What does Islam mean for you?

[Zemouli Chahra]

They actually continue to impose Islam by force today. The Muslims do not want Islam. They want Western democracies and hence all the trouble Islam is having today.
The people want Western demacracies. Look at Egypt, Lybia, Syria, etc. Islam is still what it always was, as I said. And they better stop financing terrorism and killing their citizens or I can guarantee you they are going to be finished faster than through slow evolution.
Why do most Muslims want to migrate out of Islam if they can? You think it is because Muslims like Islam. But of course, while inside, they could lose their tongues if they told anyone what they want. Islam is obsolete as a system of government and this is the end of this discussion. I'll not go in circles about this.

If there are any Muslims that do anything that is wrong we should realize that this is an individual who happens to be Muslim, therefore, one’s deeds are not to be attributed to the religion. Just as in a Judeo-Christian society like the United States, whenever a Jew or a Christian perpetrates a crime it is not attributed to Judaism or Christianity. Thus, the bad that the Muslims may do is not to be associated with Islam. Since the creation of humankind there has been an opposition for Islam to exist in its pristine purity and total completeness and the forces against it are still prevalent today.
Also, after the Egyptian and tunisian revolution, what did happen? The Muslim parties wone the parliamentery election with high percentage...And you should know that they were prevented from participation before revolution and the late governments did its possibility to prevent them from politics.... this refutes the idea that you've given that muslims don't like Islam. the opposite, they did choose Muslim parties for their representation in parliament.

"and this is the end of this discussion. I'll not go in circles about this"
Why? We did benefit from your opinion... and it would be better if you maintain discussion.

[Zemouli Chahra]

