Sharia law and software licensing
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| roblimo Aug 24, 2005 2:44 PM EDT |
I've heard over and over -- including from a Saudi mullah with a CS degree I met during a trip to Riyadh -- that restrictive software a la Microsoft is against Sharia law, while the GPL is fully in accordance with it. Another factor is that there are countries, including Iran, that are on technology export "block" lists. I don't know about now, but for many years it was illegal to ship a copy of Windows to Iran -- or Cuba or N. Korea or Iraq. Yet another factoid rarely mentioned: Windows is the operating system most used by Islamic terrorists. Check screenshots of captured Taliban computers and the formats most often used to post hostage and other horror videos, including the disgustingly famous one of Daniel Pearl getting beheaded. Microsoft all the way! |
| Abe Aug 24, 2005 4:21 PM EDT |
What you heard is true. You only can charge for something you make. In other words, you have to labor to produce what you make and get paid for it. More specifically, you have to supply services. This is what makes the gpl fully in accordance. The block list is true too. But who is watching? I assume Windows is what the terrorists use like most everybody else, I see your point. But what I don't agree with you is calling them "Islamic terrosits". I think this is ignorance and stereotype. You see, what these groups are doing is far from being Islamic. I am sure you don't know what Islam stands for, you never discussed Islam with anyone, and you just using the stereotype like everyone else uses. You seem to deal with factoids, well, here are some about Islam. - Islam forbids killing any living thing for no reason, yes including animals. Islam even forbids kill animal except for food. - Islam forbids killing prisoners, no matter what they fought for. It is the Muslims duty to treat injured prisoners. What Islam permits killing is those who killed some else for no reason. And it does not authorize any leaders to do the "execution", it only permits the family of the victim and only if they insist and refuse to accept compensation. - Islam forbids charging interest, believe it or not, it is because you would be taking advantage of the needy and the poor. What you are allowed to take is what the borrower offers you in return. (building credit!!!) - The prophet said, your religion is defined by your deeds, when those groups are killing innocent people, then they are not Islamic nor muslims. - There is a lot we ought to learn about Islam, it is a shame we don't. So please, next time you want to talk about terrorists, don't associate them with Islam any more than associating the IRA terrorist with christianity, the German Gestapo with Christianty, and the Zionist with Judiasim. - |
| salparadise Aug 24, 2005 9:23 PM EDT |
The Koran explicitly says "kill the unbeliever". (I've read the passage concerned).
Islam is NOT a peaceful religion.
Wake up and stop quoting new world order crap.
Anyone who thinks Islam is prepared to live happily alongside other faiths and beliefs is living in la la land and is not paying attention to the news. Islam is not capable of living with itself, yet alone other faiths.
Go look at recent cases. Islam is always friendly when it's in the minority. When it gets the majority all pretense of reason or mercy is cast aside and it's obey or be beheaded/whipped/imprisoned etc. |
| Tsela Aug 24, 2005 11:43 PM EDT |
salparadise: there is no such thing as "Islam" the way you are talking about it. "Islam" is as wide and various a religion as "Christianism", and hardly more conservative (I've seen conservative Christian communities, and read what those people believe in. It's no less violent and intolerant than what Moslim extremists believe in). Don't take me wrong, the Islam you're talking about does exist, but it is a fringe movement, and saying that all Islam is wrong and intolerant because of that fringe is like saying that all Christians are racists because of the KKK. That they get all the media coverage because they have the most influence on the world at the moment doesn't make them representative of Islam in general. Islam has been historically very tolerant of other religions, even when it was in a majority position. Look at Spain during the Arabic occupation for instance, or the Middle-East during the time Europe was busy burning any "unfaithful" up and looking for