Christian beaten to death in hospital by Muslim cop
 

<hr>
Christian beaten to death in hospital by Muslim cop
Policeman: 'I have offered my religious duty ... I'm spiritually satisfied'
Posted: May 30, 2004, 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


Samuel Masih was buried in Lahore, Pakistan, yesterday following injuries he received from a Muslim policeman who beat the 27-year-old Christian with a hammer as he lay in his hospital bed recovering from a bout of tuberculosis.

Masih had been in jail since Aug. 23, 2003, awaiting trial on charges of blasphemy under Pakistan's strict "Law 295" – which forbids desecrating the Quran and "defiling" the name of Islam's prophet, Muhammad. On the day of his arrest, Masih was collecting garden rubbish, which he heaped temporarily against the wall of a mosque in Lahore's Lawrence Gardens section while collecting more that he planned to burn later. This action brought the blasphemy charge, which carries a maximum two-year prison sentence.

He had been held in the Lahore Central Jail for nine months when he had a severe tuberculosis attack and was transferred to a local hospital. According to reports in the Lahore Daily Times, the constable assigned to guard the prisoner's room at the hospital, Officer Faryad Ali, savagely beat Masih with a hammer used for cutting bricks after learning he had been accused of strewing garbage near the mosque's walls.

Faryad Ali, who has been jailed and charged with murder, reportedly told investigators it was his religious duty as a Muslim to kill the Christian man. According to Voice of the Martyrs, he is reported to have said, "I have offered my religious duty for killing the man. I'm spiritually satisfied and ready to face the consequences."

"This is another example of the danger our brothers and sisters in Pakistan face every day," said Todd Nettleton, VOM spokesman.

Baboo Emmanuel, Masih's father, told the Daily Times he did not know his son was in jail until approximately four months ago. A whitewasher by trade, Masih was frequently away for extended periods while working. But even when informed of his incarceration for blasphemy, the family did not pursue the case because of fear of the police. No one defended him on the charge.

"Poverty, society’s pressure and the lawless wild police system prevented me from following my son's case, Masih's father told the Daily Times.

The Christian minority's fear of the police and Pakistan's blasphemy laws were themes echoed by Lahore Archbishop Lawrence J. Saldanha who led the procession of 500 mourners at Masih's funeral.

"Sections 295 B and C and Section 298 A, B and C of the PPC are vague and can be interpreted in ways that cause suffering and death and devastating pain to society," Saldanha said. "The existence of these laws gives rise to injustices. It is usually the poor and weak who are the victims."

Masih's father, emboldened by the support of several human-rights non-governmental organizations and media publicity, is asking the government to investigate the basis for the blasphemy charge against his son. No one in his senses would attempt blasphemy, he insisted to the Daily Times. "Particularly a person who belongs to a minority would never dare to do so because of the extreme sentence provided in the law," he said. Emanuel believes his son became a victim because he belonged to a minority.

According to human rights groups, Pakistan's blasphemy law is much abused and frequently used to settle personal grudges. Where convictions are made, most are overturned on appeal. However, Reuters notes that several Christians and Muslims accused of blasphemy have been killed by "religious fanatics" while in prison or police custody.

"This is a brutal act of terrorism committed by the police constable and a clear misuse of blasphemy law," said Shahbaz Bhatti, president of the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance. "This is the time that government should abolish blasphemy law."

President Pervez Musharraf has called for a review of Pakistan's system of strict Islamic law, including the laws against blasphemy introduced in the 1970s during the regime of military dictator Gen. Zia-ul-Haq.

At first, the police reportedly refused to let the family take Masih's body to the church for a Christian funeral, insisting they take the corpse home and bury him quickly. The assistant superintendent of police told the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan this was done to avoid any political protests.

"This is an individual’s case against an individual," he said. "We do not want to make it a political issue."

The family was latter permitted to take the body to Sacred Heart Cathedral for the funeral which was peaceful and without incident.
<hr>
LINK

Do you have something to say about the article? It's generally frowned upon to just post something without commentary.

I think the article speaks for itself.

