No Churches In Saudi Arabia Unless Pope & All Christians Recognize Mohammed

[savvy]

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/newsdetails.php?newsid=1114
Riyadh: March 29, 2008.

No churches should be permitted in Saudi Arabia, unless Pope Benedict XVI recognised the prophet Mohammed, according to a Middle East expert.

While Saudi mediators are working with the Vatican on negotiations to allow places of religious worship, some experts believe it will not occur without this recognition.

Anwar Ashiqi, president of the Saudi centre for Middle East strategic studies, endorsed this view in an interview on the site of Arab satellite TV network, al-Arabiya on Thursday.

"I haven taken part in several meetings related to Islamic-Christian dialogue and there have been negotiations on this issue," he said.

"It would be possible to launch official negotiations to construct a church in Saudi Arabia only after the Pope and all the Christian churches recognise the prophet Mohammed."

"If they don`t recognise him as a prophet, how can we have a church in the Saudi kingdom?"

Ashiqi`s comments came after a declaration launched by the papal nuncio of the Persian Gulf, the archbishop Mounged El-Hachem, at the opening of the first Catholic church in Qatar last week.

The prelate had announced the launch of "treaties to construct a church in Saudi Arabia where it is banned to practise whatever religion they want outside Islam".

El-Hachem estimated three to four million Christians in the Saudi kingdom who want to have a church.

A member of Saudi Arabia`s Consultative Council, Abdelaziz al-Thinani, rejected the prelate`s claims saying that there were no Christians among the Saudis who were all Muslims.

"Those few Christians do not reside in the country permanently, they come and go," he said.

He denied there were four million Christians in the kingdom and said the issue of human rights should not be used to call for the construction of a Christian church.

Most of Saudi Arabia`s Christians are foreign workers. There are 8.2 million foreign workers in a country of 25.6 million people according to a report by the Saudi Labour Ministry.

[Mediocrates]

I say let them all fight it out amongst themselves.

[Kenneth]

"No Churches In Saudi Arabia Unless Pope & All Christians Recognize Mohammed"

In related news British Illustrator Martin Handford, creator of the "Where's Waldo?" puzzle books to sue Saudi Arabia for copyright infringement.

[savvy]

If Saudi Arabia permits religious freedom, it would be a miracle. However this would upset Al-Qaida and the radicals. Bin Laden thought in was haram to permit US troops on Islam's Holy Land Saudi.

[andak01]

This isn't Islam, it's KSA-LAM.

[savvy]

Andak, if you're seriously committed to condeming the extremism and bad rep you're co-religonists are repeatedly given your religion, then perhaps you would like to consider this.

Muslims embrace label as heretics

By CHRISTOPHER QUINN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 03/29/08

Muslims gathering in Atlanta this weekend call themselves heretics half-seriously.

Remember, said Emory professor Abdullahi An-Na'im, opponents of Muhammad and Jesus called them heretics. So-called heresy can accomplish great changes, he said.

Emory professor Abdullahi An-Na'im hopes the meeting sparks positive change and openness.

About 75 Muslim bloggers, writers and free thinkers from the United States and abroad are expected this weekend at the Muslim Heretics Conference, where they will talk about democracy, women's issues and critical thinking. They hope their discussions will spark positive changes and open conversations that will echo around the world.

"We want to rehabilitate the notion of heresy as a creative force," said An-Na'im, who wrote "Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a," which is a defense of secular governments for Muslims.

It has been published in six languages. An-Na'im has lectured on the issue around the world, including in his native Sudan, where a mentor from his early life was killed by the Islamist government.

He said new communication technologies such as the Internet are opening the Muslim world to new ideas, and repressive governments can no longer control the flow of information. So there is a great deal of ferment going on in the world of thought among the planet's 1 billion-plus Muslims.

Iranian-born Fereydoun Taslimi of Atlanta, who also helped organize the conference, said, "We plan to do it every year, a gathering of people who like to discuss issues and keep the momentum and networking of Muslims going."

The organizers have been talking about such a conference for months, he said. In January, they decided to put the word out and see how many people would show. Registration for the conference is closed.

Some Muslims have criticized them for using the title Muslim Heretics Conference, Taslimi said.

"But we decided to stick with it, in that we feel we are against the kind of actions that are being committed in the name of Islam," such as violence and repression, he said.

Taslimi said some of the same critics a few years back complained about the use of the words "Islamic reform," but have adopted the phrase when discussing issues where their religion and the modern world intersect.

Jill Carroll, an author and the director of the Boniuk Center for Religious Tolerance at Rice University in Houston, said such conversations are happening with increasing frequency and are important.

"Every religion has to confront the social and political realities of the time," she said.

"There is a growing conversation of, what is our role in the 21st century. We have to interpret our faith newly."

[Mercury]

This isn't Islam, it's KSA-LAM.


Andak,

If most muslims believe your rather than KSA version of Islam, why didn't we see a single large muslim demonstration with people shouting "not in our name" (I do not even ask for burnings of KSA flags and images of their king).

[bararallu]

Andak,

If most muslims believe your rather than KSA version of Islam, why didn't we see a single large muslim demonstration with people shouting "not in our name" (I do not even ask for burnings of KSA flags and images of their king).

Fatalism? Culturally unacceptable behavior to challenge your co-religionist? At least among the Arabs.

[Mil]

I heard Iran has the largest number of Jews in the Middle East after Israel. All 20,000 of them. They should go for a synagogue.

[andak01]

Andak, if you're seriously committed to condeming the extremism and bad rep you're co-religonists are repeatedly given your religion, then perhaps you would like to consider this.

Muslims embrace label as heretics

I don't consider myself a heretic in the least. And I don't think one has to adopt that label in order to effect change. The implication is that Islam is the culprit and I believe it is the interpretations of the modern, post Muslim Brotherhood imams that is. There were always a multitude of interpretations possible within what is accepted as Islam. It's people that stopped allowing for those possibilities that have caused the most problems.

[dayag]

I heard Iran has the largest number of Jews in the Middle East after Israel. All 20,000 of them. They should go for a synagogue.

For what it is worth, there are synagogues in Tehran & Isfahan:
http://www.kosherdelight.com/Irankosher.htm

[Yala]

For what it is worth, there are synagogues in Tehran & Isfahan:
http://www.kosherdelight.com/Irankosher.htm

It's worth a whole lotta propaganda for Iran. That's what it's worth.

[Parsi]

The flag of Saudi Arabia gives you all the answers about the nature of Islam and its birth land.

For what it is worth, there are synagogues in Tehran & Isfahan:
But there is not a single Sunni mosque in Iran.
I heard Iran has the largest number of Jews in the Middle East after Israel. All 20,000 of them. They should go for a synagogue.
And Israel has the largest Persian population in the Middle East after Iran.
It's worth a whole lotta propaganda for Iran. That's what it's worth.
That's right. It allows the regime to portray a Jewish-friendly face, while being the enemy number one of Israel.

If most muslims believe your rather than KSA version of Islam, why didn't we see a single large muslim demonstration with people shouting "not in our name" (I do not even ask for burnings of KSA flags and images of their king).

Because deep in their hearts and minds they know that Mohammad had no tolerance for anything other than Islam. People of Mecca were worshipping their own idols (there were many idols in Kaaba ), until Mohammad knocked them all down and broke them into pieces.

And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers. Quran 3:83-85

Start twisting and apologising......NOW!

[Angry Lord]

No Churches In Saudi Arabia Unless Pope & All Christians Recognize Mohammed
Riyadh: March 29, 2008
[quote]No churches should be permitted in Saudi Arabia, unless Pope Benedict XVI recognised the prophet Mohammed, according to a Middle East expert.

After pope recognizes the mohammed, the next call will be either accept islam or death.

Question: Can Muslims force others to accept Islam?

Summary Answer: Muslims are commanded to fight unbelievers until they are either dead, converted to Islam, or in a permanent state of subjugation under Muslim domination. Allowing people of other faiths to live and worship independently of Islamic rule is not an option.

Full expalnation is given here (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/013-forced-conversion.htm)


"If they don`t recognise him as a prophet, how can we have a church in the Saudi kingdom?"

Next step would be to ask the pope to accept Islam or else...

[ygalg1]

After pope recognizes the mohammed, the next call will be either accept islam or death.
recognizing Muhammad's prophet hood to be genuine, is in itself conversion to Islam.

[ygalg1]

seems to me andak01, you are reinventing Islam. not that I am against it. but that is your own self deceit.

[Angry Lord]

recognizing Muhammad's prophet hood to be genuine, is in itself conversion to Islam.

No, to "fully" become an muslim one has to also accept Allah as the "only" god.

[ygalg1]

No, to "fully" become an muslim one has to also accept Allah as the "only" god.
I missed that one:D

[andak01]

seems to me andak01, you are reinventing Islam. not that I am against it. but that is your own self deceit.

I haven't reinvented anything. My imam and most of the Muslims in my community are fine with my views which I've discussed with them many times. It's your filtered view of Islam which causes you to believe that something new has to be invented for Muslims to live comfortably in the West.

[Mediocrates]

This is a lot of nonsense. Anwar Ashiqi's comments have been posted hundreds of times around the web, all quoting the same words. The man is an attention whore.

[andak01]

Because deep in their hearts and minds they know that Mohammad had no tolerance for anything other than Islam. People of Mecca were worshipping their own idols (there were many idols in Kaaba ), until Mohammad knocked them all down and broke them into pieces.

How did Hezekaih purge Solomon's temple?
He abolished idol worship which had resumed under his father's reign. He abolished the shrines and smashed the pillars and cut down the sacred post. He also broke into pieces the bronze serpent which Moses had made, for until that time the Israelites had been offering sacrifices to it "(2 Kings 18:4).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezekiah

And what did Judah Maccabee do when he purified the Temple?

Judah Maccabee marched into Jerusalem and set about to purify the Temple. Idols were torn down and the altar which had been defiled with the sacrifice of pigs was dismantled and a new one built. New holy vessels were crafted. A date was set for the rededication of the Temple—the 25th of Kislev, the same day on which, three years earlier, Antiochus had issued his decree.
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/jewishroots/Hanukkah_Jews_For_Jesus.aspx

And what did Henry VIII do at the foundation of the Church of England, for which the Queen is to this day the Head? And what did Constantine do to the Roman Temples?

What did the Anabaptists do?

It was the iconoclasm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm) of 1566 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1566) (the Beeldenstorm) – the demolition of statues and paintings depicting saints – that led to religious war between Catholics and Protestants. The Beeldenstorm started in what is now the arrondissement of Dunkirk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrondissement_of_Dunkirk) in French Flanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Flanders), with open-air sermons (hagepreken) in Dutch (http://www.mdsk.net/jicono_nl.html). The first took place on the Cloostervelt near Hondschoote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hondschoote). The first large sermon was held near Boeschepe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeschepe) on July 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12), 1562 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1562). These open-air sermons, mostly of Anabaptist or Mennonite signature, spread through the country. On August 10, 1566 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1566) at the end of the pilgrimage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrimage) from Hondschoote to Steenvoorde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steenvoorde), the chapel of the Sint-Laurensklooster (Cloister of Saint Lawrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lawrence)) was defaced by Protestants. The iconoclasm resulted not only in the destruction of Catholic art, but also cost the lives of many priests. It next spread to Antwerp, and on August 22, to Ghent. One cathedral, eight churches, twenty-five cloisters, ten hospitals and seven chapels were attacked. From there, it further spread east and north, but in total lasted not even a month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanders

Iconoclasm has a long history that is by no means confined to Islam and in fact predates it by centuries.

[Angry Lord]

^^ The point was muslims are imitiating the actions of mohammed and attacking people of other religion in the name of Islam.

It does not mean that in the past the acts that you posted have not taken place but today how come an jew is not breaking idols of other religion? while muslims continue doing the same whether it be the demolition of the bamiyan buddhist statues in afghanistan or the recent destruction of buddha statues in pakistan.

[andak01]

^^ The point was muslims are imitiating the actions of mohammed and attacking people of other religion in the name of Islam.

Muslims is a big word. That takes in 1.3 billion people. Are 1.3 billion people or anywhere close to that attacking people of other religions? Well, no but... 1% Well, no but... .5% Well, no but...

It does not mean that in the past the acts that you posted have not taken place but today how come an jew is not breaking idols of other religion?

What's your plan for Al-Aqsa mosque when Israel takes rule of the Temple mount? How would that mosque be used if there were no more Muslims in Jerusalem to attend prayers there?

BTW, I have nothing but condemnation for the Synogogues that were burned in Gaza following the departure of the Jews. At minimum they should have been left standing. Burning them was an ugly and senseless act.

...while muslims continue doing the same whether it be the demolition of the bamiyan buddhist statues in afghanistan or the recent destruction of buddha statues in pakistan.

Again, it wasn't Muslims in general, but the Taliban that did that. Many Muslims condemned the action.

Here is the story of a Muslim archeologist and his Muslim team seeking to find a lost statue of Buddha in the area.

http://www.afghan-web.com/culture/thirdbuddha.html

[ygalg1]

I haven't reinvented anything. My imam and most of the Muslims in my community are fine with my views which I've discussed with them many times. It's your filtered view of Islam which causes you to believe that something new has to be invented for Muslims to live comfortably in the West.
are you denying the raped of a woman when at the same day her family be slaughtered by his orders? are you denying he's a paedophile? are you denying he covet the wife of his adopted son. made him to divorce her so he can fulfill his sick lust? are you only Koran islamist?

[ygalg1]

What's your plan for Al-Aqsa mosque when Israel takes rule of the Temple mount? How would that mosque be used if there were no more Muslims in Jerusalem to attend prayers there?
hopefully dismantled.

[ygalg1]

BTW, I have nothing but condemnation for the Synogogues that were burned in Gaza following the departure of the Jews. At minimum they should have been left standing. Burning them was an ugly and senseless act.

that is Islam as always been and your denial simply ridiculous.

[Angry Lord]

Muslims is a big word. That takes in 1.3 billion people. Are 1.3 billion people or anywhere close to that attacking people of other religions? Well, no but... 1% Well, no but... .5% Well, no but...

In many humble opinion it is ignorant to say that there are 1.3 billion muslims.

One sect of muslim does not consider another as muslim but as heretics,kafirs,etc. Even during training in religious education major emphasis is laid on condemning other muslim sects and steps are taken that practises from other sects are not followed in this sects.

This "1.3 billion" stat is quoted only to attract more people.

What's your plan for Al-Aqsa mosque when Israel takes rule of the Temple mount? How would that mosque be used if there were no more Muslims in Jerusalem to attend prayers there?

That is an hypothetical question. It is like asking What's your plan when the martians visit you?

How can one answer what will happen in the future? Instead why not debate what is hapenning today?

Again, it wasn't Muslims in general, but the Taliban that did that. Many Muslims condemned the action.

Do you mean to say that Taliban were not Muslims? Each and every member of the taliban was an muslim who had studied the koran in religious seminaries.

Mullah Omar the amir of the Taliban himself ordered the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha statues. Note the word Mullah and amir. To become an Mullah one needs to study the kuran in detail and only then he can call himself an Mullah. How come Mullah Omar who was so well versed in koran order the destruction of the statues?

When he issued the orders of the destruction of the statues he also quoted the koranic verses that decreed the demolition of the statues. Now who is responsible for the destruction? Mullah Omar or the Koran?

Here is the story of a Muslim archeologist and his Muslim team seeking to find a lost statue of Buddha in the area.
Such one off incident dont mean much when the majority of the muslim nations were in silent agreement.

[andak01]

are you denying the raped of a woman when at the same day her family be slaughtered by his orders? are you denying he's a paedophile? are you denying he covet the wife of his adopted son. made him to divorce her so he can fulfill his sick lust? are you only Koran islamist?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No.

[ygalg1]

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No.
your denial suggests you're Koran only islamist.
else left for you to accept Muhammad committed these atrocities.

[andak01]

In many humble opinion it is ignorant to say that there are 1.3 billion muslims.

One sect of muslim does not consider another as muslim but as heretics,kafirs,etc. Even during training in religious education major emphasis is laid on condemning other muslim sects and steps are taken that practises from other sects are not followed in this sects.

This "1.3 billion" stat is quoted only to attract more people.

OK, Shiites make up around 15%, so 1.1 billion. Sufis aren't actually a sect to themselves. There are many Sunnis that also consider themselves Sufi.

That is an hypothetical question. It is like asking What's your plan when the martians visit you?

When it comes to predicting the future of Jerusalem, nothing is hypothetical, including martians. :)

How can one answer what will happen in the future? Instead why not debate what is hapenning today?

I doubt you can give me an example of Muslims today destroying something that we wouldn't both agree to condemn.

Do you mean to say that Taliban were not Muslims? Each and every member of the taliban was an muslim who had studied the koran in religious seminaries.

Correction. A lot of them can't even read and some of them who have memorized the entire Quran don't know enough Arabic to understand its meaning. They are a very ignorant lot.

Mullah Omar the amir of the Taliban himself ordered the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha statues. Note the word Mullah and amir. To become an Mullah one needs to study the kuran in detail and only then he can call himself an Mullah. How come Mullah Omar who was so well versed in koran order the destruction of the statues?

Because he's a fallable human being with a dramatically flawed interpretation. Remember those statues stood under Muslim rule for at least 14 centuries. I'm sure there were a multitude of scholars that never thought to destroy them.

When he issued the orders of the destruction of the statues he also quoted the koranic verses that decreed the demolition of the statues. Now who is responsible for the destruction? Mullah Omar or the Koran?

Mullah Omar. Otherwise you should give just as much credit to the Quran for sparing those statues for 14 centuries.

Such one off incident dont mean much when the majority of the muslim nations were in silent agreement.

They weren't silent at all. They publicly condemned the action.

The Times of India, March 2, 2001



NEW DELHI: Leading Islamic clerics and leaders on Friday condemned the destruction of Afghanistan's ancient Buddha statues in central Bamiyan province by the ruling Taliban regime as "un-Islamic" and "an act of cultural genocide against humanity." "It is an outrageous act. It should be treated as a crime against humanity. Bamiyan is part of the world's cultural heritage. The destruction of Buddha statues is an act of cultural genocide against humanity," Babri Masjid movement leader and former diplomat Syed Shahabuddin said.
http://www.rawa.org/statues.htm#2


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, March 12 (UPI) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in Pakistan on a tour of the region, expressed outrage Sunday over the demolition of 1,500 year-old Buddha statues by Afghanistan's Taliban rulers. Annan called the destruction of two ancient Buddhist statues in central Afghanistan as "a disservice to both Afghanistan and Islam."


"I think no one will accept" the Taliban's argument that Islam allowed them to destroy the Buddhist statues, Annan told reporters after the meeting, adding that the demolition would also harm fundraising appeals for aid for the Afghan people. Countries with a large Buddhist population -- such as Japan, Sri Lanka and Thailand -- were more passionate in their appeals to save the relics.

Islamic Iran offered to buy the relics "for safe custody" with a promise to return them whenever the Afghans wanted. The Taliban's closest ally, Pakistan, sent a high-level delegation to convince the Taliban to change their mind.
A delegation also came from the world's largest Muslim body, the Organization of the Islamic Conference on Saturday to help protect the statues but failed to prevent the destruction.
http://www.rawa.org/statues.htm#5

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200103/06/eng20010306_64217.html

All OIC states - including Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan), Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia) and the United Arab Emirates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates), three countries that officially recognised the Taliban government - joined the protest to spare the monuments.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan#cite_note-5) A statement issued by the ministry of religious affairs of Taliban regime justified the destruction as being in accordance with Islamic law.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan#cite_note-6) Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia) and the United Arab Emirates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates) would later condemn the destruction as "savage".[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan

[andak01]

your denial suggests you're Koran only islamist.
else left for you to accept Muhammad committed these atrocities.