witches everywhere. I am not saying that the intolerance against other religions isn't growing among moslims. It is. But it's a recent development, and hardly a Moslim exclusivity. As for what is written in the Koran, it is immaterial. Some passages in the Bible also advocate killing other people in some circumstances. Does it mean that Christianism isn't a peaceful religion? Islam as a religion is compared to Christianism somewhat younger (1400 years old compared to 2000). When Christianism was 1400 years old it was also in a period of complete intolerance against anyone or anything that wasn't purely Christian. And it went even worse with the Reformation, as Christians fought other Christians in very bloody battles. Even today I would hardly call most forms of Christianism tolerant. Of course we must fight terrorism, wherever it comes from. But don't brush things with too wide a brush, because the only thing you will achieve is to seed more hatred, and to marginalise more people. Being myself part of a minority, I know how difficult it is to not fall into violence when you are constantly marginalised. People who have always been in the majority and have never had to defend their human rights just don't seem to know how hard it is... It is WRONG to kill innocent people. But it is also wrong to condemn a whole branch of society because of a bunch of bad apples, however much influence those bad apples may have in the word affairs. It only makes the job of those bad apples easier. |
| salparadise Aug 25, 2005 2:09 AM EDT |
"Some passages in the Bible also advocate killing other people in some circumstances. Does it mean that Christianism isn't a peaceful religion?" The new testament is pretty damning of violence (we come not to fight against flesh and blood..., he who takes the sword shall die by the sword, turn the other cheek and so on). However, there's a huge difference between those who twist a faith based in love and self sacrifice into a justification for acts of aggression (ANY bible based excuse for war fits this category) and a faith that contains instructions to take the lives of unbelievers. I would suggest you/we ignore this aspect of the koran at your/our peril. I also have to say that this isn't Linux and is a dangerous subject to be discussing in these days of heightened fears. I just get alarm bells ringing when I hear this "islam is a peaceful religion" line. It isn't. It can't be because it's made up of human beings and human beings aren't peaceful. At least Christianity is based around undeserved grace and love and acceptance, Islam means OBEY. The law is a far harsher master than grace. Peace to you all whatever you may believe. |
| Tsela Aug 25, 2005 2:30 AM EDT |
Salparadise: The Old Testament is pretty much a part of the Bible too. The New Testament may say different things, but that doesn't stop people from choosing part of the Old Testament when it fits them. It's not twisting a faith to follow parts of the literature it is based on. As for the so-called "instructions to kill unbelievers", I've read them too. They refer to the *internal* battle of the Moslim against his own unbelieving. "Kill the unbeliever" means kill the unbeliever within yourself. Using it to justify murder is as much twisting the faith as the monks who killed rich people because Jesus said that one should forfeit all material riches (it did happen). And I never said that Islam was a "peaceful" religion. I said Christianity isn't either. Anyone who believes differently should take his pink glasses off and look a bit more at history. My point is that people expect from Islam something that Christians themselves have not yet reached, despite 2000 years of existence of the religion, and indeed an original message of love and understanding. And if you really believe being Christian is not about obeying then you haven't had a clue about Christian religions. I have one word about Christianity: hypocrisy. But indeed this isn't a Linux matter, and shouldn't be discussed here. I just needed to give a bit of a reality check. And I'm not talking about reality as shown to us by the mass media. I'm talking about the real world we live in. And now let's go back to programming, where religious wars never happen. What? Emacs vs. vi? ;) |
| Abe Aug 25, 2005 3:17 AM EDT |
salparadise:
You are wrong because you don't know any better. You are the typical stereotype I was talking about. Your thoughts are shaped by hearsay.
