From: mucit@cs.rochester.edu (Bulent Murtezaoglu)
Subject: Re: Kerraneler hakkinda fikirler - 1 (parental advisory: explicit lyrics)
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Rochester
	<MUCIT.93Jan19195808@slate.cs.rochester.edu> <30604@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:58:52

In article <30604@castle.ed.ac.uk> emev02@castle.ed.ac.uk (H Oral) writes:
   In article <MUCIT.93Jan19195808@slate.cs.rochester.edu> mucit@cs.rochester.edu (Bulent Murtezaoglu) writes:
> ....
>>>	   However Kaya and Saytan Rushdie (he does not deserve to be called
>>>   Salman) get full use of the Western type of freedom.  Like the guy
>>>   who has written above.  They are all the same type of people who are 
>>>   the gifts of the Western "civilisation."  And the same type of people
>>>   are increasing in number due to ignorance about the Divine Will.   
>>>   Who are responsible?  The human beings themselves who do not
>>>   enjoin in right, and prohibit the wrong as they are commanded.
>>
>>I think Mr. Koc just meant he didn't want to see it in sct, but he pointed
>>out that there are other newsgroups where such stuff can be posted.  If I
>>understand what you're implying correctly, you're saying "western type of
>>freedom" allows sexually explict jokes and Kaya's articles etc. to be 
>>distributed and all things offensive to you should be banned as "we are 
>>commanded."  Is that what you're saying?  
>
>   I also mentioned the term "ignorance."  I think it is very unfair to
>   summarise some thoughts which are the product of a wide perspective,
>   since they can cause misunderstandings.

Yes indeed you mentioned ignorance, I fail to see how that indicates
that my summary was unfair.  I thought you were talking about doing
away with "the Western type of freedom" and "prohibiting" thought and
expression that you deemed as contary to the Divine Will.  If I misunderstood
you I'd be happy to hear about what you were really saying as I hinted
at above.

[stuff deleted]
>>> he comes back and says:
>>>
>>>   Sultanim, onlarin isleri bizim dinimiz gibi saglam, 
>>>	     dinleri de bizim isimiz gibi curuk.
>>>
>>>   The fact that din means a way of life, and it is accepted that our
>>>   work is not good despite the fact that our din is strong, this points
>>>   out only one thing meaning that we are hypocrats in general.
>>
>>It _could_ mean something else: at least "they" are doing something provably
>>better than "us" and "we" are just b-s'ing and trying to convince ourselves
>>despite everything how great "we" are because of the "din."  It could mean
>>lots of other things too.  Cute anecdote though.
>
>   Dear Bulend, 

What's this obsession about turning 't's into 'p's that I notice in
some netters?  (i.e. kitab instaed of kitap etc.) :)

>I appreciate your position, but please also understand
>that the greatness of the din does not affect the people.  Vice
>versa, if the din is great and people are the worst samples on the earth,
>then they are even lower than kafir.  As Allah(SWT) says and his Prophets
>(pbut) confirms that the hypocrats are going to be lower than 
>anyone else in Hell.

I don't understand how "hell" came into this picture.  Let me tell you
what I understand: you're saying people who claim to be followers of the
'din' (religion), are not necessarily followers of the 'din'.  Therefore,
state of the followers doesn't say much about the viability of the 'din'.
On the other hand, if the 'din' attributes mercifulness to God, I don't
think He would punish those who misunderstood His word.  (i.e. suppose
wife-beating and slavery is uderstood to be permitted among
ignorant followers.  They don't think they are deviating from God's word 
when they are beating their wives and not freeing their slaves.  Now,
would God punish for this? Note that I haven't named the religion).

>>Since you seem to be convinced that you know of a great way of life, and 
>>since you also seem to know a lot about the evil "western" ways -- which,
>>I gather, conflict with your way of life --, maybe you could make a 
>>point by point comparison for us?  
>
>   I do not know, I am learning, and this process will continue untill
>   I die.  

No doubt.

>What I do is to share what I have alreday learned with you
>so that we may continue learning together.

But I haven't understood what you've shared with me?  Let me know if
you know whether western style freedom of thought/expression is 
against 'din'.  

>>In other words, if you were to have your
>>way, what would you change in the west?  
>
>   This is against the whole idea that I am for.  It is not anyone's way,
>   but Allah's way.  Prophet(PBUH) said that"What is rigt is rigt, and what
>   is wrong is wrong, and in between there are doubtful things.  Replace
>   what is doubtful with something right."  And he(pbuh) continues.
>   However this is the way we are created.  If we were to follow guidance,
>   and not anyone else, everybody would be peaceful and tranquil except 
>   those with
>   a disease in their heart.  
>   Whatever is right in the West is right, and whatever is wrong is wrong,
>   and the doubtful things need to be replaced with what is right.

What I fail to understand is how those doubtful things would get replaced,
and how one decides what's doubtful, and who replaces what.  

>>It would help me a lot to see
>>a couple of concrete examples, so I can understand what changes would be
>>necessary. (i.e. just saying that you'd like the likes of Kaya to not exist
>>won't cut it, you'd need to tell us what would happen to the likes of him
>>in your ideal society.)
>
>   Give you an example.  UN is a good idea in principle.  But there are
>   many points which are sick.  Consider those countries with a right to
>   veto.  Only some countries among so many have right to veto.  Which is 
>   against the common sense of right.  So I consider them bullies.

Yes I understand, but surely you're not suggesting we need 'din' to change
that.  I was asking about an example from the way of life, laws etc.

>   On the other hand look at the enforcement of the resolutions, there
>   are clear double standards.

Which BTW, would be there even if decisions were made by the majority 
(and indeed the double standards aren't there because of vetos).

>   Also look, in Islam, you can even make a complain against the Qadi himself.
>   And we see that with their right to veto, you cannot make any complain
>   against those bullies.
>   (I take it you know what Qadi means)

Well, appeal mechanisms are present in secular judicial systems too.
Do you mean that a judicial system based on 'din' would be superior?
How about heretics?  See nothing happens to Kaya in the "West". 
All he's doing is talking and although he's annoying people, he's not 
harming anyone.  Are you at a point in your studies where you can tell me
what would happen to Kaya in a system based on 'din' ?  


>>>   I guess the situation have gotten even worse during the recent years.
>
>>How so?
>
>   With fifteen channels broadcasting into the bedrooms of a nation day and 
>   night the lowest of the low stuff (exceptions exist, I agree),
>   you can not expect much from scientific point of view.


If that nation is Turkey I'll have you know that the folks in those
bedrooms are looking forward to watching that stuff.  They always have the
choice to not watch it.  Just like they have the choice to not buy 
sexually explicit magazines.  It is certainly possible to ban all that
-- given a strong government --, would you then claim that just because
people aren't allowed to watch what they really want to watch they are
"pious" people?  There are ways to broadcast the "pious" stuff too, 
as long as the government isn't paying for it I'd have no problem
with that.  

I didn't understand the part about the scientific point of view.

>>BM
>
>   Hamid
>
>   ps.  Bulend, please forgive my shortcomings, and do not think that
>   they are from anything or anyone but from me my own self.

Oh, don't worry about that stuff.  I'm hardly perfect myself :).

BM
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish