Conscience against "holy" writings

[kramraq]

I respect Muslims the same as Christians. Peace to all of you. Please enlighten me because I might be wrong and I never tried reading the Quoran. Is it true that one aspect of jihad or Holy War is to eliminate human lives for Islamic reasons? If yes, does it mean that individual's conscience is disregarded just to follow a holy writing? Wouldn't it be that your God be much more happier if you respect human life whatever faith he may have?

[Diadem]

That's not what the Koran says.

Mohammed, who, like all arabs, was descended from Abraham through Ishmael - not Isaac and Jacob/Israel. Mohammed was not religious, he was just a believer, who strove himself, and taught the striving, to do God's Will. Mohammed was given the third part of The Bible, known as the Koran (the gospel of unity), in order to enlighten and unite all mankind. The True Koran, which can be found in the King of kings' Bible, is not the Hadith, and is in complete harmony with both the Old and New Covenants/Testaments of The Bible, when correctly interpreted. The Hadith is what the Meccans wrongfully use as a foundation for the moslem/islamic religion, just as the non-Israelite jews wrongfully use the Talmud as the basis for the jewish religion, instead of following the True Torah.

[Nightshade]

What is the kIng of kings bible?

[kramraq]

That's not what the Koran says.


What does it says about Jihad?

[Diadem]

What does it says about Jihad?
I cannot say for sure, but the True Koran coincides with the words of the Bible thus it would not mention a Holy War against other believers of God. Actually, a Jihad would likely refer to God's war that he wages on Satan's followers in the end times. Nothing more. Jihad today, as taken out of context by radical Muslims following the misleading Hadeeth, preaches violence against non-Muslims because it is not God's word.

The Hadeeth is not God's word, rather Satan's. Before you balk, let me assure you that anyone who believes in God, must believe in Satan. Satan is the master at deception. We should always remain skeptical if a scripture preaches violence and hate.

Satan has gotten people to believe that all the wars involving religion are of God's work. Unfortunately, people have been interpreting Satan's word instead of God's word by reading the wrong material. God does not condone nor preach killing of our brothers and sisters, but it is by the interpretation of Satan's deception that we have resorted to killing one another by being mislead that we are doing God's work when instead we are doing Satan's work.

It's easy to recognize that anyone who reads religious scripture which condones such an atrocious behavior is not reading God's word but the devil's. Each and everyone of us is His creation. God would never receive any satisfaction from allowing us to harm each other by His very word. He preaches love, not hate.

http://jahtruth.net/kofkad.htm
It's a completely Christian site. Make sure you read it all if you can. That's the site where I finally accepted God. It explained it all to me (that one and a couple others).

I would suggest that one simply think about the following:

Muslims and Jews are both from Abraham. The Muslims from his son Ishmael and the Jews from his son Isaac. Why would God ever instruct them to kill one another? But Satan surely has, and he has done so by way of the manipulation of Jesus' own eternal enemies, the Edomite Jews, to pervert the Jewish teachings by forcing the people of Israel to read the Talmud. The Talmud, of course, refers to gentiles (like you and I) as goyim, or worthless cattle. That is NOT God's word. Do you see how Satan has deceived them?

There is no reasons for Jews to hate Arabs and so forth. We are all God's creations.

[Nightshade]

I would not say the hadeeth is the word of God or Satan it is prehaps worse than that the word of nmere man I belive in the hadeeth to a point in that they are not the basis for islam but notr are they all acurate in fact they shouldnt really be relied on at all but they can occasionally help in explaining things when they are backed up by the Koran.

I dont have time to post more now but I will when I get back from work Karmaq I siad somthing about jihad in the other thread would you look at that please.

:D

[Diadem]

I did Nightshade. :)

I don't even think it requires much contemplation. God would never condone the violence against his own children. That is evidence that the notion of Jihad is strictly an interpretation of Satan's word.

[Nightshade]

I was wondering Didem does this mean that you believe that the koran in its raw arabic form with no translation or tafseer (meanings) has been corrupted?
Im a bit :confused:

[Diadem]

I was wondering Didem does this mean that you believe that the koran in its raw arabic form with no translation or tafseer (meanings) has been corrupted?
Im a bit :confused:

I'm not sure what you are referring to Nightshade. Would you clarify for me? What exactly is the Koran in its raw arabic form, in your opinion?

I believe that the Hadeeth has been corrupted. Any of His word that preaches violence must ALWAYS be looked at as a corruption of His word. And, while the Bible teaches violence, this occurs only in the Old Testament, not the New Testament. Some would say this is hypocrisy, but God instructed His followers to expressly follow the New Testament only. Not the Old Testament. :)

[Nightshade]

Ok The koran tanding alone read only alone without accompiment of commonly agreed reasons and menaings behind ome of the ayahs (tafseer) and in arabic so no translation errors mighty have been seen and no regarding the hadeeth at all.
As far as I know and Im not saying I know all the koran but it says no violence except in self defence or defence of those your are ment to protect (families orphans the poor the weak) etc.

[emily655321]

God would never condone the violence against his own children. That is evidence that the notion of Jihad is strictly an interpretation of Satan's word.
Why the idea that "if not God, it must be Satan"? You remind me of the Church Lady character on Saturday Night Live. :lol: (No offense intended.) I was raised Catholic, and I never heard the idea that Satan had written parts of holy works. If it isn't God—and if you must consider them corrupted,—why can't it just be man's corruption of traditional religious teachings for his own interests? Not for diabolical reasons, just out of misunderstanding of the original message? It makes my skin crawl to hear the holy works of another religion (and did you say the Old Testament?) being called influenced by Satan, even if it's agreed that parts of the teachings are questionable by our modern cultural standards.

[Nightshade]

Agreeing with emily here I dont believe Satan has that power if fact hes pretty much powerless to do anything that big in my belief only people can do real evil.

[Diadem]

Why the idea that "if not God, it must be Satan"? You remind me of the Church Lady character on Saturday Night Live. :lol: (No offense intended.)

I was raised Catholic...

You mean Catholic as in worshipping Mary? :thumbs_up (no offense)


...and I never heard the idea that Satan had written parts of holy works. If it isn't God—and if you must consider them corrupted,—why can't it just be man's corruption of traditional religious teachings for his own interests?

Have you ever read the parable of Adam and Eve where man fell from grace?Was that his "corruption" that caused that or was it because of Satan's influence? That parable of the Bible explains a lot. :nod:


Not for diabolical reasons, just out of misunderstanding of the original message? It makes my skin crawl to hear the holy works of another religion (and did you say the Old Testament?) being called influenced by Satan, even if it's agreed that parts of the teachings are questionable by our modern cultural standards.

God specifically states to worship none other than God. When you have a religion that places more emphasis on Jesus' (God's) mother, Mary, than God himself, than it presents a discrepancy of sorts.

I never said I judged Catholics. I am merely stating that there teaching goes against God's word as prescribed by the Holy Bible. It's an innocent point.

[Diadem]

Agreeing with emily here I dont believe Satan has that power if fact hes pretty much powerless to do anything that big in my belief only people can do real evil.

Yes, but it is under Satan's influence that it happens. I never implied that Satan physically edited the Bible. :lol:

[RobinHood3000]

I can just see it now...:lol:

"Hey, you two, get off of my tail! Daddy's trying to work here...lesse, scribble out this Psalm, change a little wording here...somebody turn the air conditioning down, my ink's starting to freeze over!! Hmm...what to do with Job...what to do, indeed."

[emily655321]

You mean Catholic as in worshipping Mary? :thumbs_up (no offense)

...God specifically states to worship none other than God. When you have a religion that places more emphasis on Jesus' (God's) mother, Mary, than God himself, than it presents a discrepancy of sorts.

I never said I judged Catholics. I am merely stating that there teaching goes against God's word as prescribed by the Holy Bible. It's an innocent point.
Wow, you have a thing with Catholics, don't you? :p (In other words, it is your judgment that their teachings go against God's word. How do you know what God meant? Are you God?)

I don't know why I'm defending Catholics, since I'm an atheist, and since the point of my post had nothing to do with Catholicism (I merely mentioned it so you'd know I had grown up studying the Bible, and therefore was aware of a) its teachings, b) mainstream Christian belief). Still, since it seems an important point with you, no, most Catholics do not worship Mary, and such practice is not prescribed by Church dogma. "Mary cults" seem to be common among old women of Spanish-speaking cultures, but it is purely a cultural phenomenon, and has nothing to do with Catholic teaching.