/rant on

fucking religious fanatics piss me off, its your not fucking RELIGIOUS DUTY to end another mans life, its your stupid fucking better-than-thou attitude and selfish need to see the XX number of virgins in paradise for 'killing an infidel'. fuck your stupid muhammed, the dude thought up your religion in a FUCKING CAVE. agghhhh!

/rant off

well that was my ethnically insensitive rant for the week, that actually makes me feel ALOT better now that I have said that.... wow.... if that offends someone, get over it. :icare:

Really? Last I checked Christians (and Jews) have their own versions of fanatics as well.

/sarcasm on

But you must remember, zxello, the man placed a bag a garbage against the wall of a mosque.

/sarcasm off

More accurately: Muslim policeman kills Christian = to Christian prison guard kills Muslim POW = Hindu milkman kills Zoroastrian vegetarian travelling salesman.

Your approach is ridiculous.

Killing is the issue here.

I mean according to Muslims see, Muhammad didn't 'think up' his religion, it was the final and ultimate revelation. It just so happened to occur in a cave, or so we've been told. What's your point, their religion isn't legitimate enough cause Muhammad recieved his revelation in a cave? Moses went up on a mountain alone to get the Torah, Jesus hung out in caves an awful lot.

Admittedly this event is terrible, but it has nothing to do with Islam and a lot to do with that guy being an idiot. Those ultrahardline Christians who shot abortion doctors said the same thing.

Yep, bingo...and those doctor-killing Christians are just as blind as Faryad Ali is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "Thou shalt not kill." one of the Ten Commandments? Just because someone doesn't believe in the same religion as you does NOT give you the right to kill, and one should be ashamed for thinking that.

Well, the guy killed him because he felt it was his religious "duty". I'd say it, along with the other examples of Muslim extremeism, certainly makes it a "religious" issue.

For the most part, most major religions have evolved past the "torture and death" methods in the name of religion. Why has this religion been slower to evolve?

The commandment is "Thou shalt not murder." There's a difference between killing and murdering.

Wasn't timothy mcveigh a christian? Why has christianity been so slow to evolve?

I think all I religions lend themselves to fanatics. It'll be a happy day when I see religion phased out of politics....either that or humans exterminate themselves. There was a woman in TX who murdered her 3 children with rocks because "god told her to"...crazy bitch, I dont know how you can deny the death penalty to someone like that...

Guess what, every religion has its fanatical members who use the religion as a shield to perform horrible acts. This article is simply more anti-Muslim propaganda pumped-out by a pro-neocon mouthpiece. I really wish the "Religious Right" would read this and learn what happens when government gets entangled with religion. Our founding fathers had enough sense to separate the two, I wish that current politicians and citizens both would learn from past and current examples.

In regards to topic murder is murder, no matter who does it. And what many seem to forget is that there are fanatics in all religions. Christians have theirs, (there are some that bomb abortion clinics, the KKK is loaded with supposed Christians, as are the Neo-Nazi Aryans.)

One of the ways most every organized religion keeps it's power is to say that that particular religion is the "only true religion of God". By that alone it inspires a certain percentage of fanaticism of the religion and hatred towards other religions. Hatred and fanaticism combined almost always leads to violence. So this headline could have read Jew kills Christin, Hindu Kills Maoist, whatever. But by having it the way it does read, it inspires more hatred and fanaticism and fuels those who believe this terrorism and war basically come down to religion. (Which the terrorism and war truly have nothing to do with religion.)


Every Bible I've ever read, the 6th Commandment says "Thou shalt not kill", it doesn't say "thou shalt not murder".

One could say the Bible meant murder, BUT, you state killing and murder are different so, if that is the case, one cannot substitue murder for kill in the Bible.

"The individual commandments 6 to 10:


6th Commandment; Verse 13: "Thou shalt not kill."


The Hebrew word "ratsach" is translated as "kill" in the King James Version, Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, and some other translations of the Bible. However, it is difficult to apply this in practice. Killing chickens and beef cattle is legal now as it was in biblical times. Nobody today is concerned about pulling vegetables from the garden, even though it kills them. The word "ratsach" is commonly believed to describe the premeditated killing of a human. It requires that the victim be a human being. Many translations translate "ratsach" as "murder" in this verse.