Your refusal to allow that a Muslim can read both the Quran and the Sunna and not agree with your own charges simply points to your own ignorance and intolerance. Maybe I don't fit your stereotype of what a Muslim has to be, but that doesn't mean I don't exist.

[ygalg1]

Your refusal to allow that a Muslim can read both the Quran and the Sunna and not agree with your own charges simply points to your own ignorance and intolerance. Maybe I don't fit your stereotype of what a Muslim has to be, but that doesn't mean I don't exist.
sunna derived from ahadith. the charges are according to ahadith.
the atrocities of Muhammad are coded there.
you in love with this so called religion, that made you see no flaws. it is your ignorance.

[Parsi]

How did Hezekaih purge Solomon's temple?
....

And what did Judah Maccabee do when he purified the Temple?

...
What did the Anabaptists do?

....

Iconoclasm has a long history that is by no means confined to Islam and in fact predates it by centuries.

I have explained, many times, why this technique is a fallacy.

[andak01]

I have explained, many times, why this technique is a fallacy.

I understand why it's a fallacy. You have a different standard for what Muslims do versus non-Muslims. An Anglican or an Anabaptist ripping statues off the wall and smashing them is one thing, Hezekaih destroying idols is one thing, Judah Macabbee destroying idols is one thing, Muslims destoying idols is another. For that matter, Muslims condemning the destruction of statues seems to fall into an ignore category with you.

[Angry Lord]

OK, Shiites make up around 15%, so 1.1 billion. Sufis aren't actually a sect to themselves. There are many Sunnis that also consider themselves Sufi.
There are other sects too. Ahmadiyas who have been persecuted and been declared kafirs. They cant build new mosques, their existing places of worship are being taken over and they are being ruthless sought to be eliminated from the face of earth.

When it comes to predicting the future of Jerusalem, nothing is hypothetical, including martians. :)
Nobody can predict the future. Therefore the future of Jerusalem is also not predicted.

I doubt you can give me an example of Muslims today destroying something that we wouldn't both agree to condemn.
How about the destruction of the idols in kabba which the native arabs worshipped? No muslim will dare to condemn their destruction.

Correction. A lot of them can't even read and some of them who have memorized the entire Quran don't know enough Arabic to understand its meaning. They are a very ignorant lot.

The word talib means a student, in this context a student of islam. The taliban were a group of students who studied the koran in islamic madrassas and also were provided military training. They were not a bunch of idiots who did not know what they were doing. They systematically went about their agenda of destroying each and every "unislamic" thing. They subjugated the women and condemned them to second class citizens by restricting their education and freedom of movement, mass murder of another sect of muslims shias to be precise and destruction of any objects they deemed unislamic including the 6000 statues that were preserved in the kabul museum.

Because he's a fallable human being with a dramatically flawed interpretation. Remember those statues stood under Muslim rule for at least 14 centuries. I'm sure there were a multitude of scholars that never thought to destroy them.

Many earlier attempts had been made to destroy but they did not posess enough firepower to totally smash them to pieces. Even when the taliban set about to destroy the statues they had to force the Hazara shias to climb the statues, drill holes in them, filling them with explosives and then the taliban sitting at an safe distance would detonate them. If they could lay their hands on modern explosives earlier then the bamiyan buddha would have been blasted centuries earlier.

Mullah Omar. Otherwise you should give just as much credit to the Quran for sparing those statues for 14 centuries.
If there were no such verses in the koran which call for the destruction of statues then even Mullah omar would not have dared to touch the buddha staues. The problem is not people like mullah omar. The problem lies elsewhere which no muslims dares to recognise.

They weren't silent at all. They publicly condemned the action.
When it comes to sunni sect of islam of which the taliban were a part, the moral authority rests with the regime or person who controls the two mosques considered holy by muslims. At that point of time it was saudi arabia.

The major part of money for taliban came from saudi arabia. Saudis could have easily prevented the destruction of the bamiyan buddhas by either threatening to stop the money or by using their moral authority since they controlled the two mosques. They did none of the above since they too were in silent agreement that the 2 buddhas need to be destroyed. Afterall they were the real masters of the taliban. The islamic books that the talib studied were provided by saudis. The saudis knew what they were doing when they provided those books to the talibs.

All the islamic countries were funneling money to taliban through islamic charities but none threatened to stop the flow of money if the taliban destroyed the buddhas. This is the real problem. They are ready to give press statements but are not ready to take concrete action. They want good PR but are not ready to stepin to do good deeds.

[andak01]

There are other sects too. Ahmadiyas who have been persecuted and been declared kafirs. They cant build new mosques, their existing places of worship are being taken over and they are being ruthless sought to be eliminated from the face of earth.

Everywhere? Or is this again the prevalent view IN SAUDI ARABIA or IN IRAN?

How about the destruction of the idols in kabba which the native arabs worshipped? No muslim will dare to condemn their destruction.

There was a war. The winner created a new theocracy with a state religion. The losers lost the idols they had in the one shrine. How did Constantine do it? Or Hezekaih or Judah Maccabee or Henry VIII or Luther's people or the Anabaptists or the Spanish during the reconquista or the Albanians both Christian and Muslim or the Crusaders or Savanarola or the Puritans at Salem or the Hindus at Ayodha? What did the Chinese do to the Tibetans when atheism was the state religion?

The word talib means a student, in this context a student of islam. The taliban were a group of students who studied the koran in islamic madrassas and also were provided military training. They were not a bunch of idiots who did not know what they were doing.

Islamically they are a bunch of idiots. I know people who have been to Afghanistan. There is nothing written in Islam to prevent a woman from getting an education and learning to read. Quite the contrary.

They systematically went about their agenda of destroying each and every "unislamic" thing. They subjugated the women and condemned them to second class citizens by restricting their education and freedom of movement, mass murder of another sect of muslims shias to be precise and destruction of any objects they deemed unislamic including the 6000 statues that were preserved in the kabul museum.

They did all of that, despite the condemnation of other Muslims.

Many earlier attempts had been made to destroy but they did not posess enough firepower to totally smash them to pieces. Even when the taliban set about to destroy the statues they had to force the Hazara shias to climb the statues, drill holes in them, filling them with explosives and then the taliban sitting at an safe distance would detonate them. If they could lay their hands on modern explosives earlier then the bamiyan buddha would have been blasted centuries earlier.

Some theory. So what about Churches and monestaries that, outside of Saudi Arabia dot the ME?

If there no such verses in the koran which call for the destruction of statues then even Mullah omar would not have dared to touch the buddha staues. The problem is not people like mullah omar. The problem lies elsewhere which no muslims dares to recognise.

No you don't dare to accept that there can be two interpretations of the same words. Why is that so difficult?


When it comes to sunni sect of islam of which the taliban were a part, the moral authority rests with the regime or person who controls the two mosques considered holy by muslims. At that point of time it was saudi arabia.

And Saudi Arabia was getting rid of the destabilizing influence of BIn Laden et all by shipping them to Afghanistan.

The major part of money for taliban came from saudi arabia. Saudis could have easily prevented the destruction of the bamiyan buddhas by either threatening to stop the money or by using their moral authority since they controlled the two mosques.

Don't be so sure. A lot of different groups tried to stop them.

[Angry Lord]

Everywhere? Or is this again the prevalent view IN SAUDI ARABIA or IN IRAN?

Check how the Ahmadiyas are treated in Pakistan or Bangladesh? The word "muslim" from the grave of one famous pakisatani ahmadiya muslim, who had also won the nobel prize, was erased just because he was an ahmadiya. This is just one example were even the dead have not been spared.

There was a war. The winner created a new theocracy with a state religion. The losers lost the idols they had in the one shrine. How did Constantine do it? Or Hezekaih or Judah Maccabee or Henry VIII or Luther's people or the Anabaptists or the Spanish during the reconquista or the Albanians both Christian and Muslim or the Crusaders or Savanarola or the Puritans at Salem or the Hindus at Ayodha? What did the Chinese do to the Tibetans when atheism was the state religion?

Again why do compare Islam the "religion of light" to other "dark" and "false" religions as preached by islam? If islam does what other religions do then what is the difference between islam and others. This means that Islam is also an "dark" and "false" religion.

Islamically they are a bunch of idiots. I know people who have been to Afghanistan. There is nothing written in Islam to prevent a woman from getting an education and learning to read. Quite the contrary.

The Talibans studied the koran and them implemented it and you call them idiots. If this is the way you describe well-read muslims then what can one say.

Some theory. So what about Churches and monestaries that, outside of Saudi Arabia dot the ME?

Allah has not showered his full "light of knowledge" on the rest of the ME like saudi arabia. A few years from now ME will be fully illuminated by "the light of Islam".

No you don't dare to accept that there can be two interpretations of the same words. Why is that so difficult?

So you accept the Koran was the reason that led to the destruction of bamiyan buddhas.

And Saudi Arabia was getting rid of the destabilizing influence of BIn Laden et all by shipping them to Afghanistan.
I hope you will read up history and understand the difference between Taliban led by Mullah omar and Al-Qaeda led by Osama bin laden. Both were allied but had different objectives.

Don't be so sure. A lot of different groups tried to stop them.
Just for some good PR.

[andak01]

The Talibans studied the koran and them implemented it and you call them idiots. If this is the way you describe well-read muslims then what can one say.

But they didn't implement it. They didn't even provide education for their women. They didn't treat women with respect. They created compulsion in religion. They brought back the practice of temporary marriages that the Prophet banned. There are literally hundreds of ways they have broken the Sunna. Having memorized the Quran doesn't make a Muslim well read. A lot of people memorize it without understanding its meaning.

[Angry Lord]

You choose to ignore many of the questions that i raised.

But they didn't implement it. They didn't even provide education for their women. They didn't treat women with respect. They created compulsion in religion. They brought back the practice of temporary marriages that the Prophet banned. There are literally hundreds of ways they have broken the Sunna. Having memorized the Quran doesn't make a Muslim well read. A lot of people memorize it without understanding its meaning.
Read my posts. Taliban did not just memorize the koran, they perfectly understood it's meaning and implemented it.

If there was any deviation from the islamic path then their bosses in saudi arabia and pakistan would have used their money power to lead them back to the "right path". This wasn't the case which shows that taliban were indeed implementing islamic laws (sharia) with full backing of its ideological masters.

[andak01]

Read my posts. Taliban did not just memorize the koran, they perfectly understood it's meaning and implemented it.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

If there was any deviation from the islamic path then their bosses in saudi arabia and pakistan would have used their money power to lead them back to the "right path".

Their bosses in Saudi Arabia were only interested in maintaining their own political power in the absence of the challenge posed by people like Bin Laden.

This wasn't the case which shows that taliban were indeed implementing islamic laws (sharia) with full backing of its ideological masters.

What it shows is that the Saudis didn't care what went on in Afghanistan, so long as they could pump their radicals over there to be cannon fodder.

[KettleWhistle]

BTW, I have nothing but condemnation for the Synogogues that were burned in Gaza following the departure of the Jews. At minimum they should have been left standing. Burning them was an ugly and senseless act.
Why condemnation? What difference does it make? Certainly, most Jews don't really care. An empty synagogue is just an empty building. Now, our historical and holy sites, graves or our patriarchs, etc., are a whole other matter.

[Angry Lord]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

If you want to ignore the fact that Talibanis had studied the koran and implemented it in its full form then what can i say?

Tommorow you will also want to disagree with the fact that Al-qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Their bosses in Saudi Arabia were only interested in maintaining their own political power in the absence of the challenge posed by people like Bin Laden.
So finally an acceptance that the most Islamic regime in the world is led by opportunists rather than people with morals.

What it shows is that the Saudis didn't care what went on in Afghanistan, so long as they could pump their radicals over there to be cannon fodder.
The saudis were heavily into the Afghani jehad to use it as an laboratory to experiment with implementation of sharia on a large population so that in the future the lessons learnt could be applied all over the whole world.

[andak01]

If you want to ignore the fact that Talibanis had studied the koran and implemented it in its full form then what can i say?

Tommorow you will also want to disagree with the fact that Al-qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Funny you should say that. No, I don't deny that Al-Qaida committed the attacks after having gotten into a drunken brawl in a strip club they committed suicide and killed Muslims, women and children with fire, also burning Qurans in the process. If that to you is "implementing the Quran" then we have nothing more to talk about. There are Hadiths and Quranic quotes forbidding all of those activities. And no, you don't know more about Islam than I do. Reading ProphetOfDoom doesn't qualify you as an Islamic scholar.

So finally an acceptance that the most Islamic regime in the world is led by opportunists rather than people with morals.

Yeah. Unlike Dick Cheney, Saudis are driven by corrupt croneyism. :)

The saudis were heavily into the Afghani jehad to use it as an laboratory to experiment with implementation of sharia on a large population so that in the future the lessons learnt could be applied all over the whole world.

The people they sent to Afghanistan were destabilizing KSA. It was a win-win for them to get rid of them and at the same time build credibility with the US for fighting the Russkies. Problem was, there wasn't a plan for what happens when the Russkies are gone and the trained force remains behind.

[Angry Lord]

Funny you should say that. No, I don't deny that Al-Qaida committed the attacks after having gotten into a drunken brawl in a strip club they committed suicide and killed Muslims, women and children with fire, also burning Qurans in the process.

So you are more worried that the Quran got burnt in the process of killing "infidels" rather than the terrorist actions of the Al-qaeda.

If that to you is "implementing the Quran" then we have nothing more to talk about. There are Hadiths and Quranic quotes forbidding all of those activities.

And yet today even after those very same Hadiths and Quranic quotes have been constantly told to the layperson the terrorists factories keep churning out more terrorists rather than putting an end to it. Then are those muslims that commit terrorist actions not fit to be called muslims?

And no, you don't know more about Islam than I do. Reading ProphetOfDoom doesn't qualify you as an Islamic scholar.

First and foremost i didn't quote any koranic verses. Just held an mirror to the actions of the muslims that they undertake in their mission to bring the "light of Islam" to the whole planet.

Yeah. Unlike Dick Cheney, Saudis are driven by corrupt croneyism. :)
Why compare the "pure arab muslim" one who has received the "light" to an person from "dark", "false" religion?

Has the "light of Islam" run out that now muslims are compared to people of such religion to hide their double standards in morality.

The people they sent to Afghanistan were destabilizing KSA. It was a win-win for them to get rid of them and at the same time build credibility with the US for fighting the Russkies. Problem was, there wasn't a plan for what happens when the Russkies are gone and the trained force remains behind.

There were multiple reasons why the saudis were itching for a state were sharia and jehad could be implemented "fully". They knew that implementing them in Saudi arabia will ruin their country. So afghanistan become an lab in which such experiments could be carried without any danger to their state.

[andak01]

So you are more worried that the Quran got burnt in the process of killing "infidels" rather than the terrorist actions of the Al-qaeda.

No. That's just one in the list of many things that they did contrary to Islam. But no, I actually didn't say anything remotely like that.

And yet today even after those very same Hadiths and Quranic quotes have been constantly told to the layperson the terrorists factories keep churning out more terrorists rather than putting an end to it. Then are those muslims that commit terrorist actions not fit to be called muslims?

It's really not very important what we call them. They are criminals and a danger to society first and foremost. They need to be handled in the way we handle any terrorist with informants, intelligence, surveillance, law inforcement and military. The Western legal system and military are fully capable of preventing and prosecuting the majority of terrorism. If the test of success is zero activity, I doubt we'll get there, but thousands upon thousands of cases can be prevented and have been prevented.

As for the governments that support them, they are all coming to a painful realization that there is nothing to be gained by it, through a multitude of economic sanctions, etc. My hope is that, at minimum, we can arrive at some uneasy allies like Libya, where the governments offer us cooperation through their own self interest and prove that this can be a successful venture. Carrot and stick need to be part of the solution. Eventually that kind of cooperation can lead to more reforms.

First and foremost i didn't quote any koranic verses. Just held an mirror to the actions of the muslims that they undertake in their mission to bring the "light of Islam" to the whole planet.

No. You only held a mirror to the most vicious examples who act nothing like the majority of Muslims.

Why compare the "pure arab muslim" one who has received the "light" to an person from "dark", "false" religion?

I don't know, that's your statement. I didn't say anything like that.

Has the "light of Islam" run out that now muslims are compared to people of such religion to hide their double standards in morality.

No more than the light of Christianity has run out because of David Koraish or Eric Rudolph or Jim Jones or Charles Manson or Joseph Kony or anyone else who perverts the teachings of the Bible for the purpose of murder. They would all tell you they are on the right path and that others have strayed.

There were multiple reasons why the saudis were itching for a state were sharia and jehad could be implemented "fully". They knew that implementing them in Saudi arabia will ruin their country. So afghanistan become an lab in which such experiments could be carried without any danger to their state.

Let's see, they knew it would ruin their country, but they were enthusiastic to implement and promote it. That makes sense to me. NOT!

[Angry Lord]

It's really not very important what we call them. They are criminals and a danger to society first and foremost. They need to be handled in the way we handle any terrorist with informants, intelligence, surveillance, law inforcement and military. The Western legal system and military are fully capable of preventing and prosecuting the majority of terrorism. If the test of success is zero activity, I doubt we'll get there, but thousands upon thousands of cases can be prevented and have been prevented.

FBI, CIA or Homeland defense and their clones in other countries cant completely stop terrorist attacks until the ideology that encourages and legitimizes terror are not destroyed.

No. You only held a mirror to the most vicious examples who act nothing like the majority of Muslims.
If the actions of wahabi,deobandi muslims who form a major chunk of muslims are vicious then the problem is with their ideology and not my pointing their actions.

No more than the light of Christianity has run out because of David Koraish or Eric Rudolph or Jim Jones or Charles Manson or Joseph Kony or anyone else who perverts the teachings of the Bible for the purpose of murder. They would all tell you they are on the right path and that others have strayed.

I will be concerned only when other people start listening to their views and do an 9/11 on the muslims.

Let's see, they knew it would ruin their country, but they were enthusiastic to implement and promote it. That makes sense to me. NOT!
Any person who has read the Koran knows that it calls for the destruction of non-muslims and yet people call Islam an "peaceful religion". Is that not an contradiction?

[andak01]

If the actions of wahabi,deobandi muslims who form a major chunk of muslims are vicious then the problem is with their ideology and not my pointing their actions.

Obviously they don't form a majority even combined. Even you wouldn't contend such a thing.

I will be concerned only when other people start listening to their views and do an 9/11 on the muslims.

Then you believe two wrongs make a right?

Any person who has read the Koran knows that it calls for the destruction of non-muslims and yet people call Islam an "peaceful religion". Is that not an contradiction?

Believe it or not, some people actually read the Quran outside of the influence of ProphetOfDoom. We actually read the words and the explanations given in the tafsir and listen to the sermons our imams give in explanation. After all that, we don't conclude that we have to kill anyone. Is that a crime? Are we stupid because we don't agree with the Taliban and Al Qaida?

[Angry Lord]

Obviously they don't form a majority even combined. Even you wouldn't contend such a thing.
They do form an majority among sunni muslims when you combine them. The major part of sunni muslims who follow wahabi and deobandi ideology are also the ones who are ready to take part in terrorist actions.

Then you believe two wrongs make a right?
I am not advocating any such thing, Just pointing out the obvious difference in the fundamentalists in islam and other religions.

Believe it or not, some people actually read the Quran outside of the influence of ProphetOfDoom. We actually read the words and the explanations given in the tafsir and listen to the sermons our imams give in explanation. After all that, we don't conclude that we have to kill anyone. Is that a crime? Are we stupid because we don't agree with the Taliban and Al Qaida?
One islamic verse says it is ok if muslims lie in front of kafirs. I hope you are not using that verse when writing your posts.:unsure:

[andak01]

They do form an majority among sunni muslims when you combine them.