Also, your mention of the Adam and Eve parable (thank you for identifying it as such, by the way) is circular logic. You base your argument—that "evil" acts of men are influenced by Satan—on a story that is based on the premise that Satan influences men to do evil. I'm afraid it doesn't actually make a point. Unless I misunderstood you, in which case please correct me.

[Pendragon]

Just a note here. I do happen to believe in Satan as well a God, balance in the universe. But man usually doesn't need any help to make him do sneaky and underhanded things, like changing scripture to suit himself. I use a 1611 King James Version to study and preach from, and just the other night came upon a scripture that I had never heard and I've been ordained since 1982. The reason: every sermon I've ever heard, or every quoting of the portion of scripture skips the verse. Why? Because they don't like it, so they ignore it. This is a prelude to the printing of Bibles where scriptures have been altered or removed for the same reason. Yes, they are out there. Is this the Devil's work? Not unless he is now wearing the robes of the clergy themselves, who approve the Bibles. Just a thought, I condemd no one, for as a man, I am unfit to judge. :nod:

[sporkubus]

Why does the existence of God require that a Satan character exist, as well?

[starrwriter]

Why does the existence of God require that a Satan character exist, as well?
It's yin and yang from Taoism, a much older religion than Christianity. Absolute good (God) cannot exist without the counter-balance of absolute evil (Satan.) This is why it's dangerous to demand too much goodness from people. The dark side of human nature will rear its ugly head in response.

[sporkubus]

It's yin and yang from Taoism, a much older religion than Christianity. Absolute good (God) cannot exist without the counter-balance of absolute evil (Satan.) This is why it's dangerous to demand too much goodness from people. The dark side of human nature will rear its ugly head in response.

I don't see how one religion being older than another gives it more credibility... but in that case, Vedic Hinduism is much older than Taoism, and it has no concept of absolute evil. Neither does Taoism, actually, from what I have seen. "Absolute evil" is much different than "relative evil" and the idea of "Satan" is also different from the idea of "absolute evil." Taoism teaches balance in all things that can be divided into yin and yang, but obviously we do not want balance between good and evil. Christians do not worship Satan half the time, and then worship God, in the interest of keeping power balanced between them. The teachings of Taoism cannot apply to absolute good and absolute evil because we always seek absolute good from a subjective perspective.

[Pendragon]

I don't see how one religion being older than another gives it more credibility... but in that case, Vedic Hinduism is much older than Taoism, and it has no concept of absolute evil. Neither does Taoism, actually, from what I have seen. "Absolute evil" is much different than "relative evil" and the idea of "Satan" is also different from the idea of "absolute evil." Taoism teaches balance in all things that can be divided into yin and yang, but obviously we do not want balance between good and evil. Christians do not worship Satan half the time, and then worship God, in the interest of keeping power balanced between them. The teachings of Taoism cannot apply to absolute good and absolute evil because we always seek absolute good from a subjective perspective.As an Orential teacher taught me way back in the ninth grade, what is the difference between "realitve evil" and "absolute evil"? Is one sin worth four points and another worth ten? Perhaps in mortal eyes. But in the eyes of a being with the power we attribute to God, imperfection is imperfection. That was over 25 years ago, but I've never forgotten Aki Gamblin, or the lesson he taught me. I believe he was into Zen. But I've used his example in Christianity often. A yin for a yang just means that must be an opposite to make a whole.

[sporkubus]

I don't believe in the existence of sin. God transcends judgement and duality, therefore God is neither good nor evil the way we think of good and evil. There is a difference between subjective and objective, or ultimate, reality.

[kramraq]

Thank you to all who posted in this thread, going back to the main topic, "Conscience against Holy Writings", what can you say about the Extremists? Are they killing innocent people for religious reasons? Are their acts justified in Koran (the Jihad)? If yes, does it mean that religious writings should be a priority than a man's conscience not to kill? Wouldn't be a God be much more happier if there are no killings only to prove obedience in your beliefs?

[Logos]

Thank you to all who posted in this thread, going back to the main topic, "Conscience against Holy Writings", what can you say about the Muslim Extremists? or the Al Queda? Are they killing innocent Christians or other people for religious reasons? Are their acts justified in Koran (the Jihad)? If yes, does it mean that religious writings should be a priority than a man's conscience not to kill? Wouldn't be a God be much more happier if there are no killings only to prove obedience in your beliefs?

Current political events and figures are not to be discussed in these forums. Just thought I'd remind people of that :)

[kramraq]

Current political events and figures are not to be discussed in these forums. Just thought I'd remind people of that :)

OK. I apologized for that. I have edited my last post. thank you for reminding.

[Psycheinaboat]

I use a 1611 King James Version to study and preach from, and just the other night came upon a scripture that I had never heard and I've been ordained since 1982. The reason: every sermon I've ever heard, or every quoting of the portion of scripture skips the verse.

I know I am straying from topic, but may I ask to which verse you refer?

[Nightshade]

Thank you to all who posted in this thread, going back to the main topic, "Conscience against Holy Writings", what can you say about the Extremists? Are they killing innocent people for religious reasons? Are their acts justified in Koran (the Jihad)? If yes, does it mean that religious writings should be a priority than a man's conscience not to kill? Wouldn't be a God be much more happier if there are no killings only to prove obedience in your beliefs?
I think weve already discussed this and I pointed out that no its not justified in the Koran as far a I know and to push away from modern politics to the ancient ones how come your so stuck on Islamic extremeists anyhow? Anything in extreme is bad even good. But prehps religous extremity is the worst of all. And since all religons that I know of at least as I understand it have the basis of love and respect for humanity I think its pretty obvious that No religon condones the death of the innocent.
The true problem that comes with religous etremisim is tha it tends to change your opinion on what innocence is. And who exactly are THE innocent. Which is not to say I excuse it.

[Pendragon]

I know I am straying from topic, but may I ask to which verse you refer?It's St. Matt. 12:30. Everyone quotes above it and below it, but I'd never heard anyone quote it. You must understand that this just means the churches and preachers I personally have heard, not everyone in the world. :nod: :angel:

[Mililalil XXIV]

That's not what the Koran says.

Mohammed, who, like all arabs, was descended from Abraham through Ishmael - not Isaac and Jacob/Israel. Mohammed was not religious, he was just a believer, who strove himself, and taught the striving, to do God's Will. Mohammed was given the third part of The Bible, known as the Koran (the gospel of unity), in order to enlighten and unite all mankind. The True Koran, which can be found in the King of kings' Bible, is not the Hadith, and is in complete harmony with both the Old and New Covenants/Testaments of The Bible, when correctly interpreted. The Hadith is what the Meccans wrongfully use as a foundation for the moslem/islamic religion, just as the non-Israelite jews wrongfully use the Talmud as the basis for the jewish religion, instead of following the True Torah.
From a book on bedouin tribes, collating many statements from muslim-Arabic historiographers, I was led to believe that Muhammad's tribe were Arabicized, and not originally Arabs at all. Many Arab tribes in history existed well before Abraham's birth, and were related to Ethiopians.

[Amra]

respect Muslims the same as Christians. Peace to all of you. Please enlighten me because I might be wrong and I never tried reading the Quoran. Is it true that one aspect of jihad or Holy War is to eliminate human lives for Islamic reasons? If yes, does it mean that individual's conscience is disregarded just to follow a holy writing? Wouldn't it be that your God be much more happier if you respect human life whatever faith he may have

Peace to you. There is no such concept in the holy Qur'an that would promote elimination of human life. That simply is not true. Jihad means struggle, and mainly refers to the struggle within oneself, against your own desires and temptations. Prophet Mohammed a.s called this aspect of jihad "the great jihad", or the most difficult one. This entails purification of your soul, control of your desires, and submission to the one and only God. Another aspect of jihad is war that is fought in defense, or when muslims are oppressed. The Qur'an does not promote wars or any kind of violence, and only when muslims are either oppressed or attacked are they allowed to defend themselves. Jihad has been greatly misrepresented in the western media and it was used for questionable purposes for those who have negative views of Islam and muslims. Here are some verses from the HOly Qur'an:

Bismillah


22:40 Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged - and Allah indeed has power to help them -

22:41 Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, 'Our Lord is Allah' - And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty -

60:9 Allah forbids you not, respecting those who have not fought against you on account of your religion, and who have not driven you forth from your homes, that you be kind to them and act equitably towards them; surely Allah loves those who are equitable.

60:10 Allah only forbids you - respecting those who have fought against you on account of your religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and have helped others in driving you out, that you make friends of them, and whosoever makes friends of them-it is these that are the transgressors.

[Amra]

More verses from the holy Qur'an:

Bismillah..

4:90. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).

8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

8:61. But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah. for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).