This Commandment is not absolute. Not all murders are forbidden. Hebrew Scriptures specify many grounds for which this commandment is to be ignored, and a guilty party executed. Persons found guilty of temple prostitution, engaged women who are seduced by a man other than her future husband, women who practice black magic, some women who are raped in urban areas, children who cursed their parents, some non-virgin brides, Jews who collect firewood on Saturday to keep their families from freezing, persons proselytizing in favor of another religion, persons worshiping a deity other than Yahweh, strangers who entered the temple, etc; all were to be executed.


A few centuries ago, it was believed that male sperm contained large numbers of tiny babies which only required a woman's womb to grow and be born. Under that belief system, masturbation could be considered an act of mass murder. We now know that pregnancy requires conception, and that a unique DNA is formed at that time. But society has never reached a consensus on the definition of when human personhood begins. Unfortunately, the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Bible give us no guidance on this matter. Thus, it does not help us decide about when, if ever, abortions are acceptable. If the Bible had defined when the start of personhood occurs, there might not be so much conflict over abortion today.


There are tens of thousands of violations of this commandment yearly in North America. Most are done by criminals who shoot people. A few dozen murders are committed by civil servants, who are employed by the state to kill inmates on death row with premeditation. Soldiers are often called upon to murder other humans, sometimes in self-defense, and other times in order to achieve a military objective. There are other biblical passages and a great deal of theological reasoning which have provided justification for the latter two actions.


Joshua and his army violated this commandment on numerous occasional as they marched through Canaan, apparently with God's approval. They were often ordered by God to commit genocide by killing every Pagan man, woman, youth, child, and newborn who lived in various cities of Canaan.


Some pacifist Christians take this commandment very seriously. They will not violate this commandment, even during times of war. Quakers, Mennonites and others are frequently able to volunteer for alternate service during wartime in order to conform to this commandment.


Historically, many Christian groups interpreted the Commandment as if it read "Thou shalt not murder people inside your group." The Christian Church has committed genocide many times in its history, exterminating such groups as the Cathars and Knights Templar. Starting in the late 15th century and continuing for 300 years, both Protestants and Roman Catholics rounded up heretics and suspected Satan worshipers; the church executed many tens of thousands of them -- often by burning them alive. The Crusades against the Muslims are another indication of the misuse of this Commandment. In recent times, Serbian Orthodox Christians organized a major religiously-motivated genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina, largely against Muslims.


The Westminster Larger Catechism extends this commandment to include the "immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling," etc. It is not clear how they expanded the meaning of this verse to such an extreme."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm

These seemed to be the best answer that wasn't pandering to one agenda or another (abortion, death penalty, ect). The majority of my googling did say that word is actually "murder" not kill and that the KJV bonked on this one.

Stupid people doin stupid stuff...I wonder if there's a way to pick them out, and round them all up into a big pit of mud.

I'm still having difficulty getting past the whole "killed by a hammer" thing.

the shame about this is that it becomes an easy thing to use for making up generalizations about religions. it could have been two white guys in new jersey and one MIGHT have been muslim, but that wouldn't have been bought up. sigh.

I don't give a shit what religion you are, if you use your religion as an excuse to kill someone, then your a dumbass religious fanatic. I personally, am agnostic, so I actually think this gives me a little bit of a 3rd person point of view on this, because my 'religion' doesn't affect why I dislike religious fanatics.....

oh, and note : the ten commandments apply to christian / catholic / jew, not muslim / islamic =P

it wouldn't have been brought up in this situation either had it not been the fact that Faryad publicly declared that he killed the man because he was christian.

The whole "but christians are bad too" argument doesn't hold so much water with me nowadays. I've studied them quite a bit this past quarter in college and muslims have a high enough oddness percentage that makes me naturally suspicious of them now.

So I'm going to stick with an otherwise uncool blanket generalization and continue to think their culture is fucked up and wierd.