I disagree. If you have some figures to prove or disprove such a point, please present them. I couldn't find any.



The major part of sunni muslims who follow wahabi and deobandi ideology are also the ones who are ready to take part in terrorist actions.


There's some truth to that. But there are subsects within each group that are far more extreme. It isn't that all Salafs or deobandis are jihadis.


I am not advocating any such thing, Just pointing out the obvious difference in the fundamentalists in islam and other religions.

The difference is that Islamic theocracy didn't have the tar beat out of it by centuries of bloodshed like the Papacy or by nukes like the Emporor worshippers of Japan or by the Pharoahs and the Babylonians like the Jews. Neither the Jews nor the Christians gave up their theocracies without a fight. The Jews were put under the yoke of several other theocracies before secularism came along. I'm sure you are familiar with all of that.

Islamic theocracy on the other hand was a world player until the fall of the Ottomans and still maintains significant power today.

One islamic verse says it is ok if muslims lie in front of kafirs. I hope you are not using that verse when writing your posts.:unsure:

Mein Kampf says that Jews are a bunch of liars. And every general that ever lived said that their enemies were liars while using propaganda during time of war to lessen the appearance of defeats and increase the effect of victories. Lying is part of life. That's why we have a word for it in English.

Now if you want to play the game that Muslims lie and Jews don't, go deceive yourself. I have no reason to lie on this forum. The points I make are readily checked in public sources on the internet. Some of what I say is opinion. If you find something that contradicts an opinion, that isn't the same as proving that someone willfully deceived you. Calling such a person a liar is a lie in itself.

[Angry Lord]

There's some truth to that. But there are subsects within each group that are far more extreme. It isn't that all Salafs or deobandis are jihadis.
A person who believes that a non-muslim should be either converted or killed is a extremist. Every deobandi and wahabi believes this $hit and tries his level best to implement this demonic ideology. For this very reason they are jehadis.

Islamic theocracy on the other hand was a world player until the fall of the Ottomans and still maintains significant power today.
Islamic theocracy or Sunni theocracy? ;)

Mein Kampf says that Jews are a bunch of liars.
I thought you only believed in the Koran, now you have shown that you also believe in Mein Kampf. Hail andak.

Lying is part of life. That's why we have a word for it in English.
Thanks for clearing my doubt and confessing that muslims indeed are liars since they follow koranic verses that ask them to lie before kafirs. Now all your posts make more sense. They all are a bunch of lies to save the face of islam before us(kafirs).

Now if you want to play the game that Muslims lie and Jews don't, go deceive yourself.
Why drag the jews in this matter? The question was Does the koranic verse say that it is ok to lie before kafirs? Simple answer could be either Yes or No. But you seem to be itching to drag jews in every other matter concerning Islam.

I have no reason to lie on this forum. The points I make are readily checked in public sources on the internet.
Yah, you seem to fancy links from wikipedia which as everyone knows can be easily subverted by posting false and misleading information.

[andak01]

A person who believes that a non-muslim should be either converted or killed is a extremist. Every deobandi and wahabi believes this $hit and tries his level best to implement this demonic ideology. For this very reason they are jehadis.

Well you're simply wrong. I personally know more than a couple of wahabbis. That's not what they believe and I've spoken with them extensively about it.

Islamic theocracy or Sunni theocracy? ;)

This is one of the difficulties of this complex subject. Depending on what we are talking about, it might make sense to refer to a single entity which really doesn't exist. In this case Islamic theocracy refers to both KSA and Iran which, though theocraticly different both act as theocracies.


I thought you only believed in the Koran, now you have shown that you also believe in Mein Kampf. Hail andak.

Actually, I'm against the methods of Mein Kampf being used against me or anyone else for that matter.

Thanks for clearing my doubt and confessing that muslims indeed are liars since they follow koranic verses that ask them to lie before kafirs. Now all your posts make more sense. They all are a bunch of lies to save the face of islam before us(kafirs).

I haven't quite come to the conclusion that all Jews are stinking bigots, but you're not pushing me away from that.

Why drag the jews in this matter? The question was Does the koranic verse say that it is ok to lie before kafirs?

What verse?

Simple answer could be either Yes or No. But you seem to be itching to drag jews in every other matter concerning Islam.

You've called Muslims liars, implying that's something we do more than other people or even more outrageous something we do that nobody else does. This is a Mein Kampf type of charge leveled against the "lying Jews". Well, one of the greatest liars of all times was Otto Schindler who saved the lives of Jews. Islam does not make a virtue of lying, period.

Yah, you seem to fancy links from wikipedia which as everyone knows can be easily subverted by posting false and misleading information.

wikipedia is easy to search. Some of the articles state that they have neutrality issues. If you don't like my wikipedia articles, each one has its sources listed at the bottom. They are as good or as bad as any other source. Difference being they may have different slants or a more neutral point of view depending upon what the article is about.

[Angry Lord]

Well you're simply wrong. I personally know more than a couple of wahabbis. That's not what they believe and I've spoken with them extensively about it.
The actions of wahabi and deobandis speak for themselves. No need to bring "i know some terrorists but they are so nice" thing.

Actually, I'm against the methods of Mein Kampf being used against me or anyone else for that matter.
I didn't quote Hitler $hit book. I asked you about Koran and its order to lie before kafirs, if you cant understand simple logic and have to indulge in logical somersaults to defend your islam's honour then it speaks for itself the type of ideology islam is?

I haven't quite come to the conclusion that all Jews are stinking bigots, but you're not pushing me away from that.
Why such hatred towards jews? Did jews rape your wife just because she is an non-jew or did jews cut any muslim's head just because he was an non-jew?

What verse?
I hope you know what Taqiyya is?

You've called Muslims liars, implying that's something we do more than other people or even more outrageous something we do that nobody else does. This is a Mein Kampf type of charge leveled against the "lying Jews". Well, one of the greatest liars of all times was Otto Schindler who saved the lives of Jews. Islam does not make a virtue of lying, period.
Then explain Taqiyya or is that something that Hitler put into your koran.

wikipedia is easy to search. Some of the articles state that they have neutrality issues. If you don't like my wikipedia articles, each one has its sources listed at the bottom.
Sources that link to free websites which are setup only with the intention to widely spread mis-information.

[andak01]

The actions of wahabi and deobandis speak for themselves. No need to bring "i know some terrorists but they are so nice" thing.

They aren't terrorists and they don't support terrorism. But I'd hate for reality to get in the way of your opinion.

I didn't quote Hitler $hit book. I asked you about Koran and its order to lie before kafirs,

I'm not familiar with that verse.

if you cant understand simple logic and have to indulge in logical somersaults to defend your islam's honour then it speaks for itself the type of ideology islam is?

You've essentially accused me of being part of a species that can't tell the truth. I'm giving you the respect you so richly deserve. Are you one of those lying Jews? Do you find that question insulting? Then don't address somebody else in that tone.


Why such hatred towards jews? Did jews rape your wife just because she is an non-jew or did jews cut any muslim's head just because he was an non-jew?

Did Muslims rape your wife? Did they cut off your head? Somebody you know? Somebody who knows somebody you know? Yes, a Jew did kill a Muslim sometime over something. Should I hold that over your head and judge you based on that?

I hope you know what Taqiyya is?

I'm quite sure you think you do.


Then explain Taqiyya or is that something that Hitler put into your koran.

Taqiyya is an excuse for lazy assed bigots like yourself to call anything a Muslim says that you don't like a lie. It's like a switch to turn your brain off with. Instead of saying lalalala, you can say taqiyya taqiyya taqiyya. Thanks for playing.


Sources that link to free websites which are setup only with the intention to widely spread mis-information.

That's what you think? What, I should pay extra for my internet news?

[Angry Lord]

They aren't terrorists and they don't support terrorism. But I'd hate for reality to get in the way of your opinion.
Wahabis and Deobandis are known to support mass murder of unarmed civilians. Afghanistan under Taliban is an prime example. Your verbal somersaults trying to defend such terrorist swines only exposes you and your religious beliefs.

I'm not familiar with that verse.
A muslim should know islam. Since you dont know islam you are an kafir. Henceforth you should call yourself an kafir. That suits you.

You've essentially accused me of being part of a species that can't tell the truth. I'm giving you the respect you so richly deserve. Are you one of those lying Jews? Do you find that question insulting? Then don't address somebody else in that tone.
Cant i be an "lying christian", "lying buddhist", "lying kafir"? Why this intense hatred that you display towards jews. Either Hitler was your teacher in school or your mullah worships Hitler.

Did Muslims rape your wife? Did they cut off your head?
Mohammed whom you muslims call as your prophet has already done these inhumane things and more. It is written in your koran. Go read it.

Taqiyya is an excuse for lazy assed bigots like yourself to call anything a Muslim says that you don't like a lie. It's like a switch to turn your brain off with. Instead of saying lalalala, you can say taqiyya taqiyya taqiyya. Thanks for playing.
Asking a question on taqiyya changes one into "lazy assed bigots"? Well I'm starting to like muslim logic.:p

That's what you think? What, I should pay extra for my internet news?
Why not use Hamas news? They also have a jehadi mickey mouse for people like you.:lol:

[varian]

...
Why such hatred towards jews? ...

The main focus of Islam is to marginalize Judaism and Jews in general. To some of us on this forum, Islam has shown antagonism towards the Jews from its inception. Putting any kind of religious building in any country controlled by Muslims is just asking for tragedy. It is obvious to most Jews that this diety called allah is not the same entity as their HaShem. Allah seems to be antagonistic towards Jews, whereas, HaShem has always left the door open for them to return to Him. Many Muslims exhibit attitudes towards the Qur'an, Kaaba, Muhammad, the meteor stone, and other customs that are just as pagan as the other visual gods that Muhammad supposedly cleansed from the former pagan shine, the Kaaba. Just read about the rituals during the Hajj. Their mythology is as elaborate as any of the "Arabian Night" tales or mythology of any other religion on the planet. Like most cultists, when confronted with eveidences of questionable behavior of Muhammad, or the exegesis of the Qur'an, then they just counter your opinion with their favorite canned Muslim scholar. When one confuses a statement made in a hadith with a statement from the Qur'an (or visa versa), then you have already lost the debate, because the subject is discounted due to presentation and not context or content. In dealing with many of the so called "peaceful, moderate Muslim apologists" on this forum, you might as well go spit into the wind, you'll have more success. Good luck anyway!!! :cool:

[andak01]

Wahabis and Deobandis are known to support mass murder of unarmed civilians. Afghanistan under Taliban is an prime example. Your verbal somersaults trying to defend such terrorist swines only exposes you and your religious beliefs.

Some among each of those groups do support terrorism, but they don't all think as a collective hive and many even among those groups do not. This isn't a binary equation that if you are born in Afghanistan or KSA, you support terrorism.

A muslim should know islam. Since you dont know islam you are an kafir. Henceforth you should call yourself an kafir. That suits you.

And a Jew should respect religion. And a person who has never had one one thousandth the experience of living around the people he's talking about should consider learning more before spouting off. Do you attend a mosque, study the Quran daily, pray to Allah, have Muslims to your home everynight? Talk with them, play with their kids? Talk face to face with Muslim scholars? And yet, from a book or a website, you know enough to make God's judgement on me? You should be praying to forgiveness and not to me. I can forgive your ignorance.


Cant i be an "lying christian", "lying buddhist", "lying kafir"? Why this intense hatred that you display towards jews. Either Hitler was your teacher in school or your mullah worships Hitler.

I don't have any hatred for Jews whatsoever. I hate bigots who approach me with "why do all Muslims lie all the time"? Obviously you are offended when I take a similar tack with you. Would you like to try again and start over. Muslims lie, Jews lie. That's why every language in the world has a word for that act. If I ask a general where his troops are, he's going to lie to me. If you wife says: "Do you think I look fat?" Your choice, you do what you want.

Mohammed whom you muslims call as your prophet has already done these inhumane things and more. It is written in your koran. Go read it.

I have read it, but without ridiculous leading commentary. I just read the words and then I studied his biography and then I read tafsir. It's not hard, you should try it. Quite a different experience from getting predigested poison from prophetofdoom.

Asking a question on taqiyya changes one into "lazy assed bigots"? Well I'm starting to like muslim logic.:p

There's no point in moving on from there. If the first question you are going to ask is "Why do Muslims all lie?"

Taqiyya means you can pretend to convert if there is a gun to your head. It doesn't mean you lie about what Islam is or misquote the Quran. It doesn't give you liberty to break contracts or treaties. That's what it is. If you want to shut your brain down that's your choice.

[Angry Lord]

The main focus of Islam is to marginalize Judaism and Jews in general. To some of us on this forum, Islam has shown antagonism towards the Jews from its inception.
And this needs to be conveyed to all those people who are ignorant of islam and think it is an peaceful religion. Islam literally means Submission.

Putting any kind of religious building in any country controlled by Muslims is just asking for tragedy. It is obvious to most Jews that this diety called allah is not the same entity as their HaShem. Allah seems to be antagonistic towards Jews, whereas, HaShem has always left the door open for them to return to Him. Many Muslims exhibit attitudes towards the Qur'an, Kaaba, Muhammad, the meteor stone, and other customs that are just as pagan as the other visual gods that Muhammad supposedly cleansed from the former pagan shine, the Kaaba. Just read about the rituals during the Hajj. Their mythology is as elaborate as any of the "Arabian Night" tales or mythology of any other religion on the planet.
This is the actual "light of Islam" that needs to be shown to millions of ignorant people.

Like most cultists, when confronted with eveidences of questionable behavior of Muhammad, or the exegesis of the Qur'an, then they just counter your opinion with their favorite canned Muslim scholar. When one confuses a statement made in a hadith with a statement from the Qur'an (or visa versa), then you have already lost the debate, because the subject is discounted due to presentation and not context or content.
Another trick as displayed by andak is to accuse others of propoganda if verses in Islam promoting enemity and hatred are questioned.

In dealing with many of the so called "peaceful, moderate Muslim apologists" on this forum, you might as well go spit into the wind, you'll have more success. Good luck anyway!!! :cool:

Well reading the verbal somersaults of Muslim apologists is real fun. Better than Youtube's "Achmed the terrorist". :D

[Angry Lord]

Some among each of those groups do support terrorism, but they don't all think as a collective hive and many even among those groups do not. This isn't a binary equation that if you are born in Afghanistan or KSA, you support terrorism.
Deobandis and Wahabis are present in large numbers outside Afghanistan and Saudi. Most terrorists attacks carried out by sunnis can be traced back to either Muslim brotherhood, Deobandis or Wahabis.

And a person who has never had one one thousandth the experience of living around the people he's talking about should consider learning more before spouting off.
I live among muslims, both the shia and the sunni variety. I know their behaviour and have seen their actions. I dont need lessons from you on muslims.

Do you attend a mosque, study the Quran daily, pray to Allah, have Muslims to your home everynight? Talk with them, play with their kids? Talk face to face with Muslim scholars? And yet, from a book or a website, you know enough to make God's judgement on me? You should be praying to forgiveness and not to me.
To know more about Muslims one needs to read koran and the associated islamic books with an open minded and see that they are full murders, rapes and looting. Islam has brought nothing but destruction.

I can forgive your ignorance.
You are no one to forgive my alleged "ignorance". First inform yourselves what an mess you have got yourself into by joining Islam.

I don't have any hatred for Jews whatsoever.
Taqiyya.

I have read it, but without ridiculous leading commentary. I just read the words and then I studied his biography and then I read tafsir. It's not hard, you should try it.
Taqiyya in action again.

Taqiyya means you can pretend to convert if there is a gun to your head.
Another Taqiyya. :D

The word "Taqiyya" (http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Taqiyya-Islamic-Principle-Lying-for-Allah.htm) literally means: "Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one's beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any criticism of Islam or Muslims.

Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur'an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart.

And if you need more "light" on mohammed also read this.
Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society (http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm)

[andak01]

Nurse, the patient is flat-lining! He exibits no further response to stimulus. He's found a way not to have to think about anything a Muslim says to him. He's shut himself in a chat room with Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq and no amount of information can coax him out!

Where as I know not all Jews are liars, because they don't all believe the hateful crap you spew.

[Angry Lord]

Nurse, the patient is flat-lining!
What is the name of the nurse? Aisha?

More on taqiyya
Outwitting

Islamic spokesmen commonly use taqiyya as a form of 'outwitting'. The skilled taqiyya-tactician doesn’t want the matter at hand to be debated or discussed; so his opponent must be outwitted or preemptively outflanked by the use of taqiyya. The objective is to divert attention away from the subject through duplicity and obfuscation.

Role playing as the victim
When placed under scrutiny or criminal investigation, (even when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt or complicity), the taqiyya-tactician will quickly attempt to counter the allegation by resorting to the claim that it is, in fact, the accused who are the 'the victims'. Victims of Islamophobia, racism, religious discrimination and intolerance. Currently, this is the most commonly encountered form of distraction and 'outwitting'….. Defence by offence.

they don't all believe the hateful crap you spew.
I only talked about Islam. Thanks for informing that Islam is crap for you.

[dayag]

What is the name of the nurse? Aisha?

More on taqiyya


I only talked about Islam. Thanks for informing that Islam is crap for you.

Angry Lord,

Twisting Andak's words to a meaning he never meant doesn't prove you right. You know he doesn't believe your portrayal of Islam is accurate, nor that Islam is "crap". You are not making yourself look clever with such trollish behaviour.

You claimed that there is a verse in the Koran which says it is ok to lie to Kafirs. When Andak asked you what verse you are referring to, you start squawking about taqiyya, using it as your whole answer to many of Andak's statements (the equivalent of calling him a liar - more trollish behaviour).

If you can prove Andak wrong, then do so. Cite the verse which tells Muslims that they can lie to Kafirs or just drop the subject, since he has called your bluff and proven you wrong.

Please play nice or go away.
Rules of the Road (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?p=26#post26).

[Angry Lord]

Angry Lord,

Twisting Andak's words to a meaning he never meant doesn't prove you right. You know he doesn't believe your portrayal of Islam is accurate, nor that Islam is "crap". You are not making yourself look clever with such trollish behaviour.

I hope you have read all of Andak posts. When i asked him what Taqiyya means this is the response from him.
Taqiyya is an excuse for lazy assed bigots like yourself

Is making personal attacks OK when others ask him questions on Islam?

If you can prove Andak wrong, then do so. Cite the verse which tells Muslims that they can lie to Kafirs or just drop the subject, since he has called your bluff and proven you wrong.

Lying for the sake of Allah
Hadith Sahih Bukhari (5:369)
Prophet Muhammad called for volunteers to assassinate a poet who was making fun of him, K’ab bin Ashraf.

K’ab’s step-brother Muhammad bin Maslama said he would, but could he lie to get him out of his fortress? The Prophet replied affirmatively.

Taqiyya, Taqqiyya and Dissimulation (by Robert E. Burns, Grad Dip Islamic Studies).



Taqiyya, a "higher order of truth sanctioned" by the Qur’an.
Bukhari: V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.”

Qur’an 5:41 “Whomever Allah wants to deceive you cannot help. Allah does not want them to know the truth because he intends to disgrace them and then torture them.”

Qur’an 66:2 “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.”

Taqiyya is common to both Shiite and Sunni Muslim discourse and has significant implications for understanding Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist operations. The theory and practice of counter terrorism would be counter productive, indeed pointless, and even harmful, without reference to taqiyya.

The implications of the principle of Al-Takeyya
Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.

[andak01]

I hope you have read all of Andak posts. When i asked him what Taqiyya means this is the response from him.

Is making personal attacks OK when others ask him questions on Islam?