2:190. Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

2:191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

2:192. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

2:193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

Also, Prophet Mohammed a.s said:

Fight in God's path, fight for God; abide by the agreement made between you and your rivals, if there is any; do not transgress limits; do not commit musla (the mutilation of a corpse, i.e., do not cut off the ears, noses, or the like, in other words, do not perpetrate the things that are humiliating to human dignity); do not kill children, women, the elderly, and those who take refuge in places of worship."


There are many more but I figured these would be enough to explain when war is allowed and to dispel the myth that muslims have any inclination to fight others or eliminate human lives.

[rachel]

Dear Amra,
I like to read your posts as you are passionate in your belief.
Perhaps you can explain this to me from your perspective:

Hadith 4.52.85, narrated by Sahl bin Sad As-Sa'di who warns:

I saw Marwan bin Al-Hakam sitting in the Mosque. So I came forward and sat by his side. He told us that Azid bin Thabit had told him that Allah's Apostle had dictated to him the Divine Verse:"Not equal are those believers who sit(at home) and those who stirve hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth adn lives."(surah4:95)

And also the belief and teaching that no person enlisted in holy war can ever be found guilty of murder:
"Muhammed said : No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir"(hadith 9.50) This belief gives understanding does it not that it is horrific to Islaam to ever turn over so called terrorists who believe the holy Koran to non-Islamic authority to be indicted on say, a capital offense.
I am not trying to be political, it is simply part of the teaching and I am curious.
Thank you for your help.

the meaning of Kafir is to be a conceiler or a denier or in religious context any Non-Muslim

[Amra]

Dear Amra,
I like to read your posts as you are passionate in your belief.

Thank you.



I saw Marwan bin Al-Hakam sitting in the Mosque. So I cam forward and sat by his side. He told us that Azid bin Thabit had told him that Allah's Apostle had dictated to him the Divine Vers:"Not equal are those believers who sit(at home) and those who stirve hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth adn lives."(surah4:95)

Here is the the how the verses go so that you can see the concept:

Bismillah...


94. O ye who believe! When ye go abroad in the cause of Allah, investigate carefully, and say not to any one who offers you a salutation: "Thou art none of a believer!" Coveting the perishable goods of this life: with Allah are profits and spoils abundant. Even thus were ye yourselves before, till Allah conferred on you His favours: Therefore carefully investigate. For Allah is well aware of all that ye do.

95. Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-

96. Ranks specially bestowed by Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

97. When angels take the souls of those who die in sin against their souls, they say: "In what (plight) Were ye?" They reply: "Weak and oppressed Were we in the earth." They say: "Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to move yourselves away (From evil)?" Such men will find their abode in Hell,- What an evil refuge! -

98. Except those who are (really) weak and oppressed - men, women, and children - who have no means in their power, nor (a guide-post) to their way.

99. For these, there is hope that Allah will forgive: For Allah doth blot out (sins) and forgive again and again.

100. He who forsakes his home in the cause of Allah, finds in the earth Many a refuge, wide and spacious: Should he die as a refugee from home for Allah and His Messenger, His reward becomes due and sure with Allah. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

These verses describe the situation in which muslims live in a place where their faith could be compromised because they are oppressed. In that case, Allah t. asks them to leave that place in order to save their religion.Those who can fight the oppression should defend themselves with arms, those who cannot should leave that place, except those who have a justifiable reason to not do either. However, those who decide to stay in that place and not defend themselves cannot be on the same level as those who do, because the do not experience the same sacrifice. Also, during the time of Prophet a.s, there were people who outwardly accepted Islam, but in their hearts were not true believers, so when the times would get harder, they would show their hypocrisy. For example, when muslims were attacked and men were to go to war, these pepole would find reasons not to go. This showed their lack of faith, and in the verse God seperates those who sacrifice for their religion from those who don't. Again, this is not to say that muslims should fight for no reasons at all, but only when they are oppressed or attacked. Then, it is a duty to defend your religion, property, honor and life. This is not any different than any army in the world, where soldiers are punished when they run away from the field, or fail to report when drafted.



"Muhammed said : No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir"(hadith 9.50)

Just to clafy some things. Kur'an and hadith are not one and the same. If you quote from the Qur'an then you would provide the surah name/number and the verse, but if you cite a hadith, you give the book where it is to be found. Hadiths are not in the Qur'an, but it seems to me that you are providing a hadith but showing it referenced in the Qur'an. (9:50)? Am I right? I have never heard of such a hadith, but if you can give me information where it was to be found, I can research it for you.


This belief gives understanding does it not that it is horrific to Islaam to ever turn over a terorists who believes the holy Koran to non-Islamic authority to be indicted on say, a capital offense.

This is a very general statement, and there is really no way to answer this because there are many variables that were not mentioned that would affect the outcome. There is no terrorism in Islam. Fighting is allowed in certain circumstances and the war has to be fought within certain limits (cannot kill innocent people, children, elderly). To fight a war, the ruler of the muslim country would have to declare war to another nation. The armies would fight each other, until they sign a treaty and come to a certain agreement, or one wins over the other. If there are people who transgress the limits of war, they would be brought to court and punished, just like in any other society. IN your example, you refer to international law that has nothing to do with Islam., so I can answer from that perspective. Citizens of a certain country who commit crimes should be punished in their own country. Do you think that Lyndie England (soldier who was involved in the abu ghraib prison abuse scandal) should have been extradicated to the Iraqies and punished there as opposed to being punished by the US? You have to consider the consequences of allowing countries to capture and punish citizens of other countries. Also, here is something to think about.... The international law prosecutes war criminals in the international court with its court stationed in Hague. The US is not part of that, and has sought immunity from ANY punishment for the crimes their soldiers might commit in wars. Every other country is subject to that law, but the US is not. Why?

[rachel]

thank you Amra.
I will read some more. You are very kind.

[Logos]

Please do not discuss current politics.

[Theshizznigg]

I could say a lot, but many of you would think it biased or unfounded of me.
It would seem that in this day and age, people have begun to fear objective criticism where religions are concerned, because it goes against a persons rights.

Well, I must tell you that I've heard this holy war, Jihad business for a long time now. The claim that to kill the infidel, you get into heaven, the twenty five virgins, and all that sort.
I have friends who are Moslem, and when I asked them if it was true, they answered, a resounding. "Yes."

Well great, all of you are allowed your religious beliefs.
I don't find it at all urksome if someone when the time comes is ordered to attack and kill me, (that could happen with any race) and I could die tommorow, and it wouldn't matter to me since I've made my reconciliation with the lord.

I must state that even if it is a religous right, then it is fully my rights to combat it, when and if it ever does happen.

And another thing, why is it not the Moslems mainly defending their faith in this statement, yet other people?
Every Moslem I've ever asked, has given me the clear answer of yes, and I know quite a few, so let them answer this for themselves please.

Shizz

"Often it comes down to this, you, me, and a big bowl of spaghetti."

[Amra]

Theshizznigg,

"Every muslim you know" is not an authority in Islam. I have given you clear proof from the holy Qur'an on when it is allowed to fight and how. I don't go around saying that Christinaty allows excessive drinking, partying all night long, and sleeping with X people before marriage just because "every Christian I know does" so and believes Jesus forgave them for those sins. Right?

[Whifflingpin]

"Again, this is not to say that muslims should fight for no reasons at all, but only when they are oppressed or attacked."

The early history of Islam demonstrates the truth of this statement. See this summary from an Islamic website http://www.islamicart.com/library/history

634 The beginning of Arab Expansion: conquest of Palestine and Syria.
635 The Arabs cross the Euphrates.
640 Capture of Egypt.
641 Capture of Nineveh and Armenia.
642 The Arab expansion reached Persia.
644 Capture of Persia.
647 Capture of Tripolitania.
670 Annexation of Tunisia.
671 The Oxus is crossed.
673 - 678 First attempt to capture Constantinople.
714 The submission of Al-Andalus (Spain).

.

[Amra]

The early history of Islam demonstrates the truth of this statement.

The early history of Islam is not the same as what the holy Qur'an says. Also, simply giving dates and giving a name to something doesn't prove anything. The history is very complex and subjective, and looked at from different perspectives surely gives a different view. Someone will consider a war an occupation, others will call it liberation. ;)
If we go by the current history of Christians, we might conclude even worse things... :nod: Occupation of Iraq, occupation of Afghanistan, Invasion of Vietnam, Hiroshima, WWI, WWII, Cold War, slavery, Invasion of America....and so on..the list is vey exhaustive...

[Whifflingpin]

The dates and names are exactly as found on a site celebrating Islamic art, (which is, in fact what I was looking for,) so I assumed that they were given from an Islamic viewpoint.