"Kill the unbelievers" when they attack you and they will always attack you. And who are the unbelievers? it is not the Christian, it is not the Jews, it is those who don't believe in God and both Jews and Christian are considered the people of the books sent by God to mankind. As a matter of fact, if you read the Quran, you will find that two thirds of it is about Judaism and Christianity. "I just get alarm bells ringing..." You are wrong again. True Muslims only fought when they are suppressed minority and very peaceful when they are majority. Islam is about freedom and God given justice not man made laws. Islam says "Justice above all" not law above all. I hope you see the difference. It is the duty of every Muslim to seek justice and fight tyranny and dictatorship and that includes in their daily lives dealing with all people. You have a lot to learn about the facts. I suggest you enlighten yourself by reading more and seek knowledge from different source before you make your judements. Most important of all, don't take the actions by those who call themselves Muslims to be representative of Islam. |
| salparadise Aug 25, 2005 5:23 AM EDT |
You are wrong because you don't know any better. I disagree. But I'm not participating in this discussion anymore as it is misplaced on this forum and mostly unprovable - as most matters of faith are. Note to self: Stay out of religious debates. |
| tadelste Aug 25, 2005 7:06 AM EDT |
Guys, I've lived comfortably with people of Islam for more than 20 years. I've lived with Christians all my life because I am one. I have to take each person individually because I just haven't had much success with generalizations. Who or what is worse Timothy McVea or Mohammed Atta? The Inquisition or the Hordes? This story was about community - not about religion. I understand the anger and frustrations on both sides. I understand the defensiveness because discrimination exists on both sides. Even today, BOTH sides have committed atrocities. Let's work together in the spirit of an Open Community. We need coders and advocates of Linux, FSF and Open Source. That's something about which we can all agree and put the rest aside. |
| Abe Aug 25, 2005 7:19 AM EDT |
salparadise: Sorry if I offended you, that wasn't my intension. All what I was trying to say in my original post was to watch what we say and to stop the stereotyping. This is what got us into this situation of hatred and mis-trust in the first place. I too avoid religious discussions. To me, religion is very personal and it is between the individual and God (or whatever they believe in) and no body else. I debated posting my first, but I had to say something, especially at this time, to stop some of the nonsense that is being irresponsibly published lately. |
| salparadise Aug 25, 2005 10:51 AM EDT |
That's OK, no offence taken. It's a bit of a jack in the box subject. (Touch it and things explode and it takes all sorts of wrestling to get the jack back in the box). |
| Tsela Aug 25, 2005 12:15 PM EDT |
I too had to reply, for the same reason Abe did it. It is quite nice that this discussion stayed level-headed and didn't degenerate into a flamewar. We may not agree, but we respect each other, and that's the most important. Yeah, mutual respect: that's the true way towards peace... |
| pyellman Aug 26, 2005 6:13 AM EDT |
>Who or what is worse Timothy McVea or Mohammed Atta? I assume you mean Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. If so, bad example, a case of misinformation. There is absolutely nothing in any record, anywhere, to indicate McVeigh was a Christian, self-professed or otherwise; when asked, he described himself as an agnostic. You can read his last words, which were a recitation of the poem "Invictus" by William Ernest Henley for some insights into his "religious beliefs". As for associations, some of the people he associated with probably called themselves Christians, many did not. Peter Yellman |
| SFN Aug 26, 2005 6:22 AM EDT |
*bangs head against desk* |
| Abe Aug 26, 2005 7:56 AM EDT |
lol. I was wondering what that noise was! Are you OK SFN! |
| SFN Aug 26, 2005 8:04 AM EDT |
Religious conversations get me every time. |
| dinotrac Aug 26, 2005 8:42 AM EDT |
SFN -- Hope you're hanging in there. Tough or not tough, right place or not right place, in this day of people refusing to talk about anything important, any forum where a little level-headed (which does not preclude heated) dialog takes place gives at least a teensy-weensy safety valve. Otherwise, you get cases like a recent conversation I had out in Mass. On telling somebody that I believed in the right to life, somebody asked me how I could support abortion clinic bombings. Sigh. |
| Abe Aug 26, 2005 10:04 AM EDT |
dinotrac: You must look like a clinic bomber, do you?!!! |
| SFN Aug 26, 2005 12:14 PM EDT |
I'm still disgusted by sal's massive generalization about Jacks-In-The-Box - or as they preferred to be called, "people of cubicty". All is ask is that you jump one mile in their box, my friends. |
| salparadise Aug 26, 2005 12:34 PM EDT |
I was referring to the tendency of certain subjects to cause heated and often entirely unsolvable debates that can be hard to stop from snowballing.
And not referring to any person at all in any way. OK? |
| SFN Aug 26, 2005 12:51 PM EDT |
Um...ok. |
| salparadise Aug 26, 2005 1:46 PM EDT |
Cool.
:-) |
| tadelste Aug 27, 2005 7:21 AM EDT |
>I was referring to the tendency of certain subjects to cause heated and often entirely unsolvable debates that can be hard to stop from snowballing.
And not referring to any person at all in any way. Sort of like trying to argue a point with a parrot. |
| Abe Aug 27, 2005 11:43 AM EDT |
tadelste: Bad example, it is getting worst. We better stop here, shall we! |
| tadelste Aug 27, 2005 12:38 PM EDT |
Abe: I agree. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!