A Biblical picture of God
A Muslim believes that God is unlike anything we can imagine. No one can look at him and live. He never tires. He is All-Knowing, All-Seeing, All-Powerful, Perfect. All he needs do is decree a matter and it will be. Yet the language of the current Bible never fails to picture even God himself in undignified terms: God goes for a stroll: Genesis 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden." God can not find Adam (not all-knowing): Genesis 3:9-10 "And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where are you? And he said, I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself."(from God?) God does not know if Adam ate from the tree or not (not all-knowing): Genesis 3:11 "And he (God) said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" Before looking for hidden meanings for the above verses, we should consider the following: 1) Read section 2.3. 2) If you were to give your child total, unconstrained freedom to do whatever he wants in your house, you only ask him "don’t play with my stereo." If he then goes ahead anyway and proceeds to dismantle it into fifty different pieces. If you know for a fact that he did it and you know exactly where he has hidden himself (maybe you had a hidden camera somewhere), would you walk all over the house calling out "Where are you my son?," "come out, come out wherever you are"?, or would you storm up to the place where he was hiding, pull him out by his ears, and punish him severely? 3) If you did not know where he was hiding, but knew what he had done without a doubt, would you, once you had found him, ask him: "why are you hiding? Did you break my stereo?" It is important to first attempt to think logically before looking for abstract meanings. Note: For the Islamic version of this incident please read chapter 15. God becomes tired and needs to be *******ed: Exodus 31:17 "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was *******ed." Notice that the verse does not claim that God Almighty "abstained from work," but rather that He "rested." This implies that it is possible for God Almighty to experience fatigue and that He is not All-Mighty and All-Powerful since He sometimes needs to be "*******ed." God is not cognizant and/or is not eternally aware (not all knowing, all seeing, attentive and aware): Psalms 44:23 "Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever." When God finally becomes cognizant attentive and aware, He acts like a drunkard: Psalms 78:65 "Then the LORD awaked as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine." The above verses are responded to by the Almighty in the noble Qur’an as follows: "And verily We (God) did create the heavens and the earth in six days and no fatigue touched Us." The noble Qur’an, Qaf(50):38 "Allah! there is no god but He, the Living, the Sustainer and Protector. Neither slumber nor sleep overtake Him. His are all things in the heavens and the earth. Who can intercede in His presence except as He permits? He knows what is before and behind them. Nor do they encompass aught of His knowledge except as He wills. His throne does extend over the heavens and the earth and He feels no fatigue in preserving them. For He is the Most High, the Supreme." The noble Qur’an, Al-Baqarah(2):255 Jacob wrestles with God. God can not win against Jacob. Jacob sees God face to face: "And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Genesis 32:24-30 Many people claim the Jacob wrestled with an angel. Does this sound like he wrestled with an angel? Did Jacob (pbuh) say "I have seen the angel of God"? Did he say "I have seen the light of God" or some other statement that might have had an abstract meaning? No! He said "I have seen God" and just so that there would be no doubt in anyone's mind he added the words "face to face." If Jacob (pbuh) had wrestled with an angel, then why would he need to say "my life is preserved"? Do people who see angels die? (Numbers 22:31, 2 Samuel 24:17, 1 Chronicles 21:16, ...etc.). If Jacob had seen the face of an angel then why would he name the place "the face of God"(peni-el), and not "the face of the angel"(peni-malak)? Indeed, this is how the great St. Augustine and many others understood this verse. This brings up another question. How do we reconcile this with point 25 in the table of section 2.2 (regarding seeing God)? We are beaten over the head four times with the fact that a human (Jacob, peace be upon him) managed to out-wrestle God Almighty, but the translators realizing the fallacy of this concoction continually try to reinterpret this verse and make excuses for it. Notice how we are beaten over the head not once, but four times with the fact that this was GOD who was beaten by Jacob: 1) "I have seen GOD." 2) "FACE to FACE." 3) "And my life is preserved." 4) They called the place "Peniel" ("FACE OF GOD"). Are we now to believe that God wrestled with Jacob all night, He resorted to hitting Jacob (pbuh) below the belt, and in the end was still bested by Jacob ("I will not let thee go, except thou bless me")? When someone has you in a headlock and tells you: "do as I tell you," is he victorious or not? God forbid! High exalted is He! Illustrious! Mighty! Magnificent! All-Powerful! Neither Moses nor Jacob would ever make such a claim. Nor would the other prophets of God. The great and noble prophets would never dare to claim that God had been reduced to a punching bag to further their own egos. Notice how we are encouraged to believe that it is not sufficient to humbly prostrate oneself before God, bowing down and beseeching Him for His favors in earnest prayer and in all submission. Rather it is necessary to slap Him silly and beat Him into the ground then force Him to bless the victor. Is this not preposterous? Does this not reek of tampering fingers? May God Almighty forgive me for even repeating these words. God regrets his actions, God can not see the future, God can not change the past: Genesis 6:6 "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." It is not possible to regret doing something unless the result of this action was something bad that had not been foreseen and can not be changed. In Webster's New Dictionary (1990), the word "repent" is defined as follows: to regret, sorrow for, to wish to have been otherwise what one has done or left undone. Thus, God is claimed to be: 1) Unable to see the future: If I know for a certainty that performing "action" will result in "result," then when "result" comes about I will not regret it unless I was forced in the first place to perform "action." There is a difference between "disliking" something and "regretting" something. 2) Unable to change the past if he wanted to: As per the above Webster's definition, to repent is to "wish to have been otherwise what one has done or left undone." But if God is capable of doing all things, as a Muslim believes, then he does not need to "wish." He simply decrees it and it is. Also notice that God is not merely claimed to have regretted this action, but to have "grieved at His heart." Webster's defines grief as: Deep sorrow caused by loss, distress. So according to this passage, God felt the deepest sorrow from the bottom of his heart. If one of us felt this kind of torment and was given the means to change matters, would we hesitate? God is not this helpless! For the Islamic perspective on God Almighty, read the following: God Almighty: Al-Ikhlas(112):1-4, Kaaf(50):38, Al-Aaraf(7):143, Al-Shurah(24):11-12, Al-Anaam(6):3, Saba(34):27, Al-Zumar(39):1-7, Al-Hashir(59):21-24, Al-Hadeed(57):1-6
http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/l...say/ch5.1.html
Holy Quran translation of all language and voice

http://quran.nu/jp/

[Electric]

To identify Jesus as merely a prophet, as one among many, is impossible. He identifies himself as God's Son in a unique way, he accepts praise, worship and titles that God alone deserves. Either he is who he says he is, or he a pretender and usurper of God's glory. No fence-sitting is allowed.

It is not that impossible to say Jesus was, based on his words, a prophet. Jesus called himself a prophet in Mark 6:4, Matthew 13:57, and Luke 13:13.


- Mark 6:4 (NKJV) But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.”

- Matthew 13:57 (NKJV) So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.”



Jesus doesn't seem to have claimed glory, accepted to be worshipped, or even allowed others to praise him. He didn't have an agenda of his own according to him.

For his rejection of praise:


- Matthew 19:17(NKJV) So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?[a] No one is good but One, that is, God.[b] But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments



For Jesus's respect to God the creator who sent him:


- John 14:28(NKJV) ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I.

- John 6:38(NKJV) For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

- Luke 4:8 (NKJV) ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”[c]

- John 5:30(NKJV) I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.



Just to quote few verses from the bible in support of Islam's position on Jesus, who was a messenger among messengers, a human like Adam, a man who spread the same message others before him and the one after him did.



One thing is for certain, Pauline Christianity(today's christianity), is totally different from Jesus's monotheistic teachings. Jesus's first order of business when he declared his messengership was: - Mark 12:29(NKJV)Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one".


So, three gods in one, devinity of jesus, sonship of jesus and all other doctrines have No support in the bible, just forced interpretation and no clear evidence for them

[cafolini]

It is not that impossible to say Jesus was, based on his words, a prophet. Jesus called himself a prophet in Mark 6:4, Matthew 13:57, and Luke 13:13.


- Mark 6:4 (NKJV) But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.”

- Matthew 13:57 (NKJV) So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.”



Jesus doesn't seem to have claimed glory, accepted to be worshipped, or even allowed others to praise him. He didn't have an agenda of his own according to him.

For his rejection of praise:


- Matthew 19:17(NKJV) So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?[a] No one is good but One, that is, God.[b] But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments



For Jesus's respect to God the creator who sent him:


- John 14:28(NKJV) ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I.

- John 6:38(NKJV) For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

- Luke 4:8 (NKJV) ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”[c]

- John 5:30(NKJV) I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.



Just to quote few verses from the bible in support of Islam's position on Jesus, who was a messenger among messengers, a human like Adam, a man who spread the same message others before him and the one after him did.



One thing is for certain, Pauline Christianity(today's christianity), is totally different from Jesus's monotheistic teachings. Jesus's first order of business when he declared his messengership was: - Mark 12:29(NKJV)Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one".


So, three gods in one, devinity of jesus, sonship of jesus and all other doctrines have No support in the bible, just forced interpretation and no clear evidence for them

The funniest Roman satire was: Nobody goes to the father except through me.
The funniest Islamic satire was that the Quran was revelation because Mohammed was an analphabet that could not have composed it on his own.

[Electric]

The funniest Roman satire was: Nobody goes to the father except through me.
The funniest Islamic satire was that the Quran was revelation because Mohammed was an analphabet that could not have composed it on his own.

It is true Jesus said "no one comes to the father except through me", a valid point all messengers made to people who wanted to invent their ways to God rather than follow the guidlines of the book from the entrusted person(Jesus in christianity's case). The people Jesus was talking to had different ideas and rejected his claim of messengership, accused him of falsehood etc, so his reply was what you quoted as a roman saying. You either followed Jesus to Get to God, or you were lost. That is the meaning.

As for the Quran being a revelation, not the invention of Mohamed, you need to open it up and read it to conclude otherwise.