Interesting, of course, that the Caliph who was pure enough to collect an unblemished version of the Koran was able to act in ways violently against the teachings of that Koran.

Were current affairs not forbidden here, I might concede all of your examples except slavery - Moslems have been fairly active slavers throughout the centuries and chattel slavery is still current in some Moslem countries.

[Amra]

The dates and names are exactly as found on a site celebrating Islamic art, (which is, in fact what I was looking for,) so I assumed that they were given from an Islamic viewpoint.

As I stated earlier, history is very complex, and I really cannot discuss it without having enough knowledge about it. Why was a certain war fought, what led to it, what were the things perceding the war, how was it fought? All of these questions had to be answered by an objective source to really know the truth, and since I am not a historian, I cannot get into these things. I have given you proof from the holy Qur'an that talks about the war, how it is to be fought, when and why. That is what Allah t. has revealed to the Prophet Mohammed a.s. Everything else is not relevant to this discussion. Do I disagree that human beings can act differently than God requires them to? Of course not. Are we discussing Islam or how people practice Islam? You tell me.


Interesting, of course, that the Caliph who was pure enough to collect an unblemished version of the Koran was able to act in ways violently against the teachings of that Koran.

Again, you don't know one thing about the war except the date and the name it was given. However, even if it was fought against Islamic principles, no one denies the fact that those who lived after the Prophet a.s were involved in political battles, that even led to the killing of Prophet's a.s two grandsons. Prophet a.s knew that this will happen, and prophesized about it. That the holy Qur'an is protected didn't depend on any one human being, but it was the promise of Allah t. that protected it, and it can be verified by how it was recorded, by whom, when, and that it was unchanged ever since. Just because one person made a mistake in something, if he did, doesn't mean he is wrong in every other thing. NO human being is considered to be sinless except the Prophets, and we do not expect that from them. However, you need to differentiate when you are discussin a religious text, and when you are discussing the practice of that religion by its followers, that may or may not be in accordance with the religion's teachings.



Were current affairs not forbidden here, I might concede all of your examples except slavery - Moslems have been fairly active slavers throughout the centuries and chattel slavery is still current in some Moslem countries.

Slavery was part of almost every ancient/modern society at some point in time. However, Islam abolished it little by little with various provisions that God gave to human beings. Islam teaches equality between human beings, and it does not discriminate among people based on color, nationality, or gender; it only seperates them by whether or not they believe or not believe.

[Whifflingpin]

W: "Chattel slavery is still current in some Moslem countries. "

Various forms of slavery occur - debt bondage, servile marriage, exploitation of children, etc. I do not think that any country may claim to be totally free of slavery at the present time.
In most countries, the obvious form, chattel slavery, no longer exists. There are however still some Moslem countries and societies where chattel slavery is practiced.

I do not think that I can accept your view that religious belief can be divorced from the behaviour, in general, of the believers. In individual cases, I think, your arguments hold, but, for instance, it is the pacifist behaviour of the generality Quakers that gives credibility to the assertion that pacifism is a Quaker belief. The warlike behaviour of Christians and Muslims, throughout their history, seriously undermines any claim they have to being pacific creeds.

A: "I have given you proof from the holy Qur'an that talks about the war, how it is to be fought, when and why. That is what Allah t. has revealed to the Prophet Mohammed a.s. Everything else is not relevant to this discussion."
If revered Moslems, e.g the Caliph Othman, have demonstrated that they interpret the Koran differently from you, that is very relevant to the discussion.

[Amra]

I do not think that I can accept your view that religious belief can be divorced from the behaviour, in general, of the believers. In individual cases, I think, your arguments hold, but, for instance, it is the pacifist behaviour of the generality Quakers that gives credibility to the assertion that pacifism is a Quaker belief. The warlike behaviour of Christians and Muslims, throughout their history, seriously undermines any claim they have to being pacific creeds.

Perception and truth are often very different. As I stated, we can discuss the religion based on its sources, and then we can discuss those who claim to follow the religion and see what their interpretations are, and if they are aligned with Islam. Perception has nothing to do with it, as ti can be altered however one sees it fit. The media can distort an image as it pleases, and we have been witnesses of this phenomena many times. If you do not seperate the religion from its followers, then that would lead to my conclusion that Christianity allows promiscuity, adultery, excessive drinking, beating, killing, wars, raping, abuse, drugs, homosexuality, and many other things we find in todays Christian societies being commited by those who say they follow Jesus. Many of them will even find excuses for their behavior, and even somehow align them with Jesus's teachings. However, that is the reason you have scholars who interpert the religion based on its main sources, and try to come to a concensus. Not every human being can go around interpreting things the way they best fit his desires and wishes. That would lead to anarchy. Islam places a great importance on following the authority, and relying on scholars/imams/alims, rather then your own interpretations of the holy Qur'an and the hadiths.


If revered Moslems, e.g the Caliph Othman, have demonstrated that they interpret the Koran differently from you, that is very relevant to the discussion

As of yet, we don't know how he interpreted it, since the only thing you have put down as "proof" is a year and the name of the event. That hardly suffices for an opinion, let alone a valid argument.

[Whifflingpin]

"Not every human being can go around interpreting things the way they best fit his desires and wishes. That would lead to anarchy. Islam places a great importance on following the authority"

Here we diverge beyond the point of discussion. I believe every human has to interpret things for himself/herself. I am an anarchist. I place no importance on following "authorities."

The rest is down to you, until, at least, you make other statements that I believe not to be borne out by evidence.

.

[Amra]

Here we diverge beyond the point of discussion. I believe every human has to interpret things for himself/herself. I am an anarchist. I place no importance on following "authorities."

Islam encompasses all aspects of life, from the social structure of a society, to political, to human behavior, relationship to God and others. All of those aspects are studied in depth by the scholars, so that they can provide valid, educated solutions to today's problems of the muslim society. You wouldn't take advice on nuclear power from a carpenter ;) , and in the same way, someone who hasn't studied Islam, doesn't speak arabic, nor is familiar with all aspects of the religion, cannot be considered capable of answering any complex issues regarding the religion. One ayat taken out of its context could lead to a completely different and wrong interpretation of what it is supposed to have. This would lead to chaos in every society. If you were an anarchist, then you wouldn't be able to function in ANY society today. It would mean that you would live your life in total disregard for the laws of that society, and only according to what you believe to be true and correct. So, following of authorities is necessary for two reasons:
1. People do not have enough knowledge on the complexity of the issues to be able to draw any usefull conclusions.
2. Authorities provide laws, that in turn provide structure within which every society can function in a healty way.

[Whifflingpin]

It takes a monumental arrogance in someone who knows nothing about me to presume to know what I believe and how I must live - even though she claims not to be able to do this for herself.

Mind you, the rest of the post does clearly demonstrate the total insanity of trying to impose democracy on a Moslem society.

[Amra]

It takes a monumental arrogance in someone who knows nothing about me to presume to know what I believe and how I must live - even though she claims not to be able to do this for herself.

:confused: What are you talking about? Where was I presuming anything about you and what you believe in ?


Mind you, the rest of the post does clearly demonstrate the total insanity of trying to impose democracy on a Moslem society.

I agree. It is insane to IMPOSE anything on anyone, so why should we think that imposing democracy is any different than imposing anything else? Muslims DO NOT think that the democracy is the best rule on earth, nor do they want it in their societies.Muslims believe that shariah law is the BEST rule, and hopefully there will be muslim countries that will be able to implement it fully sometime in the future, so that there is an alternative for those who want to live under such rule, to be able to do so.

[Whifflingpin]

"Where was I presuming anything about you and what you believe in ?"
Where you said "you" I thought you were addressing me, and telling me that I could not be an anarchist and function in society. However, a discussion on that is not germane to this forum

And I think we have tested the mods' patience far enough, so I will happily agree to your last statement, with the emphasis, in my case at least on "for those who want to live under such rule."

[Green Lady]

Why the idea that "if not God, it must be Satan"? You remind me of the Church Lady character on Saturday Night Live. :lol: (No offense intended.) I was raised Catholic, and I never heard the idea that Satan had written parts of holy works. If it isn't God—and if you must consider them corrupted,—why can't it just be man's corruption of traditional religious teachings for his own interests? Not for diabolical reasons, just out of misunderstanding of the original message? It makes my skin crawl to hear the holy works of another religion (and did you say the Old Testament?) being called influenced by Satan, even if it's agreed that parts of the teachings are questionable by our modern cultural standards.

So, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men... You've got to admit that one mistake of men could be being influenced by satan, or influenced by the absence of goodness in their life. Either way you look at it, it's kind of the same.

[Theshizznigg]

Touche my Arab friend!

I said that I could state a lot that would be unpopular in many views, hence I didn't post it.

I merely stated that all Moslems that I knew, (and some of them are from very important families.) when asked the question of is this true said yes.
It doesn't bother me that they said yes, and I don't really care what their religion tells them to do. I merely stated that if their religion requires them to kill, infidels, then I have every right to defend myself against them.

Nothing more, and nothing less.
I also like middle eastern cultures, on a personal note, and respect arabic culture, for what it is, a truly beautiful culture.

This might insult some people, but I just had to add it. :lol:

"Arabic women must be able to do really kinky things with their ankles. Otherwise they would not forbid the showing of them in the Quran."

Odd thought #169.

[Amra]

Touche my Arab friend!

I don't know if you are talking to me, but I am not Arabic. Not every muslim is Arabic, and someone who thinks so does show a certain degree of ignorance.


I merely stated that all Moslems that I knew, (and some of them are from very important families.) when asked the question of is this true said yes.

If I stated that every Christian I know claimed that it is ok to commit adultery because Jesus forgave them all theirs sins, would this prove that Christianity allows adultery? No. It would simply mean that all Christian that I know do not know what Jesus's teachings were. Right?


I also like middle eastern cultures, on a personal note, and respect arabic culture, for what it is, a truly beautiful culture.

I don't know how this could be relevant to our discussion, but if you wanted to add this to appear a more balanced person :D , then go for it. However, you have to know that Muslims come from countries all over the world, and that a tradition of a certain country doesn't necessarily have to be aligned with its religion.


"Arabic women must be able to do really kinky things with their ankles. Otherwise they would not forbid the showing of them in the Quran."

Kind of out of line and certainly meaningless. Women in Islam are supposed to cover up their WHOLE body except the hands and the face, so the saying could encompass than every part of the body except those two. Also, the holy Qur'an doesn't prescribe covering up to Arabic women but to believing women, and those can come from any possible background. This may be an odd thought for you, but here it is:

Only a small percentage of muslims are Arabs. :eek:

[Mililalil XXIV]

I don't know if you are talking to me, but I am not Arabic. Not every muslim is Arabic, and someone who thinks so does show a certain degree of ignorance.



If I stated that every Christian I know claimed that it is ok to commit adultery because Jesus forgave them all theirs sins, would this prove that Christianity allows adultery? No. It would simply mean that all Christian that I know do not know what Jesus's teachings were. Right?



I don't know how this could be relevant to our discussion, but if you wanted to add this to appear a more balanced person :D , then go for it. However, you have to know that Muslims come from countries all over the world, and that a tradition of a certain country doesn't necessarily have to be aligned with its religion.



Kind of out of line and certainly meaningless. Women in Islam are supposed to cover up their WHOLE body except the hands and the face, so the saying could encompass than every part of the body except those two. Also, the holy Qur'an doesn't prescribe covering up to Arabic women but to believing women, and those can come from any possible background. This may be an odd thought for you, but here it is:

Only a small percentage of muslims are Arabs. :eek:

Not all muslims are Arabs, nor all Arabs one ethnicity, nor all Arabs muslims.
That is true.

As for saying:

If I stated that every Christian I know claimed that it is ok to commit adultery because Jesus forgave them all theirs sins, would this prove that Christianity allows adultery? No. It would simply mean that all Christian that I know do not know what Jesus's teachings were. Right?

I have met many tens of thousands of so-called Christians from many different sects that have enduring complex disagreements, and never have I met a single one claiming to be Christian that says that adultery is not an utmost mortal sin. That is not a good comparison to use, to show that some muslims interpret the quran differently than you do.
Anyone committing adultery that claims to be a Christian is self-excommunicate by nature of his offence, and is an enemy to man's BEST FRIEND. No adulterer is permitted by the Catholic Tradition to recieve Communion as such. Those that admit adultery is a mortal sin, but are hypocrites, presume too hastilly, apart from due Penance, to be reinstated as "Saints", when, in the modernist fashion (which is heretical) they demand immediate leaps and bounds into the Blessing of the Innocent in their expectation for forgiveness. Those that make such presumption, having no responsible conscience, and no after-thought of Love, to see those hurt by their infidelity healed and given the preference, are still offending CHRIST, and not alligning themselves with the Grace by which HE is so merciful in HIS unfailing Love.
Such hypocrites are the tares planted by satan among the wheat of CHRIST's Field, and are the goat-hearted among the LORD's own Flock. Because undeveloped wheat looks just as unfruitful in its immaturity as a tare, it was thought best by some to leave all that resembles wheat superficially until the revelation of which is truly which at the time of harvest. This is CHRIST's gracious way with sinners - thus some smarten up and gratefully recieve a share among the Lot of the Blessed for ever, in true Repentance of their sins, while the wolves in sheep's clothing are judged according to a true and thorough, full testing. As a result, there are pseudo-Christians to reckon with, amidst one's survey of the House of the LORD.

Personally, I think you missed the point made about the Shiz liking Arabic culture. I think it sounded more like a compliment paid to Arabs, not a statement that Arabs=muslims - the previous statement had just been made of an appreciation for eastern cultures, and this probably just brought Arabs to mind, as one that is quickly picked out by many as advocating a certain female dress code. Personally, I love modesty of dress, and hate immodesty flaunted by male or female alike.

[Mililalil XXIV]

So, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men... You've got to admit that one mistake of men could be being influenced by satan, or influenced by the absence of goodness in their life. Either way you look at it, it's kind of the same.
And since we often see the children of certain schools of thought mimmicking their teachers' sayings, why not expect that a fallen celestial being can be involved in all the viewpoints of this world that are not cultivated out of direct communion with the CREATOR and one true GOD?

[Mililalil XXIV]

:confused: What are you talking about? Where was I presuming anything about you and what you believe in ?



I agree. It is insane to IMPOSE anything on anyone, so why should we think that imposing democracy is any different than imposing anything else? Muslims DO NOT think that the democracy is the best rule on earth, nor do they want it in their societies.Muslims believe that shariah law is the BEST rule, and hopefully there will be muslim countries that will be able to implement it fully sometime in the future, so that there is an alternative for those who want to live under such rule, to be able to do so.
That would be to presume on the free wills of the children of muslims, and would that not seem to be compulsion by immersion? What if a free thinker raised under sharia knows he must bind his or her soul to the dictates of a HIGHER POWER under a different Rule?

[Mililalil XXIV]

That the holy Qur'an is protected didn't depend on any one human being, but it was the promise of Allah t. that protected it, and it can be verified by how it was recorded, by whom, when, and that it was unchanged ever since. Just because one person made a mistake in something, if he did, doesn't mean he is wrong in every other thing.
Amra,
since this is a literature forum, and this thread is raised to discuss those whose consciences are against socalled "Holy Books", without even bringing up the matter alluded to in the thread's title, I do however raise a relevant point as it relates this all back to a literary question:
as you may have seen, in speaking of the Bible, Christians don't collectively say to atheists that the Bible, because true, must simply be taken as well preserved in ignorance. We often are gathering various evidences to build up a tracing out of a clear trail from the early writing of a Scripture, to its present existence. As for your above statement, in all fairness, can you substantiate it? To make the attempt would be to see in an apololgetical procedure a due token of graciousness to all earnest questioners, which token GOD HIMSELF is only all too happy to grant.
By apology, I mean, as the Greek term implies, to give a positive disertation, though some have come to see this term as denoting a negative self-deprecation.
Thank you for your consideration.
#24

[Basil]

If I stated that every Christian I know claimed that it is ok to commit adultery because Jesus forgave them all theirs sins, would this prove that Christianity allows adultery? No. It would simply mean that all Christian that I know do not know what Jesus's teachings were. Right?
That is not a good comparison to use, to show that some muslims interpret the quran differently than you do.
I don't think Amra's point had anything to do with interpretation, but rather the unreliability of anecdotal evidence.

[RobinHood3000]

I agree. I thought it a valid comparison--Amra said "if," not "that."

And Mililalil XXIV, I'd be careful about what you say about Christians collectively. I've met quite a varied group of Christians with equally varied attitudes towards atheists.

[Amra]

That would be to presume on the free wills of the children of muslims, and would that not seem to be compulsion by immersion? What if a free thinker raised under sharia knows he must bind his or her soul to the dictates of a HIGHER POWER under a different Rule?