I can tell where you get all your source info. If you genuinely want to learn about Islam, you could use Islamic sources. Those sites predefine what you are reading so as to put Islam in the worst light. If given a copy of Moby Dick, the commentary would go.

"Look at how the Muslim imperialist author forces the reader to submit to dhimitude!" Using the imperative command tone, he sets the reader to his violent will!

"Call me Ishmael."

WhaleOfDoom.com



Lying for the sake of Allah
Hadith Sahih Bukhari (5:369)
Prophet Muhammad called for volunteers to assassinate a poet who was making fun of him, K’ab bin Ashraf.

K’ab’s step-brother Muhammad bin Maslama said he would, but could he lie to get him out of his fortress? The Prophet replied affirmatively.

Taqiyya, Taqqiyya and Dissimulation (by Robert E. Burns, Grad Dip Islamic Studies).

First off. You said you had something from the Quran. This isn't from the Quran. Secondly, this isn't as the header states, lying for the sake of Allah. Since it isn't in the Quran, those aren't the words of Allah. Unlike when God tells Joshue to slaughter everyone in sight in the Bible, Allah didn't say this. Third. It isn't a general prescription or a requirement, it's a specific permission in a specific situation. This quote, supplied by the Scottish missionary Robert Burns is captioned and taken out of context so as not to be recognizeable. Did Burns write it, translate it, write a book called Taqiyya? Just what does Burns have to do with this?


Qur’an 5:41 “Whomever Allah wants to deceive you cannot help. Allah does not want them to know the truth because he intends to disgrace them and then torture them.”

You are the perfect example of what this verse talks about. You've got it in your head that Muslims are nothing but liars, and I've already said I can't help you with that. You cannot deceive me to believe what isn't true. Sadly, this verse also dooms you do your fate of believing lies.

[andak01]

Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427:

Narrated Zahdam: We were in the company of Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari and there were friendly relations between us and this tribe of Jarm. Abu Musa was presented with a dish containing chicken. Among the people there was sitting a red-faced man who did not come near the food. Abu Musa said (to him), "Come on (and eat), for I have seen Allah's Apostle eating of it (i.e. chicken)." He said, "I have seen it eating something (dirty) and since then I have disliked it, and have taken an oath that I shall not eat it ' Abu Musa said, "Come on, I will tell you (or narrate to you). Once I went to Allah s Apostle with a group of Al-Ash'ariyin, and met him while he was angry, distributing some camels of Rakat. We asked for mounts but he took an oath that he would not give us any mounts, and added, 'I have nothing to mount you on' In the meantime some camels of booty were brought to Allah's Apostle and he asked twice, 'Where are Al-Ash'ariyin?" So he gave us five white camels with big humps. We stayed for a short while (after we had covered a little distance), and then I said to my companions, "Allah's Apostle has forgotten his oath. By Allah, if we do not remind Allah's Apostle of his oath, we will never be successful." So we returned to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! We asked you for mounts, but you took an oath that you would not give us any mounts; we think that you have forgotten your oath.' He said, 'It is Allah Who has given you mounts. By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath.' "


So if I say to a poor beggar by the road, "I swear I don't have a penny and I won't give you any money. and then I find a dollar in my pants is it better to give charity or not? So his oath was making him stingy and breaking it made him charitable. But of couse you left that part out, because you're so honest.

If I make a treaty to be an ally of Germany and the Nazis take over, is it better to honor the treaty or fight the Nazis?

[Angry Lord]

First off. You said you had something from the Quran. This isn't from the Quran. Secondly, this isn't as the header states, lying for the sake of Allah. Since it isn't in the Quran, those aren't the words of Allah.

I hope you know that all muslims believe in the koran, sunnah and the hadiths. Taqiyya is one of the hadiths (oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of the mohammed).

Now you cant deny that mohammed explicitly gave permission to lie.

Sadly, this verse also dooms you do your fate of believing lies.
Dont worry about my fate. Worry about yourself and the wrong path that you have choosen that leads to destruction.

[Angry Lord]

So if I say to a poor beggar by the road, "I swear I don't have a penny and I won't give you any money. and then I find a dollar in my pants is it better to give charity or not? So his oath was making him stingy and breaking it made him charitable.

There is a vast difference between such situations and today's world afflicted by jihadism. Daily beheadings, suicide bombs, rocket attacks by muslims and then constant denial that this has anything to do with Islam appears that taqiyya is being used rather than any truth being spoken.

If I make a treaty to be an ally of Germany and the Nazis take over, is it better to honor the treaty or fight the Nazis?
Many of today's jehadis would rather join Hitler rather oppose him on moral grounds.

[dayag]

I hope you know that all muslims believe in the koran, sunnah and the hadiths. Taqiyya is one of the hadiths (oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of the mohammed).

Now you cant deny that mohammed explicitly gave permission to lie.

Dont worry about my fate. Worry about yourself and the wrong path that you have choosen that leads to destruction.

Actually, Angry Lord, hadiths are not considered to be infallible by Muslims. There are various levels of credibility for hadiths. And as Andak pointed out they must be considered in context.

[dayag]

There is a vast difference between such situations and today's world afflicted by jihadism. Daily beheadings, suicide bombs, rocket attacks by muslims and then constant denial that this has anything to do with Islam appears that taqiyya is being used rather than any truth being spoken.

Many of today's jehadis would rather join Hitler rather oppose him on moral grounds.

Angry Lord, not all Muslims are Jihadis. The fact that Andak opposes such extremists does not mean that he is engaging in taqiyya, but that he thinks they are perverting Islam and committing evil.

If we are to prevail against these terrorists, it will only be with the help of those Muslims who oppose them as well. If Israel takes on all of Islam, we are doomed to destruction. If we ally ourselves with people like Andak, we have at least a chance for success against those who are a threat to us all.

[andak01]

If we are to prevail against these terrorists, it will only be with the help of those Muslims who oppose them as well. If Israel takes on all of Islam, we are doomed to destruction. If we ally ourselves with people like Andak, we have at least a chance for success against those who are a threat to us all.

There's constructive talk. And for my part I consider that a call to action. There are many Muslims that don't hate Jews. If I am to understand that there are dayags in the world who don't hate all of us, I'm sure to rally behind those people. I don't want either Muslims or Jews to be ostracize in my community or any place else. Allah and Muhammad (SAW) didn't tell us to hate Jews, they told us to defend against Jews and others that are out to destroy us. Defending yourselves against destruction by the threat of jihadis is a valid action. Demeaning Muslims who bear you no ill will is not.

[varian]

... Demeaning Muslims who bear you no ill will is not.

Then we are to take that all your constant demeaning of anything non-Muslim on this forum was only in self-defense? As a defender of your faith, all your presentations can be considered the ultimate fact: take it to the bank because you have sat in the presence of esteemed Muslim scholars and of course not one of those scholars would have a gram of a tainted or biased view. Therefore you are actually the persecuted minority on the forum, and have been placed in an intellectual refugee camp, so to speak. That has a distinct "Palestinian" ring to it. The esteem, or lack of it that you seem to elicit from other posters on this forum is well deserved. You have earned every bit of it. Like so many other cultists that I have met; despite your vast knowledge about everyone else's beliefs, when it comes to your own religion; you don't know what you don't know.

In a post in another thread you try to goad a new member of the forum into a verbal battle. This is of course was done in self defense for some perceived slight made against you. I mean who could blame you for such an unbridled exhibition of your own personal ego? I don't know how you are in the flesh, but IMO, on this forum you are not exactly known as a peacemaker.

[andak01]

Then we are to take that all your constant demeaning of anything non-Muslim on this forum was only in self-defense?

How is it that I ever demeaned anything non-Muslim? Seriously. But yes, I am in defense mode at least 90% of the time here. Sometimes I lose an argument because my only in kind response would be to go to a disgusting level of bigotry, something I don't have in my heart.

As a defender of your faith, all your presentations can be considered the ultimate fact: take it to the bank because you have sat in the presence of esteemed Muslim scholars and of course not one of those scholars would have a gram of a tainted or biased view.

They do of course have biases. But they are at least Muslim! Let me tell you something. About five years ago, when I first came to this forum, I was much more anti-Israel than I am today. As an American, I had gone through my life without taking a close look at Israel. As a Muslim and reading in the news and listening to fellow Muslims, I got my nose stuck in it. And initially, I read a lot of material written by non-Jews. I was outraged and angry. Why didn't I know all this stuff before. As I know now, not (in every case) because it wasn't true, but because it was spun and because coming to know the Jews and Israel is a lot more complicated then reading a couple of websites, you need to know the people. I had spoken to and read the words of people who hated Israel. I needed to know more.

Now I do know more than I did then and if you get the attack dogs off me long enough, I'll show you.

Therefore you are actually the persecuted minority on the forum, and have been placed in an intellectual refugee camp, so to speak. That has a distinct "Palestinian" ring to it.

Wha...? I'm the persecuted minority here because you guys drove off some people that are more civilized than me. I would prefer them to be here than me, honestly.


The esteem, or lack of it that you seem to elicit from other posters on this forum is well deserved. You have earned every bit of it. Like so many other cultists that I have met; despite your vast knowledge about everyone else's beliefs, when it comes to your own religion; you don't know what you don't know.




That's pretty good, call one of the best established and most popular religions in the world a cult. I think that pretty much sums up the rest of your post.


In a post in another thread you try to goad a new member of the forum into a verbal battle. This is of course was done in self defense for some perceived slight made against you.

Are you referring to Angry Lion? He started off by asking me why all Muslims are allowed to lie. I don't know, why are all Jews allowed to lie?

I mean who could blame you for such an unbridled exhibition of your own personal ego? I don't know how you are i[/qun the flesh, but IMO, on this forum you are not exactly known as a peacemaker.

I make peace with those who make peace with me. I've actually made peace with a number of posters. I have the highest respect for some of the posters here.

[varian]

...
That's pretty good, call one of the best established and most popular religions in the world a cult. I think that pretty much sums up the rest of your post. ...

The more one looks into Islam, the more one finds that Islam is just another compiled religion. Of course not one word of the following would have a shred of truth in it then.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=h-tsbkPzQCg

Are you referring to Angry Lion?

Is this a serious question? No!!!


I make peace with those who make peace with me.

Quite revealing.

*******************
Back to the topic. Putting a structure of any other religion in Saudi Arabia would not be wise for reasons too numerous to list.

[andak01]

The more one looks into Islam, the more one finds that Islam is just another compiled religion. Of course not one word of the following would have a shred of truth in it then.

Just because someone talks with an Arabic accent doesn't make them a Muslim. Of course there were several sahabi that knew all the verses of the Quran. We have their names and even their biographies and descriptions of them having recited the Quran in the presence of the Prophet. One of those memorizers was involved in both the first compilation and the second vowelled version. His name is Zayd ibn Thabit (RA). Others who memorized the Quran while the Prophet was alive were Qatada ibn al-Nu'man (RA), `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas (RA), Ubay ibn Ka'b (RA), Hafsa bint Umar (RA) (one of Muhammad's (SAW) wives). The RA is a term of respect given to the first generation of Muslims. We have very detailed biographies of all of those people who were themselves surrounded by other literate people. Hafsa kept a complete collection of the revelations as they were written down. So, prior to the time of Muhammad's (SAW) death, she had a complete collection. Muhammad (SAW) had recited the Quran completely in order on multiple occasions and others had memorized it in that order.

Is this a serious question? No!!!

Then I misunderstood you. Who then?

Quite revealing.

In what way? Don't you give what you receive in the way of kindness and security? Isn't you very low perception of Arabs and Muslims based upon bad experiences you've had and the ways they have treated you or that you perceive they have treated you? If you come at me with a gun, I'll show you a knife. Come at me with a knife and I'll fight with my hands. Come at me with your fists and I'll shake your hands. We're never going to get anywhere by constantly escalating the rhetoric.

Back to the topic. Putting a structure of any other religion in Saudi Arabia would not be wise for reasons too numerous to list.

There can be a secular set of laws based upon Sharia that is not Sharia, just as there is a system of laws based on Mosaic law that doesn't apply justice with stoning,

[varian]

When I read about the Battle of Yamamah, the type didn't have an accent. The presentation on youtube was on another link related to the battle. It was just another rendering (audio) of some of the printed versions. The great loss of life by the followers of Muhammad (those who were verbal reciters of the early verses of the Qur'an) in the Battle of Yamamah was one of the reasons to "collect and compile" all the versions of the Qur'an to come up with one "canonized" version. Later all the other versions that were found were destroyed, so the inerrancy of the Qur'an is really just Islamic dogma; an Islamic effort akin to the xtian Nicene Council. There was no extant verified version of the Qur'an at that time and Muhammad had already passed. The claim that today's Qur'an in any language is "exactly as received from Gabriel" appears to be just another Islamic myth. So, it would not be wise to build any structure devoted to any other religion in a Muslim run country.

[savvy]

Whenever Muhammad's battles or actions are brought up in this forum, Andak responds with self-defence. They were done all done in self-defence etc. That's exactly what PA sucide bombers, hamas, Hezbollah, etc say. They're acting in self-defence or resisting someone or something. It's not hard for people to conclude that they are in fact behaving just like moderate Muslim apologists do.

[andak01]

The great loss of life by the followers of Muhammad (those who were verbal reciters of the early verses of the Qur'an) in the Battle of Yamamah was one of the reasons to "collect and compile" all the versions of the Qur'an to come up with one "canonized" version.

The great loss of Muslim life at the Battle of Yamamah ( around 75 followers that had memorized the entire Quran ) was cause of alarm. This shows that there were that many hafiz on the same year as the Prophet dies. Seriously, your youtube doesn't agree with any history from that period. It's a total rewrite.



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

Later all the other versions that were found were destroyed, so the inerrancy of the Qur'an is really just Islamic dogma; an Islamic effort akin to the xtian Nicene Council.

Well it's not. For one thing, most of the people involved in preserving the original unvowelled version were alive during the life of the Prophet. Zaid Bin Thabit was already recording Muhammad's (SAW) revelations during his lifetime, he was about 21 years old when the Prophet died in 632 CE. Uthman ruled from 644 to 656. Zaid worked on the first compilation based on ordering the Quran in the order that Muhammad (SAW) recited it and that Zaid himself had been taught by the Prophet. So, the Uthman vowelled version dates no later than 656 CE and there are several copies still in existence from that time including one in Turkey and another in Tashkent. Zaid was about 45 years old when the vowelled version came into being. There were other Muslims who had memorized the entire Quran, none of whom disputed with Zaid. And believe me, a single missing vowel would have caused them to give their lives.

The Nicene Council was three centuries after Christ's death. I'm not certain how a church council three centuries later is analogous to vowelling a book already in existence twenty years later, but perhaps you'll tell us.

There was no extant verified version of the Qur'an at that time and Muhammad had already passed. The claim that today's Qur'an in any language is "exactly as received from Gabriel" appears to be just another Islamic myth. So, it would not be wise to build any structure devoted to any other religion in a Muslim run country.

There is plenty of history to back this up, and even many western scholars agree with that history. A great deal more is known about history in that area because there was a very high rate of literacy.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayd_ibn_Thabit#Uthman.27s_era:_644_.E2.80.93_656



BTW, complete memorization of the Quran takes between several months and a couple of years for working people and modern school children. It is absolutely possible that Muslims who did nothing else had time to memorize the entire book. There are literally millions today that have accomplished that feat, enough that every single mosque in the world can have a hafiz recited for the 30 days of Ramadan.

[varian]

You believe in your fairy tales, and I'll believe in mine. You believe in your brand of idolatry, and I'll believe in mine. To you, Muhammad represents the greatest person to enter the world, and for me he represents one of the greatest evils (with the help of eblis and shaitan). I don't happen to put god in a box as the Muslims do. Since this is an pro-Israel forum, and I happen to believe that there are many prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled involving HaShem's blessings upon Israel, therefore I prefer to side with the "fairy tales" in the Tanakh. Therefore, IMO, Islam represents a major (not the only one) evil that stands in the way Israel receiving its promised blessings. Islam does not represent the restoration of the covenant given to Israel, nor does it in any way annul or supplant that covenant. Like Ishmael, it is a bastard that flaunts itself before the promised, and like Ishmael, will be cast out of the camp in the end for its 'untoward' behavior. Oh, I forgot, you are a peaceful Muslim who believes that all the radical Muslims are wrong. Perhaps they are following the real Islam and you are really wrong. Either way it is no small thing for a djinn to represent good and deceive a man. No matter how good this new creation sounds or is packaged, it still represents evil. There is no dispute that Muhammad was a man of violence and bloodshed. All excusable of course. It seems that even Budda taught a higher path: I believe that Muhammad would score a minus eight. Then some Muslim apologists point out that the xtian Jesus even had a disciple pick up a sword, yet nobody was killed, and nobody was raped, no possessions were plundered, and nobody was enslaved. Murder, rape, theft, incest, assassination, plundering, and a whole range of other crimes can only signal that this person is an agent of evil. Xtianity may have been bad, but Islam is definitely evil's perfect religion!!!

Now, you just go ahead and clean this mess up with your superior scholars and their tainted scholarship and I'm sure that the world will be only too willing to come running to bow before the being that called such a person as Muhammad to be the bearer of that diety's final revelation to mankind. As if one can't find better prophets amongst the minor prophets in the Tanakh who deliver more noble thoughts and words than the so called prophet of prophets. Thanks, but no thanks. If there is no god, then I have nothing to lose by believing in HaShem; If there is a G-D, then HaShem is far superior to Muhammad's god, even if belief in HaShem is wrong. And please don't try to insult many forum members by claiming that allah and HaShem are the same, they aren't.

You may reply to this if you like, but I think that our dialogs on this forum should end here. I have known and worked with Muslims that I respected (Shiites), but I honestly have no respect for your brand of religion, prophet, holy books, canned scholars, or co-religionists that are causing so much death and destruction around the world in the name of peace. They sound no more reasonable than US politicians who believe that America should be an empire.

I'll make this my last post on this forum so that you can continue to post your tainted views uninhibited. You may be able to bury many with you voluminous Islamic BS, but I doubt that you will really fool many.

Blue And White Forever,
Goy for Israel - Out!!!

[andak01]

You believe in your fairy tales, and I'll believe in mine. You believe in your brand of idolatry, and I'll believe in mine. To you, Muhammad represents the greatest person to enter the world, and for me he represents one of the greatest evils (with the help of eblis and shaitan). I don't happen to put god in a box as the Muslims do. Since this is an pro-Israel forum, and I happen to believe that there are many prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled involving HaShem's blessings upon Israel, therefore I prefer to side with the "fairy tales" in the Tanakh.

That's different. If you want to say that Muhammad was evil or that he invented the Quran, that's your belief. I can't prove that the Quran was a revelation from God. But if you want to pretend that nobody knew the full contents of the Quran at the time of the Prophet's death, at best, that is something disputed by historians. There is a vast set of writings that contain the thread of continuity that has convinced many Western historians that the Quran is the same as recited by Muhammad (SAW).

So I will go so far as to admit that certain established Western historians don't agree with the Muslim explanation about the creation of the Quran. However, there is a large camp that do.

Therefore, IMO, Islam represents a major (not the only one) evil that stands in the way Israel receiving its promised blessings. Islam does not represent the restoration of the covenant given to Israel, nor does it in any way annul or supplant that covenant. Like Ishmael, it is a bastard that flaunts itself before the promised, and like Ishmael, will be cast out of the camp in the end for its 'untoward' behavior.

"Cast out"? In what way? Obviously not by violence, since you claim to be the religion of peace instead of us.

Oh, I forgot, you are a peaceful Muslim who believes that all the radical Muslims are wrong. Perhaps they are following the real Islam and you are really wrong.

Is it better for you if I'm wrong or better if I'm right? See, I'm beginning to see that many of you don't want there to be a moderate interpretation to Islam after all. That gets in the way of destroying all of Islam as you are wont to do.

