Ableton Forum

you are also forgetting that powerfully rich people engineer and exaggerate differences between religions because it benefits them in a number of ways. Like I said before, people of differing faiths and nationalities can live together peacefully but not when covert (and not so covert) forces make life impossible for all sides.

I live among hindus, muslims, jews, christians, sikhs, atheists, and who knows what in between and there is rarely if ever any conflict because of religious belief. Its when you get politicians and people of the shadows stirring things up that it falls apart.

i would first of all disagree that pre-christian creation stories are irrelevant. i think a lot of them are far more insightful than your 3rd grade science teacher (or even sunday school teacher) would let you believe.

neither the zoroastrian, egypto-pagan, greco-pagan, hindu, budhist, shinto, or judeo-christian creation stories or theological systems are based in blind ignorance or wild speculation. they are all legitimate attempts to take experiences from life, the environment, and the inner mind and describe the world around us in a way that makes sense.

science is great, but it's a baby, a violently kicking, fussy, stubborn baby, that really ought to question itself more than it does, rather than pat itself on the back (at least in the public, "pop-sci", mind control that is used for political/economic effect) for every new "law" it "discovers" or fundamental truth it overturns.

i have yet to hear one single scientific (from your usage) explanation for the prime event.

science has good reason to believe in the necessity of cause and effect.

am i right on that?

prior to certain turn of the 20th century experiments, science (serious science mind you, science that literally shouted down dissent) made two key truths unassailable and necessary 1) that the universe was infinite in size, uniform in consistency, and without beginning or end and 2) that everything in the universe was permeated by an undetectable but most assuredly real media called ether without which nothing could move or indeed exist.

this was science, this was fact, it was all we needed to know when someone in their ignorant faith would ask "well if god didn't make everything, then where did it come from?"

since then there have been many new proclamations regarding the origins and nature of the universe. some have been thoroughly tested, and to the extent that is possible been proven beyond doubt. but ever since the light went on that maybe a creationist could make a case for supernaturalism based on the finite events of the big bang there has been a frantic struggle to put even that theory to rest within some new framework of non-causality.

so far no scientist can come up with anything, anything at all that remotely makes sense, let alone anything that could be tested or even inferred in any sort of manner. the latest attempts come as a childish reversion to the 19th century dogma that the universe is part of some "super-cosmos" that IS permanent and uniform and is full of some undetectable and unspecified media. brane-theory... let me tell you, einstien is weeping!

the fact remains that in any system where you beleive in cause and effect pure atheism is pure obstinance. i've always been amused at this argument whether it comes from either side (as if something so complex could have two sides only one of which could be right).

as for the rightness and wrongness of any religion, well if i had to make it more simple than it should be, all religions are wrong, they are also all right....

i DO see where you're coming from, and like so many others you're coming from the same place that starts religious wars in the first place. do you not believe in non-belief (to put it awkwardly), or at least believe that "believers" are deluded?

so instead of making ignorant comments and coming to ill-informed conclusions, maybe you should consider abandoning your preconceptions and your biases long enough to synthesize a constructive outlook, rather than a reaction to something you find distasteful?

you say "either God hates homosexuality, or he doesn't" as if you've made some kind of massive, profound discovery about the inanity of all religion. you don't even realize that your statement (and all the other one's you're making on the subject) is in itself impossible to prove, and unlikely to even be possible, let alone probable.

if you're smart enough to be maintaining this conversation, you're smart enough to see that from a logical point of view your argument is invalid.

do you disagree?

Meef Chaloin wrote:you are also forgetting that powerfully rich people engineer and exaggerate differences between religions because it benefits them in a number of ways. Like I said before, people of differing faiths and nationalities can live together peacefully but not when covert (and not so covert) forces make life impossible for all sides.

I live among hindus, muslims, jews, christians, sikhs, atheists, and who knows what in between and there is rarely if ever any conflict because of religious belief. Its when you get politicians and people of the shadows stirring things up that it falls apart.

yes, this is the truth

brightonalex wrote:Is it religously offensive to use an Islamic "Call to Prayer" sample in a tune? My friend challenged me to and I'm quite pleased with the result, but I don't want to be honour killed.

The very fact your thinking not to use it is falling right in to the hands of those muslims who use their religion as a means of political gain.
I suggest you go and educate your self and stand up for what you believe in. If your intention is to use the sample as attention seeking over art - THEN!

edge100 wrote: The fact is, if you're looking for a model system on which to base your life as a pacifist, there are other, far better systems to look toward (see Gandhi, and by extension, MLK).