I have never seen a society where a child's free will is exercised. If you know one, let me know, so that I do NOT raise my children there. :D Children who grow up in any society are raised with the values of that society and mostly accept them as their own later in life. What is a chance that a child living in a Christian family will end up being a Christian, or a child growing up in a democratic society embracing the values of that society?
Of course, the children will be raised according to the values of Islam if living under shariah and in a muslim family, but I don't know what other suggestion you are offering. Do you raise your children, if you have any, according to communism and atheism? Probably not. Usually the people who are born into one culture and grow up rejecting it are seen as outcasts in every society. If a person grows up a Nazi in Germany, he is certainly an outcast, just like a communist or a socialist growing up in a democratic and capitalistic society. That is just the fact of life.


Christians don't collectively say to atheists that the Bible, because true, must simply be taken as well preserved in ignorance. We often are gathering various evidences to build up a tracing out of a clear trail from the early writing of a Scripture, to its present existence. As for your above statement, in all fairness, can you substantiate it? To make the attempt would be to see in an apololgetical procedure a due token of graciousness to all earnest questioners, which token GOD HIMSELF is only all too happy to grant.

I think that there is only a certain degree of evidence you can bring about any scripture, and beyond that, it is the matter of faith. I have stated that to me God's promise is enough to believe that the holy Qur'an is protected, but to those who need more, there is historical evidence of how the Qur'an was written down, how many hafiz had to recite it to substantiate its validity, and how it was protected by them. Since its first recording on paper to this date, not one letter from the holy Qur'an has changed. There is a museum in Turkey, I think, that has the first ever compiled Qur'an, and it is exactly the same as the one we have today. The only thing that you could disagree on is whether or not the Qur'an was changed prior to being written down, but then we have the evidence of how it doesn't contradict itself, the mathematical miracle that protects its structure, and the hadiths which were collected about how the Qur'an was compiled and what great attention to accuracy was given when doing so. If that is not enough, then we leave it to faith. However, the Bible itself is the proof of its corruption and change, because there is a handful of different versions of it TODAY. We don't even have to go back in history to question anything, it is enough to go to a store and look at all these different versions of it. The Roman Catholic Bible, the Protestant Bible, the New Updated King James version and others. Which one should I pick out? They don't merely differ in translation, but in the number of chapters they have, in the order of how the chapters are put, to many other inaccuracies. I do not deny the fact that Jesus a.s was given the Indzil, but I do not accept it, just like many other theologians, that what we have today is the original Word of God as it was revealed. Sure there are parts of it that are preserved, but if you can't know which those are and which have been corrupted, then you cannot accept the Book itself as valid anymore.

Here is also a link about the history of the holy Qur'an, the early manuscripts and where they are preserved.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/



I don't think Amra's point had anything to do with interpretation, but rather the unreliability of anecdotal evidence.

Thank you.

[Amra]

The compilation of the holy Qur'an...


Lectures on the Development of the Islamic or World-View,
Intellectual Tradition and Polity

by
Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah

Published by Adam Publishers & Distributors Shandar Market, Chitli Qabar, Delhi, India

The oldest reference to the publication and propagation of the Qur’an is found in Ibn Ishaq's book al-Maghazi. The book had been lost to posterity, but parts of it have been recovered recently and have been published by the Government of Morocco. It contains a brief [and] extremely interesting tradition covering a line and a half. We do not know why Ibn Hisham inadvertently missed this statement in his biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The statement is a follows: "Whenever the text of the Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) he would first of all recite it in the assembly of men. Later on he would repeat the same text in the special assembly of women."

This is an important event in the history of Islam. It establishes that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was as much concerned with the education of women as he was with the instruction of men. This is the oldest available reference to the propagation of the Qur’an. What happened after this is difficult to determine. From the very beginning of the Prophet's career we come across something unfamiliar i.e. the writing down of the Qur’an and possibly committing it to memory. On the occasion of the first revelation, namely the first five verses of al-'Alaq, Gabriel imparted two lessons to the Prophet (peace be upon him). First. he taught him how to purify the body before beginning prayers. He instructed him about the details of ablution and purification after answering the call of nature. Second, he taught him how to perform the prayer. Gabriel assumed the position of the Imam and the Prophet (peace be upon him) assumed the role of a follower standing behind him, watching every movement and following his various postures during the prayer i.e. standing, bending and prostrating himself. It is obvious that verses of the Qur’an are recited during prayers. Therefore, the Prophet (peace be upon him) must have asked his followers during the very early period to memorize the Qur’an and repeat the verses constantly in the daily prayers.

more on this link...

http://muslim-canada.org/emergencep1ch2.html

[Mililalil XXIV]

The Shizznigg wrote:

"I merely stated that all Moslems that I knew, (and some of them are from very important families.) when asked the question of is this true said yes.
It doesn't bother me that they said yes, and I don't really care what their religion tells them to do. I merely stated that if their religion requires them to kill, infidels, then I have every right to defend myself against them."

Amra wrote:

"If I stated that every Christian I know claimed that it is ok to commit adultery because Jesus forgave them all theirs sins, would this prove that Christianity allows adultery? No. It would simply mean that all Christian that I know do not know what Jesus's teachings were. Right? "

In carefully noting the wordings, I thought that one saying that all familiar muslims (to the poster) agreeing with things that can be found in the earliest islamic traditions is not comparable to hypocrites obviously doing opposite of what Christian Tradition has always stated from antiquity. It just doesn't seem in form like balancing two likes.
You are probably looking at this from a different aspect, Basil.
Any ways, this may make clearer along what lines I saw a descriptive asymmetricality (from the viewpoint of written thought organization - if I were trying to make the most direct point).
And Amra had mentioned a concern about an interpretive issue.

[Mililalil XXIV]

I agree. I thought it a valid comparison--Amra said "if," not "that."

And Mililalil XXIV, I'd be careful about what you say about Christians collectively. I've met quite a varied group of Christians with equally varied attitudes towards atheists.
Sir,
if you read my post above, maybe you'll understand my commented on remarks better.
I know of adulterers that called themselves Christian, but they didn'y dare teach that Christians okay that - not even while they lived their lies.
I guess what I should add to the above post is that it seemed a far-fetched plausibility was compared with an idea well-propagated by people that swear they are muslims, and appeal to a more traditional reference to tradition.
While I respect that you speak from earnest-heartedness, I confess that I have honestly failed to pick up on the meaning of the reference to atheists (not that I disagree with the comment).

[RobinHood3000]

as you may have seen, in speaking of the Bible, Christians don't collectively say to atheists that the Bible, because true, must simply be taken as well preserved in ignorance.
'Twas that to which I was referring.

[Mililalil XXIV]

I have never seen a society where a child's free will is exercised. If you know one, let me know, so that I do NOT raise my children there.

I think that there is only a certain degree of evidence you can bring about any scripture, and beyond that, it is the matter of faith. I have stated that to me God's promise is enough to believe that the holy Qur'an is protected, but to those who need more, there is historical evidence of how the Qur'an was written down, how many hafiz had to recite it to substantiate its validity, and how it was protected by them. Since its first recording on paper to this date, not one letter from the holy Qur'an has changed. There is a museum in Turkey, I think, that has the first ever compiled Qur'an, and it is exactly the same as the one we have today. The only thing that you could disagree on is whether or not the Qur'an was changed prior to being written down, but then we have the evidence of how it doesn't contradict itself, the mathematical miracle that protects its structure, and the hadiths which were collected about how the Qur'an was compiled and what great attention to accuracy was given when doing so. If that is not enough, then we leave it to faith. However, the Bible itself is the proof of its corruption and change, because there is a handful of different versions of it TODAY. We don't even have to go back in history to question anything, it is enough to go to a store and look at all these different versions of it. The Roman Catholic Bible, the Protestant Bible, the New Updated King James version and others. Which one should I pick out? They don't merely differ in translation, but in the number of chapters they have, in the order of how the chapters are put, to many other inaccuracies. I do not deny the fact that Jesus a.s was given the Indzil, but I do not accept it, just like many other theologians, that what we have today is the original Word of God as it was revealed. Sure there are parts of it that are preserved, but if you can't know which those are and which have been corrupted, then you cannot accept the Book itself as valid anymore.