Either way it is no small thing for a djinn to represent good and deceive a man. No matter how good this new creation sounds or is packaged, it still represents evil. There is no dispute that Muhammad was a man of violence and bloodshed.

There is a dispute. I dispute it. Relative to his age and location, he was relatively peaceful. If you take all of the dead in all the battles fought and all the sieges and executions on both sides by Muslims during Muhammad's (SAW) lifetime, it wouldn't be the number of Jews killed by his contemporary in Byzantium, Heraclius. Justinian killed 30,000 rioter in a single day in 532 CE.

When Hypatius reached the hippodrome, he went up immediately to where the emperor is accustomed to take his place and seated himself on the royal throne from which the emperor was always accustomed to view the equestrian and athletic contests. And from the palace Mundus went out through the gate which, from the circling descent, has been given the name of the Snail. . . . Belisarius, with difficulty and not without danger and great exertion, made his way over ground covered by ruins and half-burned buildings, and ascended to the stadium. . . . Concluding that he must go against the populace who had taken their stand in the hippodrome-a vast multitude crowding each other in great disorder-he drew his sword from its sheatb and, commanding the others to do likewise, with a shout be advanced upon them at a run. But the populace, who were standing in a mass and not in order, at the sight of armoured soldiers who had a great reputatation for bravery and experience in war, and seeing that they struck out with their swords unsparingly, beat a hasty retreat. . . . [Mundus] straightway made a sally into the hippodrome through the entrance which they call the Gate of Death. Then indeed from both sides the partisans of Hypatius were assailed with might and main and destroyed. . . . There perished among the populace on that day more than thirty thousand. . . . The soldiers killed both [Hypatius and Pompeius] on the following day and threw bodies into the sea. . . . This was the end of the insurrection in Byzantium.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/procop-wars1.html

All excusable of course. It seems that even Budda taught a higher path: I believe that Muhammad would score a minus eight. Then some Muslim apologists point out that the xtian Jesus even had a disciple pick up a sword, yet nobody was killed, and nobody was raped, no possessions were plundered, and nobody was enslaved.

And they were all living under Roman law, not at war with Rome which was an impossibility as they all would have ended up cruxified.

Murder, rape, theft, incest, assassination, plundering, and a whole range of other crimes can only signal that this person is an agent of evil. Xtianity may have been bad, but Islam is definitely evil's perfect religion!!!

That's your opinion, not the opinion of over 20% of the earth's population.

Now, you just go ahead and clean this mess up with your superior scholars and their tainted scholarship and I'm sure that the world will be only too willing to come running to bow before the being that called such a person as Muhammad to be the bearer of that diety's final revelation to mankind.

Correction, nobody bows to Muhammad (SAW). We do not worship him in any way shape or form.

As if one can't find better prophets amongst the minor prophets in the Tanakh who deliver more noble thoughts and words than the so called prophet of prophets. Thanks, but no thanks. If there is no god, then I have nothing to lose by believing in HaShem; If there is a G-D, then HaShem is far superior to Muhammad's god, even if belief in HaShem is wrong. And please don't try to insult many forum members by claiming that allah and HaShem are the same, they aren't.

Again, your opinion. Do you think that you worship the same God as the xtians?

I have known and worked with Muslims that I respected (Shiites), but I honestly have no respect for your brand of religion, prophet, holy books, canned scholars, or co-religionists that are causing so much death and destruction around the world in the name of peace.

Nobody is asking you to agree with people who cause death and destruction. But you have no reason to call people who aren't evil.

They sound no more reasonable than US politicians who believe that America should be an empire.

I'm sure you give polititians a lot more respect.

Blue And White Forever,
Goy for Israel - Out!!!

Mozel tov.

[savvy]

Andak, We know what someone is by their nature. We know that something has rabbit nature because it behaves like a rabbit. Like wisewise we can distinguish between Hashem and Allah, based on their nature. Allah does not even know the meaning of a covenant as we previously discussed on another thread. Allah has not created human beings in his image and likeness. Islam flatly denies this.

[andak01]

Allah does not even know the meaning of a covenant as we previously discussed on another thread.

The covenant is mentioned many times in the Quran.

Allah has not created human beings in his image and likeness. Islam flatly denies this.

So Jews worship an anthropomorphic God? Who knew? Who knew that a being capable of creating everything looks like your uncle. Kind of begs the question of what age and sex God has and how many fingers. Has God got a good haircut like Romney? What kind of clothes does He wear?

[andak01]

Who stuck this thread in the Looney Bin and why?

[Kenneth]

what age?
He's 42 but often mistaken for a late thirties

...and sex God has?
He's a man of course, a man's man.

and how many fingers.
9.5, lost the top of a pinky while fishing on R&R in Danang's Hong River.

Has God got a good haircut like Romney?
Holy mackeral no.

What kind of clothes does He wear?
Denim, to complement his moustache.

[andak01]

Well now we're getting somewhere. Levis, Jordache or Wranglers?

Has God got a good haircut like Romney?
Holy mackeral no.

A mullet?

[Kenneth]

Levis of course.

A mullet?
Possibly, it is a classic cut. Serious on top, party at the back.

[savvy]

The covenant is mentioned many times in the Quran.

Yeah, we went over this. The covenant is a set of laws and Jews are guilty of breaking it. Allah doesn't know what a covenant means.

So Jews worship an anthropomorphic God? Who knew? Who knew that a being capable of creating everything looks like your uncle. Kind of begs the question of what age and sex God has and how many fingers. Has God got a good haircut like Romney? What kind of clothes does He wear?

Thank you for once again displaying your inability to think. It does not mean God has two eyes and one nose. It means that God has created us with the ability to feel and think the way God does. A view Islam clearly does not share. Perhaps, because Allah is a meteror rock that can't feel or think.:D

[andak01]

It means that God has created us with the ability to feel and think the way God does.

So you think like an omniscient being? That explains why you think you're so much better than me.

A view Islam clearly does not share. Perhaps, because Allah is a meteror rock that can't feel or think.:D

Where do you come by such ignorance?

[savvy]

So you think like an omniscient being? That explains why you think you're so much better than me.

The material world and God, according to Aristotle, are incompatible with one another. The two never intersect. The one, God, exists in total separation from the other, the material world. This view of the God-world dichotomy, which originated in the third century B.C., has become deeply entrenched in not just western-European thinking but has been borrowed, via the expansion and conquest of North Africa, by Islam following the prophet's death.


According to Islam, Allah is one-dimensional; that is he has only one character, which is powerful and imposing (almost Aristotelian). He is an omnipotent and impersonal God, one who is completely transcendent, and therefore quite distant and distinct from his creation.


Allah, because he is not interested personally with his creation loves only those who do his will. Sura 66:12 says, "If you love Allah, follow me, (i.e. Muhammad), Allah will love you and forgive your sins. Allah is forgiving, merciful... Allah directs the hearts of those that believe him..."


Al-Ghazzali, an 11th century Islamic scholar, confirms this in the context of love, stating, "Love is to sense a need of the beloved and since Allah cannot be said to have a need or an experience of a need, it is therefore impossible that Allah should love" (Nehls, Asks, 34).

Al-Ghazzali maintains that, "Allah's justice is not to be compared with the justice of man. A Man may be supposed to act unjustly by invading the position of another, but no injustice can be conceived on the part of Allah. It is in his power to pour down torrents upon mankind and if he were to do it, his justice would not be arraigned. There is nothing he can be tied to, to perform, nor can any injustice be supposed of him, nor can he be under obligation to any person whatever" (Nehls, Asks, 28).

Allah pronounces his law, though he does not live by it himself. This presupposes no idea of a covenant relationship with his created.


Consequently the Biblical God is now bound by His character because of that choice, and He is absolutely just and pure. God is infinitely righteous and holy (Psalm 77:13;99:9). What this means is that God, is incapable of doing evil, nor could He be attributed as its author, and though He allows evil to exist, it may never share its presence with Him, for, according to Habakkuk 1:13, "His eyes are too pure to look on evil."



The relationship between Allah and his creatures was in the context of obedience and fear, what the Qur'an calls Taqwa (which when translated means self-protection or fear of God). Therefore, humans are no more than slaves to Allah; their sole requirement to obey their creator. In fact the word "Muslim" has come to mean "one who obeys, or submits."

The Bible tells us that humans were created in God's image (Genesis 2:27), a view which is in direct contrast to that of Islam, which perceives humans as slaves to Allah.

[andak01]

I'd appreciate if you don't plagerize other people's work and present it as your own thoughts without a link. It's one thing to be omniscient and another to plagerize.

Al-Ghazzali, an 11th century Islamic scholar, confirms this in the context of love, stating, "Love is to sense a need of the beloved and since Allah cannot be said to have a need or an experience of a need, it is therefore impossible that Allah should love" (Nehls, Asks, 34).

http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/hermkey.htm

Al-Ghazzali, an 11th century Islamic scholar, confirms this in the context of love, stating, "Love is to sense a need of the beloved and since Allah cannot be said to have a need or an experience of a need, it is therefore impossible that Allah should love" (Nehls, Asks, 34).


P.S. I don't agree with bringing Aristotle in as a proof of whether Muslims and Jews worship the same God. And you haven't answered whether you believe you worship the same God as Christians. But then, I can't even question YOU based on the last post, because those aren't your words.

[savvy]

http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/hermkey.htm

Thanks for the link.


P.S. I don't agree with bringing Aristotle in as a proof of whether Muslims and Jews worship the same God. And you haven't answered whether you believe you worship the same God as Christians. But then, I can't even question YOU based on the last post, because those aren't your words

Okay, according to you just because Jews and Christians don't worship the same God, Jews and Muslims must therefore worship the same God. I believe that Jews And Christians worship the same God when it comes to the Old Testament, based on their agreement about the nature of God, the purpose of human creation and the covenants established.

God made man (male and female ) in His image and likeness is a view shared by both Judaism and Chrisitanity, but not Islam. I want to know why Islam does not hold this belief and the purpose behind Allah's creation. In order to establish if Hashem and Allah are the same entity.

[dayag]

http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/hermkey.htm

Thanks for the link.

Okay, according to you just because Jews and Christians don't worship the same God, Jews and Muslims must therefore worship the same God. I believe that Jews And Christians worship the same God when it comes to the Old Testament, based on their agreement about the nature of God, the purpose of human creation and the covenants established.

God made man (male and female ) in His image and likeness is a view shared by both Judaism and Chrisitanity, but not Islam. I want to know why Islam does not hold this belief and the purpose behind Allah's creation. In order to establish if Hashem and Allah are the same entity.

No offense intended to your religious beliefs, Savvy. We may share some stories from the Jewish Scriptures, but the Christian concept of a Trinity is vastly different from Jewish ideas about the nature of G-d.

[savvy]

No offense intended to your religious beliefs, Savvy. We may share some stories from the Jewish Scriptures, but the Christian concept of a Trinity is vastly different from Jewish ideas about the nature of G-d.

No offence taken Dayag. What are the Jewish ideas about the nature of God.? Are they same as the Muslim idea about the nature of God. A One-dimensional God does not have to mean the same God. For example, we know what something or someone is based on their nature or characteristics. We are not just known by titles, but by personalities.

[andak01]

No offence taken Dayag. What are the Jewish ideas about the nature of God.? Are they same as the Muslim idea about the nature of God. A One-dimensional God does not have to mean the same God. For example, we know what something or someone is based on their nature or characteristics. We are not just known by titles, but by personalities.

Allah is by no means one-dimensional. We don't define Him that way, you do. Allah has ninety-nine characteristics that are known and a few more that are known only to sages. Each of these characteristics is complex in and of itself. When you say the merciful, something Christian proselytizers want to deny is an attribute of Allah, that means that Allah is the embodiment of mercy. To say that Allah is the Forgiver is to say Allah is the most forgiving. There is nothing one-dimensional about Allah any more than G_D, whether a Jew believes it to be the same or not is the same.

[savvy]

Allah is by no means one-dimensional. We don't define Him that way, you do. Allah has ninety-nine characteristics that are known and a few more that are known only to sages. Each of these characteristics is complex in and of itself. When you say the merciful, something Christian proselytizers want to deny is an attribute of Allah, that means that Allah is the embodiment of mercy. To say that Allah is the Forgiver is to say Allah is the most forgiving. There is nothing one-dimensional about Allah any more than G_D, whether a Jew believes it to be the same or not is the same.

Islam itself sees Allah as one-dimensional. To accuse Christians of making this up, is to accuse them of writing the Quran. Take a look at this.

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/343/

“If you love God, then follow me [the Prophet] and God will love you.” (Quran 3:31)


“He who loves for God and hates for God, gives for God and withholds for God, [and marries for God] has perfected his faith.” (As-Suyooti)

Aboo Hurayrah also related that God’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said the following in this regard:

“If God loves a servant He informs angel Gabriel that He loves so-and-so and tells him to love him, so Gabriel loves him. Then Gabriel calls out to the inhabitants of the heavens: ‘God loves so-and-so, therefore love him.’ So the inhabitants of the heavens love him. Then he is granted the love of the people of the earth.” (Saheeh Muslim)

The nature of love is unconditional. Allah loves only those who love him, and hates those who hate him.

[andak01]

Islam itself sees Allah as one-dimensional. To accuse Christians of making this up, is to accuse them of writing the Quran. Take a look at this.

That of course doesn't mention one-dimensional at all.

The nature of love is unconditional. Allah loves only those who love him, and hates those who hate him.

That's because God has offered us the best deal there is and makes that explicitly clear. Love and Him for your brief existence and get paradise in return for eternity.

[savvy]

That's because God has offered us the best deal there is and makes that explicitly clear. Love and Him for your brief existence and get paradise in return for eternity.

Love God Yes, but Why do you have to hate the people God hates? Why does God want you to hate people?

[savvy]

Hashem's love is unconditional, not conditional. Allah says he'll love his creation only if they love him in return. Would you love your children , only if they loved you?

http://www.submission.org/friday/love040105.html

God has made it clear for us that His love for us is conditional when adhering to certain commands.

If God's love was unconditional, it would defeat the whole purpose of our existence on earth and would contradict His gift of freedom granted to us. His love would serve as a green light to commit all kinds of evil. There would be no straight or crooked path, no point behind any clear commands, because God's love would be awaiting at the end of the road to save us all.

Earning God's love is our only chance of redemption.

http://ahavasyisrael.ilovetorah.com/

Each of us wants to receive love that is one that is unconditional - no strings attached! When love is given conditionally, if whatever the love is based upon ceases to exist, love ceases to exist. If the love is not dependent on some other factor, it never ceases to exist.[10] Hashem gives us this love. No matter what we do, He still loves us. “Hashem is good to all, and His mercy is upon all His creatures.” (Psalms 145:9).

http://www.ou.org/ou/print_this/35269

The Dovair Shalom comments on our piece and states that this underscores the difference between conditional love and unconditional love. G-d’s love for us is unconditional. Therefore, before we declare our allegiance to G-d we affirm and recognize the eternal love affair we are engaged in.

[andak01]

You're falling into a trap of evaluating God the way you would a human. Unconditional love of a parent is about protecting the child. It's a necessity for the health of the child. A parent owes the child unconditional love. But God is so merciful that he allows all the blessings of this life even to those who scorn him and even to those who don't believe. They get the flowers and the sunshine and the fresh air and all of God's creation just like the most pious. So God doesn't owe us, His creation, anything at all. Unlike a child who doesn't know better, God makes His conditions clear through His message and with the help of His messengers.

[Mil]

I am secular and don't particularly care for theology. But the question still stands - why are there no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia?

[andak01]

I am secular and don't particularly care for theology. But the question still stands - why are there no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia?

That happened centuries after Muhammad (SAW). It's not something Islamic and I don't believe there is any defense for it. I'm against the idea. There should be chuches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia. Mecca is possibly a different matter. That city is stretched to its limit by the 2.5 + million that arrive in Hajj month alone. Add non-Muslim tourists as well and there could not be proper food and sanitation. Possibly they could be allowed at other times of the year.

[Mil]

That city is stretched to its limit by the 2.5 + million that arrive in Hajj month alone.

That's your explanation?

[andak01]

That city is stretched to its limit by the 2.5 + million that arrive in Hajj month alone.

That's your explanation?

If it's a logistic possibility, I'm all for it. I know many people that go on hajj and it is a very difficult and stressful time for a Muslim. As you are no doubt aware people have gotten trampled to death in the crowds. Add another half million or million people to that and there wouldn't be facilities to handle it. It is after all in the desert and everything has to be brought in. But that is not an excuse for anywhere outside of Mecca and probably not even for Mecca outside of hajj time. The fact is that KSA is self determined and they are acting as an oppressive theocracy such as is rare in this day and age of global secularism. So long as that government is in place nothing will probably change.

[savvy]

You're falling into a trap of evaluating God the way you would a human. Unconditional love of a parent is about protecting the child. It's a necessity for the health of the child. A parent owes the child unconditional love. But God is so merciful that he allows all the blessings of this life even to those who scorn him and even to those who don't believe. They get the flowers and the sunshine and the fresh air and all of God's creation just like the most pious. So God doesn't owe us, His creation, anything at all. Unlike a child who doesn't know better, God makes His conditions clear through His message and with the help of His messengers.

What, Islam does not recognize is that we are children of God, not slaves. A view Islam does not share. Masters don't owe their slaves anything. The very nature of God is love and love is unconditional. Human love is mostly conditional, human beings tend to expect things in return for favours done, it's part of our nature. The love of God would be of a higher standard. You're the one who's evaluating God the way you woud a human and not me. Allah is not God.

[dayag]

No offence taken Dayag. What are the Jewish ideas about the nature of God.? Are they same as the Muslim idea about the nature of God. A One-dimensional God does not have to mean the same God. For example, we know what something or someone is based on their nature or characteristics. We are not just known by titles, but by personalities.

Savvy, seven of Rambam's thirteen principles of faith mention the nature of G-d:
1. G-d exists
2. G-d is one and unique
3. G-d is incorporeal
4. G-d is eternal
5. Prayer is to be directed to G-d alone and to no other
10. G-d knows the thoughts and deeds of men
11. G-d will reward the good and punish the wicked

(excerpted from http://www.jewfaq.org/beliefs.htm)

[savvy]

Thank You Dayag. This is what I was looking for.

[savvy]

Avinu Malkeinu: G-d is our Father and our King



Judaism maintains that we are all G-d's children. A well-known piece of Jewish liturgy repeatedly describes G-d as "Avinu Malkeinu," our Father, our King. The Talmud teaches that there are three participants in the formation of every human being: the mother and father, who provide the physical form, and G-d, who provides the soul, the personality, and the intelligence. It is said that one of G-d's greatest gifts to humanity is the knowledge that we are His children and created in his image.

http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm[/QUOTE]

[Mil]

If it's a logistic possibility, I'm all for it. I know many people that go on hajj and it is a very difficult and stressful time for a Muslim. As you are no doubt aware people have gotten trampled to death in the crowds. Add another half million or million people to that and there wouldn't be facilities to handle it. It is after all in the desert and everything has to be brought in. But that is not an excuse for anywhere outside of Mecca and probably not even for Mecca outside of hajj time. The fact is that KSA is self determined and they are acting as an oppressive theocracy such as is rare in this day and age of global secularism. So long as that government is in place nothing will probably change.

That's your answer? There are more people coming in and out of New York and nobody is getting crushed. Why don't you and your masque organize an effort and publically during the next Hajj make a statement inside Saudi Arabia in front of all the Muslims just for that matter?