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam may pride themselves on their supposed support of peace; the truth is in their words and actions.

again it's just as rude to generalize a person's beliefs based on the symbols they choose as it is to generalize their personality based on their surname or skin tone.

as for mlk, ghandi, and jesus, you really ought to read more about all three of them. i think you're getting a lot of third and fourth hand info by soundbyte, i have a copy of the hind swaraj and collection of mlk's letters (and i'm sure i have bible somewhere in the house) right here if you want me to start quoting...

mercyplease wrote:

brightonalex wrote:Is it religously offensive to use an Islamic "Call to Prayer" sample in a tune? My friend challenged me to and I'm quite pleased with the result, but I don't want to be honour killed.

The very fact your thinking not to use it is falling right in to the hands of those muslims who use their religion as a means of political gain.
I suggest you go and educate your self and stand up for what you believe in. If your intention is to use the sample as attention seeking over art - THEN!

again the truth, BRAVO!...not that the truth should be applauded, but i love the succinctness and completeness of the way you said it.

would it be different if you were playing it live with an actual muslim singing?

I think that it's OK to be offended. It's natural and sometimes unavoidable. If you tell 10 people what you like and don't like, can you be honest to yourself and at the same time not come up against some sort of different opinion?
A gentleman never offends anyone on purpose. I lived with a very religious grandmother for quite sometime without having any sort of religion placed upon me or assumed for the environment. She was comfortable with her beliefs and that's all she needed.

When distorted electric guitars were first introduced into performance and recording, some folks were seriously offended...SERIOUSLY. There was a small uprising against it and a lot of bad mouthing those who condoned it even.

Now just go make YOUR music.

Been away. Back now. I'll try to dodge the name calling. But a few points to address...

I don't agree with edge100's assertion that believers KNOW they are right. I believe that they BELIEVE they are right. As I mentioned, faith is an important part of most religions and faith relies on a LACK of knowledge (you don't need faith to believe in something you KNOW exists!)

Hadith are not the Qur'an. Muslims believe the Qur'an to be the word of God. Hadith are the word of man. Some Muslims believe the Qur'an instructs them to follow Hadith. Some Muslims believe that the Qur'an instructs them NOT to follow Hadith! But the vast majority of Muslims know that at least some Hadith are questionable, so Hadith should not be given the same authority as the Qur'an. Various Hadith even seem to contradict the Qur'an, so should probably be rejected. The Qur'an makes it clear that God does not "run out of words", which I believe to be clear evidence that Hadith should NOT be used to make laws that are not in the Qur'an - e.g. if Allah had wanted those who reject Islam to be killed, he'd have said so in the Qur'an.

Now when talking about "rejection" of Islam, the Arabic word used (Kufir, etc) has a very specific meaning - i.e. to truly reject Islam, you must KNOW it to be true, but reject it anyway. Conversion to, say, Christianity wouldn't truly be rejection of Islam, IF a Muslim believed Christianity was the true way.

Of course, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be punishable by death in an "Islamic" country". The laws of Islamic countries are based on man's interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith (and, arguably, ancient Arabic custom). These laws should not be confused with Islam itself, in much the same way that one wouldn't assume that Christianity allows the use of firearms or the carrying out of the death penalty - even though these things happen in a predominantly Christian country with an allegedly Christian leader.

So when criticising "Islam", please make sure it truly is Islam you're criticising, not a man-made system based on Islamic ideas, nor a minority of radicals who shout loudly. M. Bréqs, I'm looking at you, now. Islam does not have sick societal values, even if some so-called Islamic countries do. Personally, I'd say that no country that calls itself Islamic truly is (c.f. communism).

Similarly with crass generalisations (your turn, simpleton). "They don't like music". Really? I must tell that to the Muslim singers I know. Mind you... it might explain why one of them is working on a track with me.

I'm not going to quote the pages and pages of the hadith that state clearly that all non-muslims should not be spared from the sword.

I'm not convinced such pages exist, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the words that generally get translated as "non-muslim" are typically "Mushrik" (roughly "polytheist") and "Kufir" (roughly "rejecter"). Jews, Christians and others are often shown in the Qur'an to be excluded from such categories.

Secondly, the word "muslim" is simply Arabic for "one who submits" (i.e. to Allah). And Islam is simply "submission". Since Allah is the same God as the Christian and Jewish God, the broadest definition of "muslim" includes Christians and Jews (a view recognised by the Submitter, a modern Islamic offshoot). I've even seen an argument that it include Sikhs and Hindus! Therefore, "non-muslims" becomes an increasingly small group.

Thirdly, if such Hadith do exist, they'd contradict the Qur'an, which has a higher authority, so they should be ignored.

Back to Christianity now. I didn't say that the Old Testament no longer applies, just that the RULES in it no longer apply - if you buy into that "New Covenant" argument. And I don't see many Christians following Jewish law...