Here is also a link about the history of the holy Qur'an, the early manuscripts and where they are preserved.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

Amra,
what about after childhood? What if one has never had a thing proved to him concerning islam?
Whether one listens or not, I think it my duty - in the case I would make for the Bible - to bring out as much evidence as possible for questioners to scrutinize. That is why the Church is working in a major way on investigating her own evidence, rather than ask a generation so estranged from Faith to try faithlessly to embrace even the Faith itself.
I believe entirely differently than I was taught as a child to. I was zealous, like my father, in what I had been fed from birth, but, in grade 2, I had an inner impression that what I had known was empty, and had a gleam of Hope to find the True Religion one day. When I was eleven, at the height of irreligious contemplation, I suddenly was aware of GOD's visitation to me, put away the impious contemplation, and sought to become a Christian, though I had previously hated them without cause - and no Christian had any part in the matter.
If I had started out a muslim, then had this experience, would your idea be just? Maybe sharia isn't any more islamic than adultery is Christian. What would sharia enforce according to all literature?

[Amra]

In carefully noting the wordings, I thought that one saying that all familiar muslims (to the poster) agreeing with things that can be found in the earliest islamic traditions is not comparable to hypocrites obviously doing opposite of what Christian Tradition has always stated from antiquity. It just doesn't seem in form like balancing two likes.

It would, if you would just call muslims who claim things that are contradictory to the holy Qur'an hypocrites, like you call Christians that when they act differently from what Jesus thought. It is very comparable because you take the actions of one group and say that they represent the true religion, but then you take the actions of another group and claim that they are hypocrites. Based on what are you doing this, if not based on your own agenda? I gave you proof from the holy Qur'an about how Islam looks at war, violence, and treaties, but you chose to ignore that because some muslims, who have no authority at all in Islam, are supposedly saying something else. If you bring proof from the Bible where Jesus prohibts adultery, and then I come back saying that I know people who claim they are devoted Christians but who commit adultery and claim that Jesus forgave them for those sins, what would you say? Would I have proven, based on the actions of some people, that Jesus's a.s teachings were different than what is in the Bible?


I know of adulterers that called themselves Christian, but they didn'y dare teach that Christians okay that - not even while they lived their lies.

WEll, I know of Christians who do claim that Jesus forgave them all sins, and that because we live in such society where adultery is tolerated, it is not that bad at all. Now what? :D MY point is simply that we cannot use people's practice and say that they represent exactly what God requires of them. Muslims do not necessarily represent the true Islam, and in many instances, I will be the first to admit that. That is the reason we have to seperate those two, because the holy Qur'an is infallible, but humans DO make mistakes, and are not infallible. That is why we can never put those two on the same level.



I guess what I should add to the above post is that it seemed a far-fetched plausibility was compared with an idea well-propagated by people that swear they are muslims, and appeal to a more traditional reference to tradition.

LOL. "Well-propagated by people that swear they are muslims". What is that supposed to mean? Do we know the names of these people? Are they any scholars? Do they have any authority in Islam? What kind of proof did they bring for their statements? Are you just making this up based on the perception you have of Islam and muslims without really being able to substantiate any of these claims?


what about after childhood? What if one has never had a thing proved to him concerning islam?

I don't understand this last statement.



Whether one listens or not, I think it my duty - in the case I would make for the Bible - to bring out as much evidence as possible for questioners to scrutinize.

I agree. I have no problem with discussing my religion and bringing proof, as little as I know :nod: , of its validity.


That is why the Church is working in a major way on investigating her own evidence, rather than ask a generation so estranged from Faith to try faithlessly to embrace even the Faith itself.

Are we talking about the same church that used to kill and prosecute scientists who disagreed with its views of the universe and creation of life? The same church that used to burn books that contradicted its, later proven wrong, teachings? Seriously, are we? ;)



I believe entirely differently than I was taught as a child to.

Me too.


If I had started out a muslim, then had this experience, would your idea be just?

If you had started out as a muslim, you would have stayed a muslim. :D Those who find the light would be crazy to replace it with darkness. ;)


Maybe sharia isn't any more islamic than adultery is Christian.

Shariah is fundamental to Islam.


What would sharia enforce according to all literature?

What do you mean? What would shariah law enforce if you left Islam?

Let me just quote this.... :nod:


Deu 28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:


Deu 28:16 Cursed [shalt] thou [be] in the city, and cursed [shalt] thou [be] in the field.


Deu 28:17 Cursed [shall be] thy basket and thy store.


Deu 28:18 Cursed [shall be] the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.


Deu 28:19 Cursed [shalt] thou [be] when thou comest in, and cursed [shalt] thou [be] when thou goest out.


Deu 28:20 The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.


Deu 28:21 The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it.


Deu 28:22 The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.


Deu 28:23 And thy heaven that [is] over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee [shall be] iron.


Deu 28:24 The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.


Deu 28:25 The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.


Deu 28:26 And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray [them] away.


Deu 28:27 The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.


Deu 28:28 The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart:


Deu 28:29 And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save [thee].


Deu 28:30 Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof.


Deu 28:31 Thine ox [shall be] slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof: thine *** [shall be] violently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee: thy sheep [shall be] given unto thine enemies, and thou shalt have none to rescue [them].


Deu 28:32 Thy sons and thy daughters [shall be] given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail [with longing] for them all the day long: and [there shall be] no might in thine hand.


Deu 28:33 The fruit of thy land, and all thy labours, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway:


Deu 28:34 So that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.


Deu 28:35 The LORD shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head.


Deu 28:36 The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.


Deu 28:37 And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD shall lead thee.


Deu 28:38 Thou shalt carry much seed out into the field, and shalt gather [but] little in; for the locust shall consume it.


Deu 28:39 Thou shalt plant vineyards, and dress [them], but shalt neither drink [of] the wine, nor gather [the grapes]; for the worms shall eat them.


Deu 28:40 Thou shalt have olive trees throughout all thy coasts, but thou shalt not anoint [thyself] with the oil; for thine olive shall cast [his fruit].


Deu 28:41 Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity.


Deu 28:42 All thy trees and fruit of thy land shall the locust consume.


Deu 28:43 The stranger that [is] within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low.


Deu 28:44 He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.


Deu 28:45 Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee:


There are many more curses, but my text was too long for this site, so I had to stop....







;)

[Mililalil XXIV]

'Twas that to which I was referring.
I said that collectively Christians do not have disregard for offering evidence to consider about the Bible, rather than just saying entirely, "Accept it without reason". Perhaps had I used the word "universally". My point is this:
Amra had said that there was no reason for giving the alleged reliabilty of the quran an able defense, adding that it all boils down to it being taken on faith.
I was merely saying that what I suggested an attempt be made for is not something that isn't attempted energetically by many a Christian.

[Logos]

Amra, I'm asking you to please refrain from posting so many quotes. You don't need more than a few to express your opinion.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Amra wrote:

"Are we talking about the same church that used to kill and prosecute scientists who disagreed with its views of the universe and creation of life? The same church that used to burn books that contradicted its, later proven wrong, teachings? Seriously, are we?"

If I were even slightly to refer to Muahammad's faults, would my thread not be locked? I do have evidence for all I say, but would I be as free to say it as you are to say obscure allegations? By obscure, I refer to the fact that some accusations mix a myriad of medieval entities into one hybrid that never really existed as misrepresented. Things done over a couple centuries are tallied up and presented as the sum of a single generation in the Catholic Church, while things done only in a few generations in a few locales - often by those that soon after left the Church, or where barbarians had recently killed the majority of the former Catholic population, then had barely begun to absorb their victims' Religion - are made out to extend right back in time from today to CHRIST HIMSELF. That is propaganda.

[Stanislaw]

Amra wrote:

"Are we talking about the same church that used to kill and prosecute scientists who disagreed with its views of the universe and creation of life? The same church that used to burn books that contradicted its, later proven wrong, teachings? Seriously, are we?"

If I were even slightly to refer to Muahammad's faults, would my thread not be locked? I do have evidence for all I say, but would I be as free to say it as you are to say obscure allegations? By obscure, I refer to the fact that some accusations mix a myriad of medieval entities into one hybrid that never really existed as misrepresented. Things done over a couple centuries are tallied up and presented as the sum of a single generation in the Catholic Church, while things done only in a few generations in a few locales - often by those that soon after left the Church, or where barbarians had recently killed the majority of the former Catholic population, then had barely begun to absorb their victims' Religion - are made out to extend right back in time from today to CHRIST HIMSELF. That is propaganda.
Well said, I agree with your statement completely.

[RobinHood3000]

Ah, but therein lies a strong argument for atheism. Christians are not without propaganda themselves (not that such behavior reflects on those above). The point that Amra's trying to make (I think) is that no religion is free from mistakes in human interpretation.

[Stanislaw]

Ah, but therein lies a strong argument for atheism. Christians are not without propaganda themselves (not that such behavior reflects on those above). The point that Amra's trying to make (I think) is that no religion is free from mistakes in human interpretation.