Another example of people killing each other over who has the best imaginary friend.

to use your logic: there are way more black in jail than whites so i'm going to just assume from here on out that all african americans are violent criminals.

pre-judging 1.3 billion people (the estimated nubmer of islams in the world http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) based on what the US media chooses to report about the actions of a few is immature and ignorant.

and it would be nice if the media ignored it. any motive is the same, it's a murder.

well, is it not a fact that in SOME areas, certain races and in the case of this murder, certain religions ARE more violent than others and deserve a blanket generalization? (just a thought, not my actual opinion)

World Net Daily is about as biased as you can get. Their far-right Christian fundamentalist slant is helped by obscure stories like this that, when sensationalized, fuel the bigotry that they promote and cherish. The only function of the site is to reinforce the views of those who agree with them and, I can only imagine, separate them further from reality.


It showed up a few hundred years later

What they do is report a lot of stories that the rest of the more left-biased media won't.

I will admit to this, but I must also add that they weave in a pattern of hate that serves to further polarize the far-right readers and further alienate the left-wingers and moderates. What concerns me is that those right-wingers who see sites like this as the only like-minded thinkers will subconsciously assimilate this pattern of hate into their own minds, many without even realizing it.

I'm about as far to the right as one can get, yet I hate no one, only their actions.

I find it interesting that you use the word evolved there.

Firstly, I fail to see how Christianty could possibly have evolved past murder and torture, since Jesus didn't advocate it, and in fact according to the Gospels completely opposed it. It's not part of Christianity to kill or torture.

Similarly Muhammad gave strict and unequivocal instructions that 'Children of the Book' that is Christians and Jews are not to be harmed outside a battle situation. What this policeman did was nothing to do with Islam since it's not part of the religion.

What it is a person killing another person, under the banner of a religion that doesn't advocate his actions in the slghtest just as the people who bombed abortion clinics did something Jesus would never have agreed with.

Phaenx: I'm not saying Christians are bad, nor am I saying Muslims are bad, since people who do these things are Muslims and Christians in name only.

So my point is no it is not a religious issue.

The policeman specifically said that he killed the man because he was a Christian, and he felt it was his responsibility as a Muslim.

So the Crusades, backed by the Popes of their time IIRC, didn't happen. gottit. Tell the Moslems that.

OH MY! I would never use World Net Daily as a source and I would be embarrassed if anyone used it in support of my argument(s).

This is no better than the ultra-liberal rags that float around.

Say what you will about CNN and BBC but they are head and shoulders about this cr@p.

Not in anyone who is now livings lifetime. If you want to go back far enough you can justify any hatred. That is not healthy.

There's this thing called "reality", right? I'm just reminding you of it. Both Jews and Christians have gone through a virulent phase. The main problem now is that the Moslems don't have the benefit of difficult travel and communication to help them mature. Instead, they have to do it very quickly.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

ok, fine it was about this one man's very warped interpretation of religion. *Claiming* an action in the name of a god or a religion does not implicate the entire religion.

The fact that I do not see these mysterious followers of this specific religion condemn these acts and acts like it does implicate the entire religion in my eyes.

Figures. Very sad. Perhaps you should read some history about the topic before you post further.

but that does make him a religious fanatic, and for everyone that keeps saying this isn't a religious issue, and/or these people do this 'for their religion' by name only, then they are doing it for their religion.

and this isn't just one man, this kind of thing happens EVERY day!

The Christian man should not have even been in jail. He probably would not have gotten tuberculosis even had he not been in jail. Then the whole situation would never have happened. He had not intended to commit "blasphemy". That kind of law would be hard to define and could be used in many selfish ways. They do need to get rid of it. Get the religion out of politics.

I would propose that the anger that is obviously present in the islamic world has more to do with the clear divide between the haves and the have nots in the world than it does with religion. yes, religion is often used as an excuse but I think intreprating a fairly benign religious text such as the koran (or the bible for that matter) in such a way as to justify violent acts against others is inspired by a general anger, not by the religion itself.

Even if you could show that Islam is somehow responsible for the violence that is done in its name nothing is gained by condeming a whole culture as evil. We must ask *why* these people are angry and what can be done to help them. it is not productive to propose that we somehow kill all of them or somehow exclude them from society.

you know what troubles me the most? Islam is going backwards in terms of civilization,

when Londonians are suffering from black death from uncontrolled rats in the dark ages, islamic surgeons are performing surgical procedures in a germ-free (as much as possible) environment in Terhan, but these fuckers made no progress when it comes to civilization development

My thought on this thread -- It does not matter if a Christian was beaten by a Muslim or a Muslim was beaten by a Christian. The fact of the matter her is that someone was beaten and no matter the race that is a sad situation.

Yes, and like I said, this act was not one that is condoned by Islam, thus, it is the misconceptions of the offender that are the problem not his religion.

I'm sorry, where did I claim that?

Please don't misconstrue what I say into something else denim. Yes, I will agree with you that the Crusades did happen, I am well aware of this historical fact. However, as you yourself said they were backed by the 'Popes' of their time. Jesus wasn't riding out in front against the Saracens screaming 'HOLD THE LINE' was he. Surely you must know by now that what a Church does in the name of Chrisitianity is rarely what Christianity is about. Thus, once again I reiterate to you that Jesus was unequivocal and absolute in his opposition to violence and murder. Moreover, since you brought them up, I believe the Crusades illustrate a very pertinent example.


Christianity arrived in Europe wholesale around the time of the conversion of the Frankish King in about the seventh century. Yet despite Jesus' vehement rejection of violence and war, nothing changed, people still went to war, slaughtered and tortured each other. The Merovingian Dynastic mechanism was one in which all legitimate sons of the King recieved a portion of kingdom, and thus rivalry between sons, uncles etc gave way to large amounts of regicide, fraticide, paricide, infanticide and so on. These actions are not Christian in any sense of the word. The fact of the matter is that despite the message of Jesus, the preexisting cultural values of the Franks subverted the universal message of peace preached by Jesus. These people could be called Christian, since that is what they would have called themselves, but quite clearly they are not acting in a way that would have been acceptable to Jesus. Similarly Islam was subverted by preexisting cultural values in the middle east.

And you'd be wrong. Do some reading. Recommended book for this: The Closed Circle is a book that will explain their culture.

The violence is inherent in both their culture and the religion it spawned. If you don't understand this, you will have no chance to understand what's happening: our cultures are diametrically opposed. Theirs CAN NOT accept the existance of ours. Read the book, then get back to this thread. This advice is for any of you who think this is the western world's fault, or that it's a class thing, or that the Christian man's situation is relevant. Their culture is very different from ours, it's irreducable, and they want us to DIE. DIE, no real exceptions. If you don't want to be dead, you'd better damn well understand what they're after.

Yup, or at least failed to keep up.

Exactly, so where's your argument? The Christians did this, then moved on to moderating their extremists. The Moslems haven't done that yet, and it'll come down on all of them if they don't manage it.

Note that the violence is inherent in their system. A "good moslem" does do that kind of thing, by a strict reading of their holy book, as I understand it. Those who don't have moderated their attitude, as have their predicessors.

denim, you've done a great job outlining the facts here.

brianna, I disagree entirely with your point about "asking why" and trying to understand their motivations. It's an unsettling feeling but we have to admit that evil does exist in the world. Islamic fascism is inherently evil. It's not to be understood. It's to be defeated.

eribrav: i would agree that ALL religious fanaticism is scary and wrong. how would you propose we "defeat" it?

I have no problem with targeting terrorists, but ultimately we will have to deal with the issues that are inspiring such behavior, to write off people as evil makes little sense. These individuals were not born "evil" and I think we would be wise to find out what has made them choose this path in life.

Frankly I don't see anyway that we can target or defeat such beliefs without understanding. We are all rightfully scared of terrorism but this is not a problem that we can just keep shooting at. Idiology is not defeated with fire power.

violence is inherent in the islamic religion NOW, its not suppose to be, Muhammed does not condone violence against anyone except against infidels during BATTLE, a.k.a the crusades and the like, homie chillin in a hospital bed with turburculosis being beatin by a cop does not constitute battle in my mind... =/

You're Islamic?

so are you saying that all muslims feel this way?

that's like saying all white people feel the need to beat up dan rather and yell "WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY, KENNETH!!!"

totally irrelevant

I couldnt have said it better myself.

Negative, but I'm a history major in college and have taken quite a few classes on the religion / middle east, i've studied up on it and other religions quite a bit, I already said earlier that im agnostic.

Have you read the Koran, or are you speaking from others' interpretations?

Exactly what is my argument:

The Christians did not do this, people, under the banner of Christianity, acting in such a way as to completely preclude them from being within the bounds of anything espoused by the Gospels did this. Furthermore this was not extremism, it was fairly widespread and acceptable amongst Europeans at the time. It was not however Christian. Moreover, some might claim that Christians have now 'moderated' their 'extremists' as if this is some kind of sign of the inherently superior cultural values of the religion. I must remind you however of the 'Christian' tribesmen in Nigeria who routinely raid and destroy Muslim settlements in the north. What you are referring to has nothing to do with religious values and a lot to do with a myriad of interrelated social, cultural and political developments over many centuries upon which entire books could be written and still fall short of being accurate.

Note that violence is 'inherent' in their system...

What 'system' is that exactly?
Surely the same claim could be made about a society where schoolchildren shoot each other. I don't quite understand what you mean by this.

Moreover, may I also point out that the completely antiquated notion of social Darwinism has raised its ugly head on a few occassions in this thread. Frankly, anyone who appeals to the idea of a civilisation 'evolving' or being 'backward' is displaying a gross misunderstanding of the concepts involved.

denim, just for you:

*Sound of Kostya clearing throat*

Direct from Qu'ran, unfortunately in translation but never mind:

Surah 109

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Say: O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
TO YOU BE YOUR WAY, AND ME MINE.


Happy now?

Yes, that's right I have a Qu'ran on my bookshelf, no I'm not muslim, but I took the time out to purchase a copy of it simply to learn about this beautiful and brilliant tradition. I've been told by my Muslim friends however, and various lecturers who speak and write Arabic that it sounds much better in the original language than in translation.

It is not the lack of facts it was your incoherent post. Please state it in a way people can understand.

Thanks!

It's not my problem whether the people doing it were being "christian" or not. They did it; they blamed/credited it on/to their religion. I agree they weren't being good Christians, but that's irrelevant. They did it to people not in their own brand of Christianity, let alone non-Christians. It was religious, whether the people doing it were honest about it or not. Truth. Deal with it.


Er, you misunderstand me. As far as I'm concerned, all Christians are heretics, being that I'm Jewish. "Jews for Jesus" are Christians by definition, and are therefore heretics too. I don't hold it against them, as it's not my problem, if it's a problem.


That done under the color of a religion is religious, whether it's done by doctrine or not.


Oh, I'm hurt! Don't let the fact that I'm not going into detail prevent you from doing so, sir! I'm aware that we're glossing over a God-awful amount, but that doesn't change the fact that these religions are involved.



It's the system under which the arabs as a group live. It spreads like many memes. It's family and shame-based. They'd say it's shame/honor based, but I say they are clueless about honor, so I'm saying it as I see it.


Probably true, but I won't commit myself on that. Historians, economists, and archeologists each have at least one opinion about everything, rarely agreeing with others in their field. There is usually another way to understand a given thing.

Yes, actually. You've made a good point that I should pick up a copy of the Qu'ran. Any Moslem would say that's a good deed, I suspect.


From what I've heard, they're precisely accurate in saying that. "Must be read in the original." is what I've heard since I've heard anything about it.

Furthermore, any translation of anything will necessarily contain inaccuracies. I would like to read Dante's Comedy in the original Italian, and I should read the Hebrew bible in the original languages too.

I was unfortunate enough to spend 2 and a half years surrounded by "muslims" and oddly enough the things they ranted and raved about were no where to be found in the quran, go figure.

Funny, the things white people rant and rave about are found nowhere in the Bible. Go figure.