[cafolini]

"As for the Quran being a revelation, not the invention of Mohamed, you need to open it up and read it to conclude otherwise."

I find that statement of yours memorable, perspicacious and accurate. One can't help but wonder how many Muslims actually ever read the Quran apart from talking about hearsay and gossip.

[Electric]

"As for the Quran being a revelation, not the invention of Mohamed, you need to open it up and read it to conclude otherwise."

I find that statement of yours memorable, perspicacious and accurate. One can't help but wonder how many Muslims actually ever read the Quran apart from talking about hearsay and gossip.

How do you know muslims don't read the Quran? You misunderstood me. I meant to say that for you to make conclusive verdict on the Quran, you have to take the time to read it personally, the kind of efforts you want Muslims themselves to make. That way, what you say has legs to stand on.

[cafolini]

How do you know muslims don't read the Quran? You misunderstood me. I meant to say that for you to make conclusive verdict on the Quran, you have to take the time to read it personally, the kind of efforts you want Muslims themselves to make. That way, what you say has legs to stand on.

Ha! I still find your statement like I said I did. It is you a posteriori that pressuposes I didn't read the Quran. I didn't misunderstand what you said. It is you who thought you said what you didn't. Reread it until you find your shortcircuit, Electric. Case closed.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm interested to read Cafolini's response to Paul. Clear, the discussion was not a an end.

[Alexander III]

My experience of Islam is through the Muslims I have met whilst travelling and through my job.

There were the friendly market people in the Bazaar in Istanbul, and the bread seller with the cat outside the Haji Sofia. There was the Manager of a Supermarket in Izmir who invited me into his office for a chat whilst my wife went with some of his staff for a haircut. (I forget how it was that they took her - I think it came out in conversation and they offered to take her to a local one). There was the friendly shopkeeper who always had a smile and a wave for us when we lived in Bombay, and the Bangladeshi taxi driver who often responds to calls we make when we are taking out the old Auntie here in Coventry.

Then there are the many Learners who were Muslim in my English, and now maths classes. In my current class there are Muslim ladies and a gent from the Sudan, Iraq, Somalia and Egypt.

All of them have been pleasant people who are good to know and teach. I think of this when I hear about the problems that are evident in the world between Islam and Christianity and Judaism. I can't equate the people I know with what are political power problems. The excuse and context of religion is often used in order to polarise opinion and cause unrest and problems. With the media a very willing advocate of this, it's very difficult to see through.

Nor can I really equate them with the "my religion is better than your religion brigade" which unfortunately the OP postulates.

the true religions were corrupted and the holy texts too changed to make the single God a father or a son. This single God was given sons and daughters which goes against the first aim of prophets. Thus, it came the last religion,Islam, to unify people under one single religion and one single God.

This is clearly a reference to the Christian trinity, and I find it most unhelpful from someone who really wants to find out what people think of Islam. It also, by inference, criticises wider religions such as Hinduism. It's as unhelpful as Cafolini's potted historial interpretation which has nothing to do with how Muslims are now and how we should get on.

My experience of Islam is positive because of the people I have met - friendly, accommodating, generous and tolerant.

This is probably one of the finest posts I have ever read on the religion sub-forum.

People always make the distinction atheist/christian/jew/islamic.

But that is not the real distinction, the real distinction and the only one that really matters is, sane/zealot.

Every religion or non religion has the sane and it has the zealot.

Instead of critiquing zealotry people criticizes groups, when groups are not the problem.

[cafolini]

I'm interested to read Cafolini's response to Paul. Clear, the discussion was not a an end.

Sorry. Anything I had to say was said. To extend this would be circular and boring to me. It's people's right to judge the discussion as they please. I am not trying to convince anyone.
"Convictions are not necessarily true: a note for asses." F. Nietzsche. I agree with that.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Whatever.

I came up with a quote of my own: "Nietzsche: creator of quotes to be used by pompous asses."

[Scheherazade]

~

Please do not personalise your comments.

This thread will now be closed.

~