I agree with that, Humans were given free will, so they are permitted to interpret holy texts as they see fit, its not really an argument for atheism...atheists have propoganda too.

an aside: damn it if I have to edit this again because of poor grammer!

[Scheherazade]

an aside: damn it if I have to edit this again because of poor grammer!Not because of poor grammAr but maybe because of poor spelling? ;)

[RobinHood3000]

'Tis an argument for my atheism, I believe--at least then my interpretation is my own. And as of yet, I haven't seen any atheist propaganda (at least not in pamphlet or booklet form).

[Basil]

Percy Shelley was expelled from Oxford for coauthoring a pamphlet entitled The Necessity of Atheism. How did the university find out about the pamphlet, you ask? Because he sent a copy to every bishop and college head at Oxford University!

[Stanislaw]

Not because of poor grammAr but maybe because of poor spelling? ;)
garr dang it I know what I sprachen! :D

[Stanislaw]

'Tis an argument for my atheism, I believe--at least then my interpretation is my own. And as of yet, I haven't seen any atheist propaganda (at least not in pamphlet or booklet form).

There have been a few atheistic books, I mean propoganda be propoganda regardless of who be speakin it, is all I'm sayin.

[Scheherazade]

Percy Shelley was expelled from Oxford for coauthoring a pamphlet entitled The Necessity of Atheism.Which only goes to prove that it is actually the atheists who are discriminated agaist!

:p

[Stanislaw]

Which only goes to prove that it is actually the atheists who are discriminated agaist!

:p

Is funny about that...every one is discriminated...but whos the discrimintator? :D

[Theshizznigg]

You people seem to be forgetting that many of the problems that have arisen from both Christians and Christianity, is not the religion, but the failure to follow that religion to its actual calling.
This is not uncommon in the fact that since we are not perfect beings, then we cannot be expected to follow precepts perfectly, and will fail from time to time.
Thus we learn from our failures, and grow wise from them.
Hence the other major thing, behind Christianity, is its willingness to forgive the failings of all, Christian or otherwise.

"Holy Moses, your on fire!"

[Stanislaw]

You people seem to be forgetting that many of the problems that have arisen from both Christians and Christianity, is not the religion, but the failure to follow that religion to its actual calling.
This is not uncommon in the fact that since we are not perfect beings, then we cannot be expected to follow precepts perfectly, and will fail from time to time.
Thus we learn from our failures, and grow wise from them.
Hence the other major thing, behind Christianity, is its willingness to forgive the failings of all, Christian or otherwise.

"Holy Moses, your on fire!"

Of course you are correct, the problem lies not with the religion, but the person whom claims to practice it...same is for communism, and quite a few things in existance.

[RobinHood3000]

'Tis true that nobody is perfect--but it is just that some people fail so spectacularly and are so wrong that one wonders whether they should practice religion at all.

[Stanislaw]

'Tis true that nobody is perfect--but it is just that some people fail so spectacularly and are so wrong that one wonders whether they should practice religion at all.

Indeed, but be wary not to judge a group on some of its practitioners, or those who claim to be such.
Look at how communism is approached in todays society, everyone complains about it and is viewed in the same regards as german facism...but it is not because the idea is bad, but the people who claimed they were practicing it (Stalin) created a bad name for it.

[RobinHood3000]

Oh, of course--like I said, I know some horribly narrow-minded religious people and some spectacularly wonderful religious people. The spectrum for pretty much any demographic runs the gamut, doesn't it?

[rachel]

that is what I love about you M'Lord, you listen carefully and you are so fair. hugs

[Mililalil XXIV]

'Tis an argument for my atheism, I believe--at least then my interpretation is my own. And as of yet, I haven't seen any atheist propaganda (at least not in pamphlet or booklet form).
What about all atheistic popular books?

[RobinHood3000]

What atheistic popular books? And I certainly hope you're not talking about Harry Potter.

As for me, perhaps the most blatantly appalling form of propaganda I saw was a booklet that a classmate of mine gave me at the behest of her youth group leader. In it, I read anecdotes in which Christians seemed to be trying to paint themselves as martyrs, the persecuted minority--in my case, it's usually the Christians doing the persecuting (but then, most of the religious people I know are Christians, so I imagine that fact is circumstantial).

[Stanislaw]

What atheistic popular books? And I certainly hope you're not talking about Harry Potter.

As for me, perhaps the most blatantly appalling form of propaganda I saw was a booklet that a classmate of mine gave me at the behest of her youth group leader. In it, I read anecdotes in which Christians seemed to be trying to paint themselves as martyrs, the persecuted minority--in my case, it's usually the Christians doing the persecuting (but then, most of the religious people I know are Christians, so I imagine that fact is circumstantial).

Davinci Code?

Well I never said that "christians" don't resort to propoganda, damn near every group in existance does, I think it is almost a part of human nature.
It's just that it is wrong to practice it, regardless of which group it comes from, and just because some members of a group indulge in this activity does not mean all members of the group do.

[RobinHood3000]

Eh--I've never read it, and I certainly don't endorse it as an accurate reflection of what atheism is. Besides, for every Da Vinci Code, how many Chronicles of Narnia are there?

[Stanislaw]

Eh--I've never read it, and I certainly don't endorse it as an accurate reflection of what atheism is. Besides, for every Da Vinci Code, how many Chronicles of Narnia are there?

:D nice, I know, like I said, neither side is without propoganda. :nod:

[RobinHood3000]

Hey, at least Dan Brown has the decency to aim his propaganda at an older demographic. :p

[Stanislaw]

Hey, at least Dan Brown has the decency to aim his propaganda at an older demographic. :p


...older than five year olds? :D

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Hey, at least Dan Brown has the decency to aim his propaganda at an older demographic. :p

Older physically - certainly not with regards to mental age. :lol:

[Theshizznigg]

Tsk Tsk Tsk

Naughty children you've lost your kittens.

:)

[Mililalil XXIV]

What atheistic popular books? And I certainly hope you're not talking about Harry Potter.

As for me, perhaps the most blatantly appalling form of propaganda I saw was a booklet that a classmate of mine gave me at the behest of her youth group leader. In it, I read anecdotes in which Christians seemed to be trying to paint themselves as martyrs, the persecuted minority--in my case, it's usually the Christians doing the persecuting (but then, most of the religious people I know are Christians, so I imagine that fact is circumstantial).
I hope you're not referring to Chick Publications! If so, I don't know the publishers!

Are you hinting that you need my help enlisted, my good man? Are you in some sort of danger? Hello? Hello? Hello! Hello? Hello!

On no! Them fundamentalists got poor Robin. He's dropped his cell phone in Sherwood Forest - I'd better track him on bare foot (so that I don't leave tracts).

[RobinHood3000]

Bah--I fear no fundamentalists. The World's Greatest Archer shall never fall to any number of 700 Club members!!

[Mililalil XXIV]

Nonetheless:

I'd better track him on bare foot (so that I don't leave tracts).
Get it? Hah hah! :banana:

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Bah--I fear no fundamentalists. The World's Greatest Archer shall never fall to any number of 700 Club members!!

Give 'em an arrer up the fundament Robin! That'll learn 'em! :D

[Mililalil XXIV]

Give 'em an arrer up the fundament Robin! That'll learn 'em! :D
And 700 clubs up one side, and 700 more down the other - you're feeling
*generous today.
* as in generating quite a grudge. Be a man, Robin, don't rub it.

[Mililalil XXIV]

There is no terrorism in Islam. Fighting is allowed in certain circumstances and the war has to be fought within certain limits (cannot kill innocent people, children, elderly). To fight a war, the ruler of the muslim country would have to declare war to another nation. The armies would fight each other, until they sign a treaty and come to a certain agreement, or one wins over the other. If there are people who transgress the limits of war, they would be brought to court and punished, just like in any other society. IN your example, you refer to international law that has nothing to do with Islam., so I can answer from that perspective. Citizens of a certain country who commit crimes should be punished in their own country. Do you think that Lyndie England (soldier who was involved in the abu ghraib prison abuse scandal) should have been extradicated to the Iraqies and punished there as opposed to being punished by the US? You have to consider the consequences of allowing countries to capture and punish citizens of other countries. Also, here is something to think about.... The international law prosecutes war criminals in the international court with its court stationed in Hague. The US is not part of that, and has sought immunity from ANY punishment for the crimes their soldiers might commit in wars. Every other country is subject to that law, but the US is not. Why?

You seem to constantly slip in biased political statements that just aren't so -but, since no one's counter-statements are given place, you alone are allowed to make certain arguments, while the counter-arguments not made are buried alive, however true they be, with mounting slanders against all non-muslims.

[Logos]

No current politics allowed.