To try to sum up, I don't believe Islam, Christianity or Judaism are inherently violent, but I accept that they are tools men have used to justify violence - especially under extreme conditions. But I think such men would find a way without these tools anyway. I guess religion is like many other tools: dangerous in the wrong hands. As a result, I have a lot of time for personal religion, but not a lot of time for (most) religious leaders and organisations. I encourage everyone to reach their own conclusions, rather than subscribing to any particular doctrine. It probably doesn't fit exactly with any one else's anyway. I'd like to see the words Christian, Muslim, Catholic, etc. abolished so they can't be used as divisory labels, especially when they actually give no real picture of what the believer actually believes. (No, of course that's not going to happen.)

I think they're my main points. And now I need to sleep.

robbmasters wrote: Firstly, the words that generally get translated as "non-muslim" are typically "Mushrik" (roughly "polytheist") and "Kufir" (roughly "rejecter"). Jews, Christians and others are often shown in the Qur'an to be excluded from such categories.

Secondly, the word "muslim" is simply Arabic for "one who submits" (i.e. to Allah). And Islam is simply "submission". Since Allah is the same God as the Christian and Jewish God, the broadest definition of "muslim" includes Christians and Jews (a view recognised by the Submitter, a modern Islamic offshoot). I've even seen an argument that it include Sikhs and Hindus! Therefore, "non-muslims" becomes an increasingly small group.

I think that like other religions, many of Islam's basic tenets are inheirently evil. As a skeptical agnostic, I'm a Kufir and so is my girlfriend; according to the Hadiths I am to be put to death. ...You expect me to accept an ideology that advocates that I AND MY FAMILY PERSONALLY BE MURDERED?!?!?!

You've made a weak defence of Islam here, considering that Liberal values should protect polythiests and athiests alike. Plus, life as a Dhimmi (the "special status" afforded to Jews and Christians) under sharia law isn't exactly free or comfortable. My Mom's a christian; How can I possibly consider a religion tolerant (in this case Islam) when their FUNDAMENTAL texts indicate that she should be subjugated and punished? That's insane!!!

I have a friend who's a silent Apostate. He can't leave because he's afraid for his safety, so even though he's an Athiest now, he has to go through the motions of being "slightly" muslim.

Rob, you claim that the Quran takes precedence over the Hadiths, and that there's inconsistencies between the two. If what you say is right, this only proves to me that it was a cult born in hypocricy. It can reform itself (as Christianity did in the 16th Century) but in its current interpretation, I stand to my assertion that it's a force of evil on the planet.

My Mom's a christian; How can I possibly consider a religion tolerant when their FUNDAMENTAL texts indicate that she should be subjugated and punished? That's insane!!!

Obviously, you highly misunderstand Christianity not to mention the fact you have misread the texts or haven't read them at all. The texts, taken in context , expose humanity's need for a savior, Jesus Christ, who is sent to ultimately make atonement, taking upon himself the punishment we all deserve, b/c humanity, having free will, simply rejected the true life that God offered to Adam in the beginning, which was pure and unhindered relationship with the Creator who longs to be be closer to each of us more than any parent, spouse, brother, sister, or best friend ever could. This is misrepresented in much of today's Christianity, as it has been many times since the time of Christ through sectarianism, politics, greed, antisemitism, violence, corruption. hatred, scandal, and the list goes on. Those things have made it appear as a force of evil to some and a platform of injustice for others. The offer of Christianity is total reconciled personal relationship with God for those who want it. It's that simple.

radialson wrote:

My Mom's a christian; How can I possibly consider a religion tolerant when their FUNDAMENTAL texts indicate that she should be subjugated and punished? That's insane!!!

Obviously, you highly misunderstand Christianity not to mention the fact you have misread the texts or haven't read them at all.

Did you actually read my post above? I was criticising Islam, not Christianity. Besides, I understand Christianity very well. I was raised a christian before I rejected that religion. I was speaking about ISLAM, and the fact that wishes to subjugate Christians to subordinate status (Dhimmi). Overall, Christianity treats women VERY well compared to Islam.

M. Bréqs wrote:

radialson wrote:

My Mom's a christian; How can I possibly consider a religion tolerant when their FUNDAMENTAL texts indicate that she should be subjugated and punished? That's insane!!!

Obviously, you highly misunderstand Christianity not to mention the fact you have misread the texts or haven't read them at all.

Did you actually read my post above? I was criticising Islam, not Christianity. Besides, I understand Christianity very well. I was raised a christian before I rejected that religion. I was speaking about ISLAM, and the fact that wishes to subjugate Christians to subordinate status (Dhimmi). Overall, Christianity treats women VERY well compared to Islam.

Sorry man, misunderstood your point.