[dayag]

If it's a logistic possibility, I'm all for it. I know many people that go on hajj and it is a very difficult and stressful time for a Muslim. As you are no doubt aware people have gotten trampled to death in the crowds. Add another half million or million people to that and there wouldn't be facilities to handle it. It is after all in the desert and everything has to be brought in. But that is not an excuse for anywhere outside of Mecca and probably not even for Mecca outside of hajj time. The fact is that KSA is self determined and they are acting as an oppressive theocracy such as is rare in this day and age of global secularism. So long as that government is in place nothing will probably change.

That's your answer? There are more people coming in and out of New York and nobody is getting crushed. Why don't you and your masque organize an effort and publically during the next Hajj make a statement inside Saudi Arabia in front of all the Muslims just for that matter?

The reason why Hajj is such a problem is not just that there are millions of pilgrims in the city, but that they are going to the same places at the same time to perform the same rituals.

If 2.5 million people showed up in New York on the same day and congregated at the same places you would probably see similar problems.

Of course, Hajj is only five days out of the year. If I was Chief Rabbi of Mecca, I'd be only too happy to close up the Shul for those five days and spend them at the beach.

[Mil]

I don't particularly care. Arab world is a third world cr***p-hole and I will definetly will never go there.

[andak01]

What, Islam does not recognize is that we are children of God, not slaves.

Because we aren't "children" of God! We are the creation of God living in his creation. Becoming a slave or a servant of God is a choice which has no moral value if it isn't a choice. Abraham could have said "Screw you, you're not the boss of me!" The point of religion is that serving is empowering. Unlike being a slave to a human, being a servant to God pays more than it costs. But, to the non-believer, that's far from obvious. Charity looks as if it is giving up something, when actually it is a gift to one's self

Thank You Dayag. This is what I was looking for.

Wait? You were looking for it, then why not read it? 11. ...punish the wicked. [for eternity]

So you think this unconditional love extends to lakes of fire and an eternity of agony? Is that it?

[savvy]

Because we aren't "children" of God! We are the creation of God living in his creation. Becoming a slave or a servant of God is a choice which has no moral value if it isn't a choice. Abraham could have said "Screw you, you're not the boss of me!" The point of religion is that serving is empowering. Unlike being a slave to a human, being a servant to God pays more than it costs. But, to the non-believer, that's far from obvious. Charity looks as if it is giving up something, when actually it is a gift to one's self

Yes, service is a good thing, but it's based on free will. And why can't God's creation be his children. God gave Abraham a choice and waited for his response. Nice, to know you think of Jews as unbelievers.

So you think this unconditional love extends to lakes of fire and an eternity of agony? Is that it?

This is the justice of God. God doesn't throw people into hell, that's a Muslim concept. People send themselves to hell, based on the choices they make, because they have free will. What has Allah done to prove his love to Muslims? the God of the Jews was angry with them, when they sinned, but then later like a parent who cannot forsake his children, he first took the initiative and promised to renew his covenant with the Jewish people and draw them back to Israel and then finally to Him. This is unconditional love. He never said "love me first. and only then I will renew my covenant with you".

[andak01]

Yes, service is a good thing, but it's based on free will. And why can't God's creation be his children. God gave Abraham a choice and waited for his response. Nice, to know you think of Jews as unbelievers.

I don't think of Jews as unbelievers. Neither does the Quran say that they aren't.

5:69
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

This is the justice of God. God doesn't throw people into hell, that's a Muslim concept. People send themselves to hell, based on the choices they make, because they have free will.

Islam believes in free will. But God, since He knows the future is already aware of what path we will choose.

What has Allah done to prove his love to Muslims?

Helwat.

...the God of the Jews was angry with them, when they sinned, but then later like a parent who cannot forsake his children, he first took the initiative and promised to renew his covenant with the Jewish people and draw them back to Israel and then finally to Him. This is unconditional love. He never said "love me first. and only then I will renew my covenant with you".

And you really believe that Ar RaHman, the Merciful, Al Ghufar, the Forgiver doesn't forgive? There is no special God of the Jews. God belongs to us all, to you and to me and to such Christians as recognize Him.

[bararallu]

One can also say that the God of Israel is only for Israel and the God of Arabs is only for Arabs. Since the revelations are, minimally, done in rather distinct languages and cultures... we can further conjecture that neither of us have monotheisms and all you non ethnic Arab and Jewish guys that have been convinced that our quaint monolatries are actually universally meaningful need to rediscover some objectivity and some cultural pride ;) and get your own thing going. Calling Joseph Smith....

[savvy]

I don't think of Jews as unbelievers. Neither does the Quran say that they aren't.

5:69
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura3.html

Only One Religion Approved by God

[3:85] Anyone who accepts other than Submission as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter, he will be with the losers.

[QUOTE]And you really believe that Ar RaHman, the Merciful, Al Ghufar, the Forgiver doesn't forgive? There is no special God of the Jews. God belongs to us all, to you and to me and to such Christians as recognize Him.

God Controls Your Enemies

[3:151] We will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, since they set up besides GOD powerless idols. Their destiny is Hell; what a miserable abode for the transgressors!


Well, if your Allah forgave the Jews for supposedly breaking his covenant, then why does Islam exist?

Face is the main issue or the main dispute arose because of the covenant. The Quran says Jews broke the covenant, so their hearts became hard and their scriptures got corrupted, hence there was need for another revelation. We have discussed the concept of covenant before. The God of Israel, does not go back on His promises or breaks them. Allah is accusing Hashem of being a lier and hence not trustworthy. Same God?

[andak01]

Only One Religion Approved by God


Nothing different about Islam or Judaism or Christianity there. Judaism may not send all non-believers to Hell. Christianity certainly does.

The Bible teaches the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior. It is painfully obvious to me that no self respecting Muslim is going to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. But the Bible is about 2000 years ago, and the Koran and Mohammed came after Jesus Christ, so perhaps the Bible did not contemplate other and more recent ways of achieving eternal salvation. At least so I thought.

My friends explained to me that was simply not true. The Bible is explicit and universal on this subject, and there is only one conclusion that one can make. All Muslims are going to hell. I countered time and time again, but unless a Muslim accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, they will suffer eternal damnation. This really set me for a loop. If this was true for Muslims, did the same logic apply for Buddhists, Hindus, and other religions? Did I believe believe that my religion is better than the religions that the other 75% of the world practices? No, I did not. My friends patiently explained to me the relevant Bible verses, but I didn’t want to hear it.

http://chengrob.com/blog/?p=4

I fail to understand why the same concept of a single correct religion is troubling when it's Islam and not troubling when it's Christianity.


God Controls Your Enemies


You mean like the tribes in the Bible over which the Jews were victorious. I suppose He does.

Well, if your Allah forgave the Jews for supposedly breaking his covenant, then why does Islam exist?

I don't know. Did the Jews keep the covenant for which they were chosen? It isn't for me to judge.

The Quran says Jews broke the covenant, so their hearts became hard and their scriptures got corrupted, hence there was need for another revelation. We have discussed the concept of covenant before. The God of Israel, does not go back on His promises or breaks them. Allah is accusing Hashem of being a lier and hence not trustworthy. Same God?

Same scripture as revealed? Although I'm not convinced that there is a contradiction here. Are you saying that the covenant has the same power whether it's kept or not? Then what is its value? Besides, the Quran always says "some among them". It's talking about hypocrites, not all Jews. It can't be because all Jews were never hypocrites any more than all Muslims can ever avoid hypocrisy. Some are. Some aren't.

[savvy]

Nothing different about Islam or Judaism or Christianity there. Judaism may not send all non-believers to Hell. Christianity certainly does.Nothing different about Islam or Judaism or Christianity there. Judaism may not send all non-believers to Hell. Christianity certainly does.

Quote:
The Bible teaches the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior. It is painfully obvious to me that no self respecting Muslim is going to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. But the Bible is about 2000 years ago, and the Koran and Mohammed came after Jesus Christ, so perhaps the Bible did not contemplate other and more recent ways of achieving eternal salvation. At least so I thought.

My friends explained to me that was simply not true. The Bible is explicit and universal on this subject, and there is only one conclusion that one can make. All Muslims are going to hell. I countered time and time again, but unless a Muslim accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, they will suffer eternal damnation. This really set me for a loop. If this was true for Muslims, did the same logic apply for Buddhists, Hindus, and other religions? Did I believe believe that my religion is better than the religions that the other 75% of the world practices? No, I did not. My friends patiently explained to me the relevant Bible verses, but I didn’t want to hear it.[QUOTE]

http://chengrob.com/blog/?p=4

I fail to understand why the same concept of a single correct religion is troubling when it's Islam and not troubling when it's Christianity.


This isn't a discussion about Christianity, but a comparision between Hashem and Allah, to see if they are the same person. It's only Fundamentalist sects of Protestants that send all non-believers to hell. Catholicism/Anglicanism and their offshoots like Jews believe in Purgatory. A place where people who are not too bad to go to hell and not too good to go to heaven go.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=611&letter=P&search=purgatory

You mean like the tribes in the Bible over which the Jews were victorious. I suppose He does.

This was situational and isn't forever like in Islam and the tribes were judged based on their deeds, not their not being Jews.

I don't know. Did the Jews keep the covenant for which they were chosen? It isn't for me to judge.

In Islam a covenant is a slave-contract where the master keeps the contract as long as certain rules are followed and banishes the covenant if the rules are broken.

In Judaism a covenant is an eternal bond of love established between persons or nations. Like a bond between a parent and a child. The difference is that with God its's a supernatural thing. God made a covenant with the Jews, not a contract. Even if Jews walk away, they can repent and come back and God waits for them to do so. Even after they die, there's intercession from Abraham, remember Purgatory? Unlike in Islam, where the contract is passed to someone else.

Allah and his prophet are guilty of breaking and destrying God's covenant. Forgiving? Merciful ? Same God ?

Are you saying that the covenant has the same power whether it's kept or not?

Yes, it does, because it's not a contract. It's a supernatural thing. Allah does not even know the meaning of a covenant! Same God ?

[andak01]

This isn't a discussion about Christianity, but a comparision between Hashem and Allah, to see if they are the same person. It's only Fundamentalist sects of Protestants that send all non-believers to hell. Catholicism/Anglicanism and their offshoots like Jews believe in Purgatory. A place where people who are not too bad to go to hell and not too good to go to heaven go.

Purgatory is for Catholics. Muslims, Jews and everybody else is in the flaming pit. Look at Dante's Catholic vision of Muhammad (SAW). BTW, I don't include Dante's anti-semitism.


A cask by losing centre-piece or cant
Was never shattered so, as I saw one
Rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind.
Between his legs were hanging down his entrails;
His heart was visible, and the dismal sack
That maketh excrement of what is eaten.
While I was all absorbed in seeing him,
He looked at me, and opened with his hands
His bosom, saying: "See now how I rend me;
How mutilated, see, is Mahomet;
In front of me doth Ali weeping go,
Cleft in the face from forelock unto chin;
And all the others whom thou here beholdest,
Disseminators of scandal and of schism
While living were, and therefore are cleft thus.
A devil is behind here, who doth cleave us
Thus cruelly, unto the falchion's edge
Putting again each one of all this ream,
When we have gone around the doleful road;
By reason that our wounds are closed again
Ere any one in front of him repass. - Dante's Inferno, Canto 28

http://atheism.about.com/od/prophetmuhammadofislam/ig/Muhammad-Drawings-Pictures/Muhammad-in-Hell.htm


This was situational and isn't forever like in Islam and the tribes were judged based on their deeds, not their not being Jews.

It's your rewriting of history where this happens. Ibn Ishaq doesn't say the Quraizah were executed because they were Jews but because they betrayed a pact.

I don't know. Did the Jews keep the covenant for which they were chosen? It isn't for me to judge.

Nor for me.

In Islam a covenant is a slave-contract where the master keeps the contract as long as certain rules are followed and banishes the covenant if the rules are broken.

That's your interpretation. If you'd like to start a religion like that, you're welcome. It won't be Islam.

In Judaism a covenant is an eternal bond of love established between persons or nations. Like a bond between a parent and a child. The difference is that with God its's a supernatural thing. God made a covenant with the Jews, not a contract. Even if Jews walk away, they can repent and come back and God waits for them to do so. Even after they die, there's intercession from Abraham, remember Purgatory? Unlike in Islam, where the contract is passed to someone else.

You're not differentiating between sin committed by a believer and willful acts of blaspemy committed by someone bent on destroying the church. God doesn't unconditionally love Satin worshippers.

Allah and his prophet are guilty of breaking and destrying God's covenant. Same God ?

That's your opinion. But assuming it were true then the New Covenant Christians would run into the same difficulty.

Yes, it does, because it's not a contract. It's a supernatural thing. Allah does not even know the meaning of a covenant! Same God ?

How do you know what Allah knows and doesn't. Yes, it's the same God. No, we don't agree in how best to worship him. But we needn't go around debasing and threatening each other because of our differences. People who do that are wrong regardless if they are Muslim or Christian or Jew or other.

I've got my own list of Hasham/Allah different God?

Allah mentions having revealed the Torah. Did any other God from any other religion make that claim? Do Jews and Christians believe the words of the Torah are sacred?

Allah claims to have created the flood of Noah. Does any other God make that claim with specific reference to Noah?

Allah claims to have destroyed the city of Lot? Is there another God that destroyed Sodom and Gammorah?

Allah claims to have parted the Red Sea for Noah. Is there some other God that makes that claim? And there are many other similarities as well.

The question is what your motivations are for denying that we worship the same God? If that's simply your belief, I don't have much problem. There are many other religions that don't worship the same God. But if your point is to point to Islam as some disconect with the world's other major religions and ostracize us for that, I have a problem.

[Mil]

Religion is boring.

[andak01]

Religion is boring.

That's true most days. But there's one day that's going to be rather exciting!

[Kenneth]

What if you have loved one's who have not made the grade and are sent to the hot place - how exciting will that be? How heavenly will it be knowing they suffer.

[andak01]

What if you have loved one's who have not made the grade and are sent to the hot place - how exciting will that be? How heavenly will it be knowing they suffer.

That's why I do my best to keep them on the right path and they do the best to keep me on the right path.

[savvy]

Purgatory is for Catholics. Muslims, Jews and everybody else is in the flaming pit. Look at Dante's Catholic vision of Muhammad (SAW). BTW, I don't include Dante's anti-semitism.


A cask by losing centre-piece or cant
Was never shattered so, as I saw one
Rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind.
Between his legs were hanging down his entrails;
His heart was visible, and the dismal sack
That maketh excrement of what is eaten.
While I was all absorbed in seeing him,
He looked at me, and opened with his hands
His bosom, saying: "See now how I rend me;
How mutilated, see, is Mahomet;
In front of me doth Ali weeping go,
Cleft in the face from forelock unto chin;
And all the others whom thou here beholdest,
Disseminators of scandal and of schism
While living were, and therefore are cleft thus.
A devil is behind here, who doth cleave us
Thus cruelly, unto the falchion's edge
Putting again each one of all this ream,
When we have gone around the doleful road;
By reason that our wounds are closed again
Ere any one in front of him repass. - Dante's Inferno, Canto 28

http://atheism.about.com/od/prophetm...ad-in-Hell.htm

Purgatory is for good Catholics only. The bad ones go to Hell. If you die in a mortal sin, without repenting, you do not go to heaven. Here's from the Cathecsim itself.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm


Dante believed that Muhammad was in Hell, because he was a wicked man, like many of us on this forum do.

Whenever we post thing from the answering-Islam or other Christian websites it makes you very angry, but you do that to eveyone esle. Hypocrite!!
Henceforth give us the sources that stem from the final authority itself. In this case it would be the Cathecism of the Catholic Church.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/non-Catholics-hell.htm
Expert: Sister Laurel M. O`Neal

Subject: Do all non-Catholics go to hell?

Question
What does the Catholic Church believe about the salvation of Protestant, non-Catholic Christians who claim to be "born again"? Is it the Catholic Church's official belief that only Catholics will go to Heaven and all other religions are destined for Hell?

Answer

no. The Catholic Church believes nothing remotely like what you have described. God is present in the Word/Logos prior to Christ and in his creation even apart from that event. If someone recognizes objective values, for instance (honesty, integrity, truth, beauty, goodness, etc) then they too have recognized a partial revelation of God. If they commit themselves to being genuinely human beings embracing these and other objective values, and if they honestly search for and turn to God wherever he is present, they too can be saved. Salvation always happens through Christ, but one does not need to know Christ explicitly to share in this. Christians are fortunate enough to share in the fullness of God's self-revelation in Christ and we should always rejoice that we do. Our lives are marked by a peculiar joy and peace many do not know. However, this does not mean that God is not present to others, nor that he is unrecognized or unembraced by them. God's will to salvation is universal, and so is his presence. Rather than thinking of salvation as reserved for Christians alone, we should understand that there are ordinary ways and extraordinary ways to be saved. For instance, long before Vatican II, the Church recognized that it was encumbent upon her to preach the Gospel to all the nations. However, it soon became clear to her that men who had not heard the Gospel effectively preached could not be penalized for the limitations of God's Church or the failure of her mission. The Church developed a theology of baptism by desire, because she recognized that God was not limited by this failure either. So, while we recognize God is present and revealed in innumerable ways, some more complete or less partial than others, and in the Christ, definitively revealed, and while we recognize some of us are fortunate enough to call God Father in a way only the Christian can, we also recognize that eternal life with God is open to all persons who seek and respond to God however and wherever they can.

Hope this helps. I do recommend you read Unitatis Redintegratio. It is available online. Meanwhile, if this raises more questions, or requires clarification, please get back to me.

Sincerely,
Sister Laurel

You're not differentiating between sin committed by a believer and willful acts of blaspemy committed by someone bent on destroying the church. God doesn't unconditionally love Satin worshippers.

Jews don't believe in Satan, and According to Christians God loves even Satan worshippers, He just doesn't agree with them. In Catholicism even Christians who commit these wilful acts of Blasphemy will be punished. Jesus himself said that anyone who sins against Him will be forgiven, but the only sin that cannot be forgiven is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Now this just just don't mean hurling insults at the Holy Spirit. It's basically the point where a person's heart get's so hard they are unable to feel remorse and unable to distinguish between good and evil. It's the absence of a human conscience.


That's your opinion. But assuming it were true then the New Covenant Christians would run into the same difficulty.

The replacement Theology churches would. The churches that reject this notion, see Christians as being grafted in to the covenant along with Jews. Read the book of Romans.


Allah claims to have parted the Red Sea for Noah. Is there some other God that makes that claim? And there are many other similarities as well.

I am sure you mean Moses. There are similarities because Muhammad copied and pasted them on to the Quran.

The question is what your motivations are for denying that we worship the same God? If that's simply your belief, I don't have much problem. There are many other religions that don't worship the same God. But if your point is to point to Islam as some disconect with the world's other major religions and ostracize us for that, I have a problem.

My movtiations are to deny that Allah is the same as Hashem and is the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

[andak01]

According to Christians God loves even Satan worshippers, He just doesn't agree with them.

Which part does He love the best? Their clean burning aroma? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Achihud]

According to Christians God loves even Satan worshippers, He just doesn't agree with them.
Which part does He love the best? Their clean burning aroma?
Ever since catholics lost their grip on bible interpretation they've had to make compromises to keep the flock catholic. I'm sure sooner or later they will declare about Muhammed whatever muslims want to hear. It's just a matter of persistance and the compromise will follow very much like the latest sell-out pope already has done recently.

[andak01]

I guess there aren't any Catholics here.

[Achihud]

Don't be so impatient.

It's not that I dislike catholics by definition, contrary to this I hate to see someone like savvy end up stabbed in the back for having zionist sympathies.

In the end there can only be but ONE spiritual capitol for the whole of humanity, not three. Everyone has to make a clear choice!

[andak01]

Don't be so impatient.