Yeah that would be, but I'm not basing an opinion on this particular incident. It's part of why I feel suspicious but that's just not the case. Ignorance is ignoring key points of someones post, responding with a pissy comment and a http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2796/emot-nyd2.gif

Well then, this leads us into the question of whether something is due to its nominal attatchments or is independent of them. Now take this example. The KKK were group which operated on the basis of 'race'. Now, unfortunately for Bubba & co., 'race' is quite simply a biological myth. Now, I'm not saying they didn't think that racial distinctions were very real, and performed very real actions based on this gigantic misconception. However, in the sense I am arguing, what they did had nothing to do with 'race' itself, since it does not exist, what they were doing represents in the specific a mistaken view about the existence of the mythical quality of race, and in a more general sense ignorance and stupidity. Now, the only difference between this example, in the way I am arguing, and the issue of 'religious' conflicts, is that I'm saying yes religion does very much exist, but that these people are subscribing to a mythical form that doesn't, and thus represent not the religion itself but the misinterpretation, manipulation and misapplication of a real religion. So we ought not really be arguing, all I am saying is they aren't fighting over a true religion and this means its not religious according to my reasoning, you on the other hand are saying that the imagined religious status of these people makes it religious so it is. Either way we're not really disagreeing with each other except in the most superficial way.

For the record, I maintain that racial issues still have a very real existence as a psychological phenomena, moreover as the socio-political repercussions of the widely held belief in the myth.


Well that's one way of looking at it.


No but what does prevent me is time and energy both of which I have very little at the moment. I applaud your recognition of the complexities however.



Well then I must ask you, what is the true nature of 'honour' then? Your mention of memes leads me to believe you have at least some familiarity with evoltionary theories of history, surely then you would agree that cultural values can only be really avaluated within the physical and social context in which they occur.

Well you kind of agreed with slimpiggy that they are 'going backwards' or at the very least 'failed to keep up'. This is less about the variety of approaches adopted by various diciplines, for I would contend with you that almost ANY academic with ANY familiarity with historical, sociological or anthropological theory would condemn and reject social Darwinism vehemently.

By the way, yes agreed a good deal of anything translated loses something in translation, something I wish Christians, the only revealed religion which studies their holy texts in translation.

Let's pick an example.

As I understand it, the Crusades were less about religion than about economics. No, I can't use that as I don't have the time to do the research.

Maybe you'd be better off picking one?


See, you're way ahead of me!


I'm right there with you. If we can interbreed, we're the same race/species. The way they use (note current tense) the word has more to do with Hitler than with biology, though. They use it as a way to denote a scape goat group. And even Hitler wasn't making that up out of whole cloth. That anti-Jewish stuff has been endemic in Europe for a very long time, as in many centuries, more than 10 certainly.


In one sense we're arguing semantics, true. In another, we're agreeing very vehemently.


It's another way of saying the same thing you did, I believe.


I've done some reading, just not what I'd call "enough".


You want a definitive answer to that?? I could answer this in several ways, but you and other will be able to pick them apart, no problem. It can easily turn into another semantic exercise.

Honor is what you know about yourself. Reputation is what others know about you. Lois Bujold, Memory

That's as good a place to start as any. Arab culture confuses the two concepts of "honor" and "reputation", among other things. It's been a while since I read The Closed Circle, and I've not finished it yet.


Whoa, you're assuming too much. I speak of memes as concepts. You'll note that my comment to what you labeled as "evolutionary theory" of history was just to agree that Moslems didn't seem to have kept up. That is, they hadn't maintained their advantage. They were advanced in medicine, sanitation (IIRC), navigation, and other issues, but they lost the advantage this gave them when they were overrun by the (Christian) barbarians.

Exactly why the "Christians" did this is unclear to me, but I suspect it is related to the thesis I wanted to use as an example.

Well my response to this would be to say that if this is true, then Arabs would simply reply that Lois Bujold makes a distinction where there is none. Their concept of 'honour' is different from Lois's. Yes, that's right I turned it into a semantics thing kind of. Nevertheless, my point is, honour is entirely subjective. What one person calls honour, another would call stupidity. Which is basically what you kind of did before, though to a lesser degree.


You misunderstand me, I wasn't labelling what you were saying as 'evolutionary history'. It's just that the concept of memes is one which is central to the evolutionary theory of history. My objection is against the use of words like 'backward', 'advanced' and phrases like 'keeping up' etc. These refer firstly to some kind of teleological history, and secondly apply value terms to historical developments where there ought not be any. This is not to say we shouldn't make value judgements about history, but they need to be within the context of non-teleological historical theory, moreover, I am not saying that judgements can't be made which make comparitive reference to our own time, only that these are not accurate for assessing the historical reality.

"White" people? Hmmmmm.......