M. Bréqs wrote:I think that like other religions, many of Islam's basic tenets are inheirently evil. As a skeptical agnostic, I'm a Kufir and so is my girlfriend; according to the Hadiths I am to be put to death. ...You expect me to accept an ideology that advocates that I AND MY FAMILY PERSONALLY BE MURDERED?!?!?!

You are NOT a Kufir. And murder of Kufirs or other non-Muslims is NOT a tenet of Islam. Stop believing corrupt versions of Islam, and check the facts. The Qur'an, or even the etymology of Kufir, would be a good start.

Hadith are the writing of man, and many can be readily dismissed because of their contradiction with the Qur'an. Moderate Muslims are happy do so. It's the extremists who latch onto these erroneous Hadith in preference to the Qur'an and in contradiction of their own religious laws.

Similarly Christians should put the word of Jesus in the Gospels over the words of the writers of any of the later books. To Christians, Jesus's word should be unquestionable (assuming it has been accurately reported) whereas the conclusions of those who taught early Christianity may have been wrong. In fact some of them MUST have been wrong for so many versions of Christianity to spring up (e.g. Gnosticism). Even the Catholic Church had to reject many more Gospels that they included as they contradicted one another and were not consistent with the official Church view. Even the Gospel of Peter, widely regarded as the founder of the Catholic Church, was excluded for (roughly speaking) not having enough about suffering in it!

The Qur'an can actually be readily interpreted as saying "do NOT follow any Hadith other than the Qur'an". And there is a growing community of "Qur'an-only" Muslims who have decided to put that which they believe to be the word of God over that which is clearly the word of man. Unfortunately, many power (and headline) grabbing Muslims seem to do the reverse. So I can understand where your opinions have come from. But I believe they're based on a distortion of the facts, and akin to assuming George Bush's behaviour represents the tenets of Christianity.

A balanced view would be to say that the Qur'an is Muslim law, and Hadith are Muslim "food for thought" - things to be considered, but to be taken with a pinch of salt.

M. Bréqs wrote:life as a Dhimmi (the "special status" afforded to Jews and Christians) under sharia law isn't exactly free or comfortable. My Mom's a christian; How can I possibly consider a religion tolerant when their FUNDAMENTAL texts indicate that she should be subjugated and punished?

Again, Shariah Law is not Islam. It varies from country to country (whereas the Qur'an doesn't) and there are are plenty of rules in the Shariah law of many countries that have nothing to do with Islam. Like the laws in Christian nations that have nothing to do with Christianity.

The Qur'an does not support subjugation of Dhimmi; instead it says they must be protected. It does say they should be taxed for this, but in my view this is just to provided equity with the Muslim zakat (donation to charity).

M. Bréqs wrote:I have a friend who's a silent Apostate. He can't leave because he's afraid for his safety, so even though he's an Athiest now, he has to go through the motions of being "slightly" muslim.

I'm sorry to hear that. But it's not Islam that calls for his death, it's the man made laws of a number of so-called Muslim nations. Condemn his nation, if you will. But don't incorrectly assume that this is Islam.

M. Bréqs wrote:Rob, you claim that the Quran takes precedence over the Hadiths, and that there's inconsistencies between the two. If what you say is right, this only proves to me that it was a cult born in hypocricy.

There is no hypocrisy. You just need to understand the difference, as compared to Christianity above. For Christians, both word of God and the word of man are contained in the Bible, but those of man are much more questionable that those of God.

M. Bréqs wrote:It can reform itself (as Christianity did in the 16th Century) but in its current interpretation, I stand to my assertion that it's a force of evil on the planet.

Your condemnation of Islam is based on prejudice and ignorance. I agree that mainstream Islam does need to reform - to reflect on the original teachings (i.e. the Qur'an) versus man-made additions. But it's no more a force of evil than Christianity, capitalism, or a baseball bat; they can all be used for good or evil.

Can I also recommend "The Trouble With Islam" by Irshad Manji - a lesbian, feminist, non-hajib-wearing Muslim "refusenik" - as a alternative view to that which you seem to have been primarily exposed.

robbmasters wrote: Can I also recommend "The Trouble With Islam" by Irshad Manji - a lesbian, feminist, non-hajib-wearing Muslim "refusenik" - as a alternative view to that which you seem to have been primarily exposed.

I've read it. She herself calls out for a reformation of Islam, just as I do. Any system of values formed in a warlike, tribalistic society has no place in a civilized world where people don't kill each other for having different views. Perhaps then Islam needs to abandon the Hadiths completely? Even that wouldn't do much to help, as I seem to recall that there's some pretty violent, religiously intolerant stuff in the Quran as well however.

As far as the Jizya (dhimmi tax) goes, it is not comparable to zakat. That's like comparing giving to the MSF with being extorted by the mafia.