It's not that I dislike catholics by definition, contrary to this I hate to see someone like savvy end up stabbed in the back for having zionist sympathies.

In the end there can only be but ONE spiritual capitol for the whole of humanity, not three. Everyone has to make a clear choice!

No they don't! Good grief, what about the spiritual capital for Hindus or Zoroastrians or Mormons or Buddhists? What makes you think only your religion deserves a spiritual capital?

And I agree with you, nobody should be stabbed in the back for having Zionist sympathies, but does Zionism mean you have to hate Islam? I hope not and I think not.

[Achihud]

No they don't!
The political climate will force them to take position (Luc 21:35). Outside of that, Hindus, Zoroastrians & Buddhists are of no concern to me.

Good grief, what about the spiritual capital for Hindus or Zoroastrians or Mormons or Buddhists? What makes you think only your religion deserves a spiritual capital?

You probably think that this current situation will go on and on and will never take an end with God smiling from above. Well it ain't what our end-time prophecies have in mind. But why am I even telling you this? If there are Hindus, Zoroastrians or Buddhists here, I hope they keep in mind that you have yours.

And I agree with you, nobody should be stabbed in the back for having Zionist sympathies, but does Zionism mean you have to hate Islam? I hope not and I think not. Don't you ever get tired of playing the victim card?

[savvy]

Ever since catholics lost their grip on bible interpretation they've had to make compromises to keep the flock catholic. I'm sure sooner or later they will declare about Muhammed whatever muslims want to hear. It's just a matter of persistance and the compromise will follow very much like the latest sell-out pope already has done recently.

Compromise?? Have you ever read the writings of the Christians who lived in the first 8 centuries of Christianity to learn about what they believed and how they interpreted the Bible? The Writings of the Apostles of Jesus Christ? The Councils of Christianity? If Luther, Calvin, King Henry, John Wesley etc all came back today they wouldn't recognise the churches they started. The Only Church that has remained consistant in her beliefs and teachings for the past 2000 years is the Catholic Church. Even Dan Brown and friends know this. As for Muslims, the Church believes in dialogue with all religions without compromise. Just because we don't hate them that does not mean we agree with them. The Church has no interests in conquering Jerusalem, it's just that vatican city like any other place is subject to international law. If the Pope made a public statement in support of Israel, Armegeddon will be here. There are millions of Muslims worldwide who are insane. They won't hestitate to shred millions of Catholics to pieces. The Church will move when the time is right, not before that. Jesus said that we have to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

[Laila]

"It would be possible to launch official negotiations to construct a church in Saudi Arabia only after the Pope and all the Christian churches recognise the prophet Mohammed."

That is the most stupidest thing i've ever heard.
But hey, we all know Saudi Arabia royals aren't exactly of sound mind.

A Muslim should find this demand an insult. The West enables us to build Mosques on their land but we cannot be grateful enough to allow Christians to build Churches?

I despair sometimes Saudi Arabia controls my two holy cities ....

[dayag]

That is the most stupidest thing i've ever heard.
But hey, we all know Saudi Arabia royals aren't exactly of sound mind.

A Muslim should find this demand an insult. The West enables us to build Mosques on their land but we cannot be grateful enough to allow Christians to build Churches?

I despair sometimes Saudi Arabia controls my two holy cities ....

Ahlan wa sahlan, Laila.

As long as you're supporting the building of churches in Saudi Arabia, can we build a couple of synagogues in Mecca and Medina as well? After all, Moshe Dayan (yemach shemo) did give the Temple Mount back to the Waqf.
:D

[Yala]

There is no point. There haven't been Jews there since Mohammed and co. kicked them out. Let them have their holy cities and let them leave us alone in ours.

[Laila]

Thank you and assalamu alaikum dayag

No point, Barely any Jews in Saudi Arabia
But churches inside ME and Muslim countries? Absolutely.

[andak01]

There is no point. There haven't been Jews there since Mohammed and co. kicked them out. Let them have their holy cities and let them leave us alone in ours.

There were Jews there when he died and for some time afterwards. He didn't kick them out of Mecca or Medina. In Mecca he gave them amnesty.

On the day of conquest, Muhammad (SAW) said:

Who enters the house of Abu Safyin will be safe, who lays down arms will be safe, who locks his door will be safe.

http://www.thenoblequran.com/sps/smm/sahihmuslim.cfm?scn=dsphadeeth&HadeethID=4396

It was Abu Sufyan who was telling the Quraish that they would all be slaughtered, but it never happened.

[Steven]

There were Jews there when he died and for some time afterwards. He didn't kick them out of Mecca or Medina. In Mecca he gave them amnesty.

On the day of conquest, Muhammad (SAW) said:

Who enters the house of Abu Safyin will be safe, who lays down arms will be safe, who locks his door will be safe.

http://www.thenoblequran.com/sps/smm/sahihmuslim.cfm?scn=dsphadeeth&HadeethID=4396

It was Abu Sufyan who was telling the Quraish that they would all be slaughtered, but it never happened.

Right, either he was in charge or you die. What a nice guy.:rolleyes: :tdown:

[Steven]

Thank you and assalamu alaikum dayag

No point, Barely any Jews in Saudi Arabia
But churches inside ME and Muslim countries? Absolutely.

Have you been asleep most of your life? This is NOT happening. Do you know what would happen to these places and people who went into them?

[Laila]

Have you been asleep most of your life? This is NOT happening. Do you know what would happen to these places and people who went into them?

Well of course its not happening. Im not blind.
I never stated it was happening, i was making the point that it should be occuring.

[Achihud]

Compromise?? (...) If the Pope made a public statement in support of Israel, Armegeddon will be here. There are millions of Muslims worldwide who are insane. They won't hestitate to shred millions of Catholics to pieces. That's the compromise right there, whether you like it or not. The real question a pope asks himself is and always will be; "Is it really worth it to sacrifice members of the catholic faith for a jewish cause?" It was back then when they knew all about the ongoing holocaust and it will remain the same.
The Church will move when the time is right, not before that. Jesus said that we have to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Real christianity is about martyrdom so I expect nothing less from a pope. But I agree with you that Jesus learned his pupils how to stay alive with this for at least as long as possible (as for Himself). So what matters to me is; will the pope repeat what he has said about Muhammed in whatever context, or not?
I think he's got the message now like anyone else easily intimidated.

[savvy]

That's the compromise right there, whether you like it or not. The real question a pope asks himself is and always will be; "Is it really worth it to sacrifice members of the catholic faith for a jewish cause?" It was back then when they knew all about the ongoing holocaust and it will remain the same.

Real christianity is about martyrdom so I expect nothing less from a pope. But I agree with you that Jesus learned his pupils how to stay alive with this for at least as long as possible (as for Himself). So what matters to me is; will the pope repeat what he has said about Muhammed in whatever context, or not?
I think he's got the message now like anyone else easily intimidated.

I don't disagree with you, however like I said wisdom is knowing when to do the right thing at the right time. Besides, what were the Lutherans in Germany doing during the Holocaust, reading Luther's lies of the Jews? That's the most vile piece of propaganda I have come across. Even the church fathers didn't go that far. Only a Gnostic would understand what Luther was saying, besides Protestant Christianity was originally based on Gnostic spirit/matter split, you can check this out if you want. Catholicism has always been the staunchest opponent of dualism and still is. Like Dorothy said philosophy and ideas have consequences. I wouldn't have posted all this if you hadn't displayed ignorance about your own faith and choose to look at the speck in someone else's eye.

[savvy]

Is it really worth it to sacrifice members of the catholic faith for a jewish cause?"

Martydom cannot be divorced from charity or love of one's neighbour. You can't throw your children into the lion's den and ask the lion to eat them. Individuals are allowed to be martyred by choice, but seeking the death of an entire population is not martydom , it's murder-suicide. Here'a good definition of martydom for your confused definition.

http://www.thedefender.org/Martyrs.html

Martyrdom of Polycarp: "Blessed, then, and noble are all the martyrdoms that have taken place according to the will of God." This is based in Christ's own teaching not to court martyrdom but, rather, "When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next." Mt 10: 33. Failure to abide by Christ's directive would not only be a foolhardy act but might also indicate that such a person in rashly aspiring to martyrdom is actually succumbing to the devil's temptation to become presumptuous with respect to God's grace. Being anxious for martyrdom in itself, instead of being motivated by a true love of Christ and a desire to do God's Will as a witness to the Gospel, could instead be motivated by a proud Pelagian self-reliance which delights in the view of oneself as being the source of one's courage; or, anxiousness for martyrdom could be motivated by a desire to gain the admiration and praise of others. Even more perversely, Satan can slowly and subtly tempt one with a degeneration of one's willingness to die as a witness to Christ into a nihilistic and self-hating surrender to the power of evil. Notwithstanding this responsibility to prudently refrain from deliberately provoking or inviting persecution and Christ's instruction to flee to the next town, that authentic martyrdom is an act of heroic virtue in obedience to God's will cannot be seriously disputed by true Christians. In order to bear witness to Christ, even while not encouraging one's persecution, one sometimes needs to put one's self, to a greater or lesser extent, in harm's way because of one's vocation in life.

[Achihud]

I don't disagree with you, however like I said wisdom is knowing when to do the right thing at the right time. (…) Like Dorothy said philosophy and ideas have consequences. I wouldn't have posted all this if you hadn't displayed ignorance about your own faith and choose to look at the speck in someone else's eye.
A speck maybe but after all, he is the pope and because he is, he received the usual Pecking Order.
I cannot imagine him going on a journey to kiss and make up by saying that despite that negative remark about Muhammed, he does feel the same -why would he have used it in the first place if he doesn’t? That would have been stupid- and as a christian in the free world, has the right to speak his mind at all times. I simply cannot imagine he has said it and if he didn’t say it he shouldn’t have gone out in the first place or should have kept his mouth about Muhammed. Whenever you make an important statement, STICK to it no matter what OR you will LOSE initiative. I think, I’m almost certain he just did that.

If all Apostles were more concerned about consequences then about speaking their mind freely they wouldn’t have preached the Gospels to start with. It’s because of them that the early christians had to endure persecusion all of the time or were threatened by it. Did not Peter stand against the Emperor in the colloseum. We could use some more of those heroic moments wherever christians are persecuted now or was it just a movie to prove that Peter was actually there?!
Now if a pope makes no compromise and gets assassinated, another one will be elected. If the next pope follows the same line and gets assassinated, another one will be elected. And every time catholics are persecuted because of such a pope, it will shock and embolden the entire christian world. Speaking from the heart, that’s the way to RE-UNITE christianity again, without it you have ZIP!!!

It’s all very nice to state behind the safe walls of the Vatican to some delegates that you don’t like Mr Hitler and in your spare time glorify the martyrs of the past but I don’t think they’re the kind that would tour the world in a pope mobile as if they are ‘too important’ to be killed. Your consistency makes me laugh…

Doing the right thing is; say something you believe in and stick to it; Muhammed was believed to be a violent men and the pope believes it as well! Back down from that and you’ll lose initiative. So stay in Rome instead and keep the muslim world, its leaders and its clergy accountable for every nun, priest or other christian that gets murdered in retaliation. Newspapers are waiting for this since they can’t even publish a silly cartoon without receiving similar threats.
With the right series of popes, muslims will get divided and turn swords on each other in a way islamists are wiped out soon enough because THEN they have to use their strenght and sources all at once against their own brothers but what am I thinking, this is the real world, right? A little bit compromise here and then another one there and soon you’ll have another pope complaining how he’s kept prisoner in his own palace.

[Steven]

For what it is worth, there are synagogues in Tehran & Isfahan:
http://www.kosherdelight.com/Irankosher.htm


April 16, 2008
Iranian authorities destroy seven ancient synagogues in Tehran
Jahiliyya Update: The artifacts of the pre-Islamic period or non-Islamic cultures are, to traditional Islam, worthless trash -- the society of unbelievers. "Iran: Seven historic synagogues in Tehran destroyed," from AKI (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Tehran, 15 April (AKI) - Seven ancient synagogues in the Iranian capital, Tehran, have been destroyed by local authorities.
The synagogues were in the Oudlajan suburb of Tehran, where many Iranian Jews used to live.

"These buildings, which were part of our cultural, artistic and architectural heritage were burnt to the ground," said Ahmad Mohit Tabatabaii, the director of the International Council of Museums’ (ICOM) office in Tehran.

"With the excuse of renovating this ancient quarter, they are erasing a part of our history," said Tabatabaii....
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020688.php

[Steven]

sunna derived from ahadith. the charges are according to ahadith.
the atrocities of Muhammad are coded there.
you in love with this so called religion, that made you see no flaws. it is your ignorance.

Exactly.

[Steven]

Funny you should say that. No, I don't deny that Al-Qaida committed the attacks after having gotten into a drunken brawl in a strip club they committed suicide and killed Muslims, women and children with fire, also burning Qurans in the process. If that to you is "implementing the Quran" then we have nothing more to talk about. There are Hadiths and Quranic quotes forbidding all of those activities. And no, you don't know more about Islam than I do. Reading ProphetOfDoom doesn't qualify you as an Islamic scholar.


Maybe you should stop with the Prophet of Doom excuse. They are not the only one who see Islam like that. There was this earlier guy...................his name was Mohammad.

[savvy]

A speck maybe but after all, he is the pope and because he is, he received the usual Pecking Order.
I cannot imagine him going on a journey to kiss and make up by saying that despite that negative remark about Muhammed, he does feel the same -why would he have used it in the first place if he doesn’t? That would have been stupid- and as a christian in the free world, has the right to speak his mind at all times. I simply cannot imagine he has said it and if he didn’t say it he shouldn’t have gone out in the first place or should have kept his mouth about Muhammed. Whenever you make an important statement, STICK to it no matter what OR you will LOSE initiative. I think, I’m almost certain he just did that.

If all Apostles were more concerned about consequences then about speaking their mind freely they wouldn’t have preached the Gospels to start with. It’s because of them that the early christians had to endure persecusion all of the time or were treatened by it. Did not Peter stand against the Emperor in the colloseum. We could use some more of those heroic moments wherever christians are persecuted now or was it just a movie to prove that Peter was actually there?!
Now if a pope makes no compromise and gets assassinated, another one will be elected. If the next pope follows the same line and gets assassinated, another one will be elected. And every time catholics are persecuted because of such a pope, it will shock and embolden the entire christian world. Speaking from the heart, that’s the way to RE-UNITE christianity again, without it you have ZIP!!!

It’s all very nice to state behind the safe walls of the Vatican to some delegates that you don’t like Mr Hitler and in your spare time glorify the martyrs of the past but I don’t think they’re the kind that would tour the world in a pope mobile as if they are ‘too important’ to be killed. Your consistency makes me laugh…

Doing the right thing is; say something you believe in and stick to it; Muhammed was believed to be a violent men and the pope believes it as well! Back down from that and you’ll lose initiative. So stay in Rome instead and keep the muslim world, its leaders and its clergy accountable for every nun, priest or other christian that gets murdered in retaliation. Newspapers are waiting for this since they can’t even publish a silly cartoon without receiving similar treats.
With the right series of popes, muslims will get divided and turn swords on each other in a way islamists are wiped out soon enough because THEN they have to use their strenght and sources all at once against their own brothers but what am I thinking, this is the real world, right? A little bit compromise here and then another one there and soon you’ll have another pope complaining how he’s kept prisoner in his own palace.

First things first. You need to read the Pope's speech before you began to dissect it. It was a speech about faith and reason . He quoted a Byzantine emperor to show that faith and reason have to go together. Besides, I don't see what asking for a church in Saudi Arabia has to do with accepting Islam. That's never gonna happen. You can pray all you want, hoping whatever the heck you think about Catholicism will come true.

And BTW the Vatican being subject to International law was a personal speculation on my part, not a statement by the Pope. What do you want the Pope to do declare a crusade without reason? Catholics are not banned from supporting Zionist causes in anyway. I just said that the Pope has to watch what he says.

Andak keeps mentioning that Jews and Christians should be at war, because they don't worship the same God. You're implying the same for Muslims and Christians. This is a result of your dualist thinking. Everything is not black and white in the world. Ever heard of love the sinner, hate the sin? What you're asking is for us to hate Muslims. How Christian of you.

Now if a pope makes no compromise and gets assassinated, another one will be elected. If the next pope follows the same line and gets assassinated, another one will be elected. And every time catholics are persecuted because of such a pope, it will shock and embolden the entire christian world. Speaking from the heart, that’s the way to RE-UNITE christianity again, without it you have ZIP!!!

The Church is already working to re-unite Christianity by working towards re-unification with the Orthodox Churches. Since it was the Protestants who left, it's them that have to come back, not the other way around. It took the combined strength of Rome and Byzantine to kick Muslim invaders with massive armies out of European lands. The knights died to free Jerusalem. Re-unification cannot be provoked it has to happen in God's time and you and I are not God to decide that.

[andak01]

Andak keeps mentioning that Jews and Christians should be at war, because they don't worship the same God.

I WHAT??? I don't think anyone should be at war because of their religion and I never said any such thing. To paraphrase Obama, I don't know who this Andak that you keep talking about is and I don't want to meet him.

If you want to gripe about things I've actually said, go to it. But no, I DON'T think Christians and Jews should be at war because they don't worship the same God. I also don't think they should pretend that they do and we don't.

[Achihud]

First things first. You need to read the Pope's speech before you began to dissect it. It was a speech about faith and reason . He quoted a Byzantine emperor to show that faith and reason have to go together.

People who were enraged by it should do that. I have no problem with that speech but with the lack of steadfastness afterwards. Don’t go and try to restore the peace in an attempt to stop random murdering of innocent lives. That’s succumbing under pressure. No wonder most muslims were glad about the pope’s readiness to ease the tensions. They probably think they got him on a leash now. It can only go down the road from there.

Besides, I don't see what asking for a church in Saudi Arabia has to do with accepting Islam.

Euh…maybe cause and effect with the above?

That's never gonna happen. You can pray all you want, hoping whatever the heck you think about Catholicism will come true.

Pray/hope is not the word, warning is!

What do you want the Pope to do declare a crusade without reason?
No, steadfastness instead of knee-jerk attempts to kiss and make up!

Andak keeps mentioning that Jews and Christians should be at war, because they don't worship the same God. You're implying the same for Muslims and Christians. This is a result of your dualist thinking. Everything is not black and white in the world. Ever heard of love the sinner, hate the sin? What you're asking is for us to hate Muslims. How Christian of you.

We're going full circle here. Spreading false teachings about a certain prophet, be it the Messiah AIN’T sinning. It’s the work of the spirit of the anti-christ. Some of those teachings include a non-crucified Jesus. You cannot possibly hate the teachings and love the person who is spreading these lies around with the ‘justification’ from his religion.
You know, nothing spectacular happens when you DON’T love the bringer of spiritual mischief. You don’t have to mandatory hate muslims only because you have plenty reasons not to love them.
Love a satanist and he will only laugh at your silliness. He will certainly not come to a better understanding. Why would he? He’s got your love anyway!!! Dito muslims…

No wonder you’re getting ridiculized for that (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=267361&postcount=122) and totally deserved!
Instead of the good old days of dungeons & torture chambers, I guess we can from now on depend on UNCONDITIONAL (catholic) LOVE…

[Steven]

If Christians think (and many do) that being nicer and nicer to Muslims is going to work. They are dead wrong. Christians will get crushed in the end, if they continue to live in this turn the other cheek fantasy land.


If the Pope declare a Crusade, there is a reason. Muslims are pushing too much in Europe. Once again.

[Mediocrates]

40% of the Jews of Europe were murdered in the Crusades. I wouldn't wish that would happen knowing how rotten and utterly w/o any humanity most of humanity is.

[Achihud]

If Christians think (and many do) that being nicer and nicer to Muslims is going to work. They are dead wrong.

100% positively...

Christians will get crushed in the end, if they continue to live in this turn the other cheek fantasy land.

Actually, turn the other cheek is EXACTLY what I’m proposing (in #140) the pope should do!
It’s about keeping your legs stiff and your chin up when you are threatened with violence and most importantly; certainly not denounce what you stand for. When Jesus was asked to denounce that He was the Son of God, He kept his teeth together. The end station of turn the other cheek is martyrdom. When catholics/other christians have to suffer as an indirect consequence of something the pope has said, it is understandable that christian congregations from the ME will put him under pressure so as to give them relief. They act as dhimmies and ask from their leader to act as a dhimmie on their behalf.
It’s the fastest way to reward islamic violence and when you’ve lost initiative altogether all christian victims have died in vain. The enemy has become stronger, they will not mourn about the casualties. They are after the silencing of any criticism regarding Muhammed’s life and work. However if you do not succumb under any circumstance, the ongoing islamic violence will only serve to prove that the foundation of violence is within their religion!!!

Imagine this situation with a pope at the centre of woldwide attention instead of some fatwa-threatened cartoonist with no spiritual authority.

I'm not advocating a crusade, I advocate calling a spade a spade.

[Steven]

100% positively...



Actually, turn the other cheek is EXACTLY what I’m proposing (in #140) the pope should do!
It’s about keeping your legs stiff and your chin up when you are threatened with violence and most importantly; certainly not denounce what you stand for. When Jesus was asked to denounce that He was the Son of God, He kept his teeth together. The end station of turn the other cheek is martyrdom. When catholics/other christians have to suffer as an indirect consequence of something the pope has said, it is understandable that christian congregations from the ME will put him under pressure so as to give them relief. They act as dhimmies and ask from their leader to act as a dhimmie on their behalf.
It’s the fastest way to reward islamic violence and when you’ve lost initiative altogether all christian victims have died in vain. The enemy has become stronger, they will not mourn about the casualties. They are after the silencing of any criticism regarding Muhammed’s life and work. However if you do not succumb under any circumstance, the ongoing islamic violence will only serve to prove that the foundation of violence is within their religion!!!

Imagine this situation with a pope at the centre of woldwide attention instead of some fatwa-threatened cartoonist with no spiritual authority.

I'm not advocating a crusade, I advocate calling a spade a spade.

Absolutely.:clap:

[savvy]

You're reading too much into this. What does building a church in Saudi Arabia have to do with kiss and make up? It's actually an attempt to get the Muslim Holy Land to permit something that would change the kingdom. Muslims can't stand competition, that's the reason they're scared of permitting religious freedom and freedom of thought. Getting them to think, is a great way to get them out of Islam. For example a person like Magdi Alam, or former Muslim terrorists like Walid Shoebat were drawn to Christianity, because of the witness of Christian love, not hate. The hate of God leads to redemption not destruction. The Pope prayed for the redemption of terrorists at Ground Zero, did you miss this? The best crusade is converting Muslims and making them leave Islam. Faith Freedom does an excellent job and I think we should support outreaches to the Muslim world.

If the Pope declare a Crusade, there is a reason. Muslims are pushing too much in Europe. Once again.

If Europe was a Christian social order like it once was then the Pope could do something. Europe is a secular social order and the Pope does not rule over it. If Europeans have abandoned Christianity, I think Islam is their punishment. They have free will and can't blame anybody for their choices.

[savvy]

WHAT??? I don't think anyone should be at war because of their religion and I never said any such thing. To paraphrase Obama, I don't know who this Andak that you keep talking about is and I don't want to meet him.

If you want to gripe about things I've actually said, go to it. But no, I DON'T think Christians and Jews should be at war because they don't worship the same God. I also don't think they should pretend that they do and we don't.
__________________

You didn't say it outright but it's been implied. Besides you can't tell people what they should or should not believe, just because they conflict with your beliefs, and neither should Muslims be interfering in Jewish-Christian dialogue. Mind your own business.

[andak01]

Andak keeps mentioning that Jews and Christians should be at war, because they don't worship the same God.

You didn't say it outright but it's been implied.

Well perhaps you could post a link to even a single example of where I implied that. I'm waiting.

Besides you can't tell people what they should or should not believe, just because they conflict with your beliefs, and neither should Muslims be interfering in Jewish-Christian dialogue. Mind your own business.

I would have minded my own business if you didn't tell a lie about something I said that I didn't. The burden of proof is on you. When did I even imply that Jews and Christians should be at war because they don't worship the same God??? I'm waiting.

[Achihud]

You're reading too much into this. (...) I didn't read again how confused I am about my faith. Enuff said...
(...) What does building a church in Saudi Arabia have to do with kiss and make up? It's actually an attempt to get the Muslim Holy Land to permit something that would change the kingdom. How is one more poor (sometimes hijacked or looted) ME church with some trembling suppressed dhimmies inside going to bring any change? If it ain't absurd...:rolleyes:

But more importantly, how will he ask; negotiate, demand..............more likely beg for it. I mean with this, what are the Saudis going to ask in return that is less valuable to us?!

[savvy]

How is one more poor (sometimes hijacked or looted) ME church with some trembling suppressed dhimmies inside going to bring any change? If it ain't absurd...

But more importantly, how will he ask; negotiate, demand..............more likely beg for it. I mean with this, what are the Saudis going to ask in return that is less valuable to us?!


Saudi Arabia arrests Christians who pray in their own homes, a church would make things easier on them. Not easy by Western standards, but it would be a start. Just because things are bad that does not mean we have to wait for them to get worser so we can have some martyrs. The Saudi's should not expect anything in return for religious freedom. It's a basic human right. Look I am sick and disgusted by the torture of Christians in the Muslims world and the fact that human rights organizations simply look the other way and I am also disgusted by andak's shamless and non-stop excuses for Islamic violence, by citing violence committed by other world religions. And also sick of Western Muslims that do nothing to improve the conditions in the Islamic world. Muslims should be charged with crimes against humanity.

However, I am getting the impression that your hooked on to twisted interpretations of the book of Revelation that teach you that the Anti-Christ Pope will team up with Islam's false prophet, while you get raptured or something like that. It's clouding your judgement.

[savvy]

I would have minded my own business if you didn't tell a lie about something I said that I didn't. The burden of proof is on you. When did I even imply that Jews and Christians should be at war because they don't worship the same God??? I'm waiting.

Here it is.
I could accept that Jews don't believe in the same God. But then so many of them cosy up to Christian evangelicals and are silent when those types talk about worshipping the same God. If you don't believe in Allah, you SURE don't believe in the Trinity, and eshewing both of those beliefs is consistent. But don't go on about Judeo/Christian values and how your fine religions are divorced from Islam. Islam has as much or as little right to the legacy of Moses as Christianity does.
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=14029

[Achihud]

However, I am getting the impression that your hooked on to twisted interpretations of the book of Revelation that teach you that the Anti-Christ Pope will team up with Islam's false prophet, while you get raptured or something like that. It's clouding your judgement. You are more and more beginning to act as a poster that says something back just for the sake of it, be vague and pretend you didn't ease out of that discussion. So why don't you explain to me how twisted my understanding of Revelation is by telling what it's supposed to mean instead.

As long as you don't quote me on Apokalyps, you're shooting with blanks!

[savvy]

You are more and more beginning to act as a poster that says something back just for the sake of it, be vague and pretend you didn't ease out of that discussion. So why don't you explain to me how twisted my understanding of Revelation is by telling what it's supposed to mean instead.

As long as you don't quote me on Apokalyps, you're shooting with blanks!

At first, I bought into the whole end-time Revelation hype and was interested in reading different interpretations of it. As I got deeper into the subject, i began to realize that Revelation was not about the end-time beasts or any such thing. It was a book of signs. A highly figurative book. I had to look at early Christian writings on the subject. Using Revelation to predict every event in the world, along with lists of potential Anti-Christs in various religions simply causes too much confusion and chaos.

[Achihud]

A "highly figurative book" is a book that works on imagination only and doesn't invite common sense or require much rationality. Yet it's so important that whoever adds something to it or leaves something out of it will be severely punished in the end. Sounds like a HUGE contradiction to me.

Using Revelation to predict every event in the world, along with lists of potential Anti-Christs in various religions simply causes too much confusion and chaos. If the enemy looses oneself in a thousand possible explanations, that's only an advantage for them who know it's specific meaning.

[savvy]

[QUOTE]A "highly figurative book" is a book that works on imagination only and doesn't invite common sense or require much rationality. Yet it's so important that whoever adds something to it or leaves something out of it will be severely punished in the end. Sounds like a HUGE contradiction to me.
Quote:

Once again your using dualistic logic here. Christianity (esp. Catholicism) is the marriage of matter and spirit, of God and Israel, Christ and the Church. When scripture esp. Revelation is seen through the eyes of sacramental theology it blows you away. Physical signs point to spiritual realities, we see through reality to find mystery. The Church is the bride of Christ. Revelation is the bride of Christ unveiled. It's the marriage feast of the Lamb.
http://www.amazon.com/Lambs-Supper-Mass-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591

If the enemy looses oneself in a thousand possible explanations, that's only an advantage for them who know it's specific meaning.

The Question is who decides how to interpret it? The canon of the New Testament was sealed around the 4th century at the councils of Hippo and Carthage. What did Christians do for 400 years before they had a Bible?

[Achihud]

The Question is who decides how to interpret it? The canon of the New Testament was sealed around the 4th century at the councils of Hippo and Carthage. What did Christians do for 400 years before they had a Bible? Judging from Apk 1:3, I think it was written for everyone and everyone has the right to give his/her own interpretation. They will fall asleep very fast if they aren't allowed to.

Once again your using dualistic logic here. Christianity (esp. Catholicism) is the marriage of matter and spirit, of God and Israel, Christ and the Church. When scripture esp. Revelation is seen through the eyes of sacramental theology it blows you away. Physical signs point to spiritual realities, we see through reality to find mystery.

I feel sorry for those who don't cherish dualistic logic, i.e. one excludes the other when 100% contradiction is proven by logic. Otherwise your religion creates people who point to a box and say, look how beautiful it is, its curves, its colors, its perfection, it's our Spirit. But when you look inside it contains nothing but empty blather exalted to religious dogma by the lack of one specific proof. It all means nothing specific but in the end all 'nothing specifics' have one main conclusion which is our dogma! Meanwhile the Spirit goes into a void without anyone noticing.

The Church is the bride of Christ. Revelation is the bride of Christ unveiled. It's the marriage feast of the Lamb.
I hope you can be happy with those self-evident minor theological extractions from your church.

As for me, I could use a Jester Emoticon...

[savvy]

Judging from Apk 1:3, I think it was written for everyone and everyone has the right to give his/her own interpretation. They will fall asleep very fast if they aren't allowed to.

Everyone has the right to interpret scripture and is allowed to do so, but what if their interpretation goes against the very meaning of the verse itself? Suppose Charles Manson or the KKK pick up the Book of Revelation and say something and then argue their case that since everyone can interpet scripture they should be able to also. Who then decides what the text actually means?


I feel sorry for those who don't cherish dualistic logic, i.e. one excludes the other when 100% contradiction is proven by logic. Otherwise your religion creates people who point to a box and say, look how beautiful it is, its curves, its colors, its perfection, it's our Spirit. But when you look inside it contains nothing but empty blather exalted to religious dogma by the lack of one specific proof. It all means nothing specific but in the end all 'nothing specifics' have one main conclusion which is our dogma! Meanwhile the Spirit goes into a void without anyone noticing.

Exactly what your defining is indeed sacramental theology. You don't just look at a painting, you look into it.

Dualism in religious philosphy is defined as the following:
http://www.answers.com/topic/dualism?cat=health

The concept that the world is ruled by the antagonistic forces of good and evil.

God and the Devil (fallen angel) exist, but the are not equal opposites or equal forces. God has no equal. God created the material world and not the devil and God rules supreme over everything that's been created. The devil has no power to create anymore than we do. Evil is a distortion of the good.

The concept that humans have two basic natures, the physical and the spiritual.

Dualism sees the material and the spiritual in constant conflict, where in one case the material is an illusion or is evil like in Gnostic and Eastern religions.
If this was true then why did God become flesh and enter the material word?

The other dualist case is that materialism is the only reality and nothing exists beyond it.

I am not against dualistic logic where it applies. it doesn't apply to scripture because Christianity is not dualistic.

As for me, I could use a Jester Emoticon...

Try the writings of the early Christians who decided what books should go into the New Testament.

[andak01]

Here's what you said I said.


Andak keeps mentioning that Jews and Christians should be at war, because they don't worship the same God.


Here's what I said.

I could accept that Jews don't believe in the same God. But then so many of them cosy up to Christian evangelicals and are silent when those types talk about worshipping the same God. If you don't believe in Allah, you SURE don't believe in the Trinity, and eshewing both of those beliefs is consistent. But don't go on about Judeo/Christian values and how your fine religions are divorced from Islam. Islam has as much or as little right to the legacy of Moses as Christianity does.
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=268906&postcount=46

There is no place either in the quote you specify or in that thread or anywhere else that I said I thought Jews and Christians should be at war for any reason. If anything, that post is a plea for Jews and Muslims to stop going to war. I'm still waiting.

[dayag]

Here's what you said I said.

Here's what I said.

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=268906&postcount=46

There is no place either in the quote you specify or in that thread or anywhere else that I said I thought Jews and Christians should be at war for any reason. If anything, that post is a plea for Jews and Muslims to stop going to war. I'm still waiting.

You are absolutely correct that if we Jews worship a different G-d from the Muslim Allah, then even more so is our G-d different from the Christian Trinity. That is hardly a call for holy war between Christians and Jews. It is mere recognition that theologically Judaism is closer to Islam than Christianity.

In my experience, Muslims are strict monotheists who direct their prayers towards the G-d of Abraham. Despite our theological differences, I believe that we are praying to the same G-d.

[Achihud]

Everyone has the right to interpret scripture and is allowed to do so, but what if their interpretation goes against the very meaning of the verse itself? Suppose Charles Manson or the KKK pick up the Book of Revelation and say something and then argue their case that since everyone can interpet scripture they should be able to also. Who then decides what the text actually means?

Cannot be avoided but there is plenty wisdom available in NT to combat cults effectively.
I don’t blame cult leaders as much as I blame the people who get sucked into it. It’s their own fault if they fall victim to one or other form of mind contol.


[rest of this post is moved to the next page]

[andak01]

Cannot be avoided but there is plenty wisdom available in NT to combat cults effectively.

You mean cults like Manson's Family, Christian Identity, Jim Jones?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonrevelation.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

[Achihud]

You mean cults like Manson's Family, Christian Identity, Jim Jones? Gee man, how old was that last post in here. There is a life outside internet you know...just telling. Anyway, I wait for savvy to return.

Exactly what your defining is indeed sacramental theology. You don't just look at a painting, you look into it.

Hellooooo it wasn’t meant in a flathering way...
Like I’ve said before, if you look into the box that way, “the spirit goes into the void without anyone noticing.”
You can not truely believe in God without the -if- and -how- and -why-. If you base your belief in God on feelings and religious sentiments as the highest form of inspiration, i.e. when you IDOLIZE the mystery about it, you might as well start communicating in sounds instead of words. Your mystery worship will be completed...:p After all, if reason only plays the second violin of supporting faith it’s obvious that it will be kept restricted on purpose. However, what you can not explain can not be defended and what you can not defend, you can not truely believe. What you have instead is an environment of dogmatic mind control that feels safe as long as you stay in the framework but has zero chance should God decide to throw you in a REAL confrontation with satan such as Jesus encountered in the desert or Job for that matter.

God and the Devil (fallen angel) exist, but the are not equal opposites or equal forces. God has no equal. God created the material world and not the devil and God rules supreme over everything that's been created. The devil has no power to create anymore than we do. Evil is a distortion of the good.

Yes, I totally agree (!) but that doesn’t change the reality on the ground where the forces of good and evil try to influence our lives and they do it with the equal weapons of THEIR dualistic nature. Neither can you escape from yours. Spirit in its most essential being is captured in the word of its creation and the word for spirit is ‘roeach’ written resh-vaw-cheth. In gematria, it is 200-6-8. Your spirit starts from the DUALISTIC nature of 200 and is linked (with 6) to/ meant for ETERNITY like it is, in 8. So you can not EVER escape from your very nature and neither can an angel or devil in spirit escape from their dualistic nature. To lose yourself in mystery that is above the explainable is to convince yourself that your faith is stronger then it really is and whose to say that this isn’t a light of self-deception?

Due to the dualistic nature of all creation, it’s possible for Lucifer to act in the presence of great light. In the same way, many people are drawn to the light of mystery while there can only be one protection against such light; perfect understanding of creation. It starts with the -if-, the -how- and the -why-, it does not start nor end with dogmatic mind-control!
So you need your own dualism to create light that is bigger then the light of mystery… the light of understanding that teaches that there are no mysteries. Mysteries are for fools and fools get attracted to cults. Catholicism is only one of the many…islam is another.

Dualism sees the material and the spiritual in constant conflict, where in one case the material is an illusion or is evil like in Gnostic and Eastern religions.
If this was true then why did God become flesh and enter the material word?

*sigh*...ignore! You know well enough that I’m NO trinitarian.

I am not against dualistic logic where it applies. it doesn't apply to scripture because Christianity is not dualistic.

It always applies, if God has given free will, it speaks for itself that He has the power of free will. You cannot give what you don’t have. So in theory, God can decide to act in an unjust way and make and unjust decision.
What the rebellious angel is trying to prove is that this happened to him when he fell from grace and he tries to prove that in everyone’s mind.
When all minds are turned against God, the devil feels strong enough to bring up again his case. How does propaganda work on earth? If everyone believes the propaganda, the liar will feel safe to continue what he wants to believe. So does the devil.

Try the writings of the early Christians who decided what books should go into the New Testament.

On a side note; many books didn’t make the first canon because they were already so forged that the church fathers couldn’t keep up fixing the loose ties. Every falsification creates more textual anomalies in a greater or lesser degree so more passages needed to be rewritten until the whole text was a mess and could not be saved anymore.

[andak01]

Gee man, how old was that last post in here.

5 days.

You can not truely believe in God without the -if- and -how- and -why-. If you base your belief in God on feelings and religious sentiments as the highest form of inspiration, i.e. when you IDOLIZE the mystery about it, you might as well start communicating in sounds instead of words. Your mystery worship will be completed...:p After all, if reason only plays the second violin of supporting faith it’s obvious that it will be kept restricted on purpose.

That's why I'm a Sunni rather than a Sufi. Sufis place too much emphasis on mystery, which is only a part of the issue.

[Steven]

5 days.



That's why I'm a Sunni rather than a Sufi. Sufis place too much emphasis on mystery, which is only a part of the issue.

Oh great, just like hate spreading Saudis.

[Steven]

You mean cults like Manson's Family, Christian Identity, Jim Jones?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonrevelation.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

So you try and compare them to gorups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Queada. Who have world wide power and power in govts.:tdown:

Anything to try and get the focus off of your Muslim brothers and sisters.

[andak01]

So you try and compare them to gorups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Queada. Who have world wide power and power in govts.:tdown:

I didn't make any such comparison. If I wanted to name a Christian terrorist group that had that level of support, I would have mentioned the IRA. As it is, I was merely responding to a statement by Achihud that the NT stops cults. It's a load of manure.

As for your statement that Sunnis are "just like the hate spreading Saudis", that's not a fact. The Salafis (Wahhabis to you) are a small subset of Sunnis. And among them, militant jihadis are another subset.

[Kenneth]

The IRA was never a Christian terrorist group. The fact that its members were born into Catholic families was coincidental. They had their roots in quasi Maxism, and to this day lean towards left wing socialism. