi e phobosphobosphobos
|
26-08-2006, 17:46
.. si sà tutti che c'è la persona per bene, ma lì vige una mentalità diversa, mentalità bigotta, rigida, vissuta con rancore e odio( vedi recente lapidazione a jenin del ragazzo SOSPETTATO) dove la donna è inferiore, dove l'infedele lo si vuole morto(VEDI L'ISLAMICO CONVERTITO E RIFUGIATO IN ITALIA DI CUI VOLEVANO LA TESTA)... non puoi parlare con la nostra mentalità Sehe...
