From: emev02@castle.ed.ac.uk (H Oral)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish
Subject: Re: Kerraneler hakkinda fikirler - 1 (parental advisory: explicit lyrics)
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:50:07 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

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.

>>>       BTW, next time write your name so that we will know who the hell
>>>       you are.
>>
>>	   I think even hiding his name is a good sign which means he
>>   still have feeling of shame.  It would be worse if he did not mind
>>   to name himself like so many in the West.
>
>This looks like a manifestation of a tendency to badmouth "the West" on every 
>occasion but then:

Following part was given to qualify my position.  I am glad you took
a note of it.  

>[stuff deleted]
>
>>   ps.  It is not that I am against everything that is Western, and this can
>>   be shown in a short lesson.  
>
>> Abdulhamid (Osmanli Sultani)sends one of his agent to the West, and asks him 
>> to tell all about their weaknesses and strength in one sentence when
>> he comes back.     The agent goes and spends some time in the West.  Later 
>> 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, 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.

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

>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.

>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.

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

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)

>>   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.

>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.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish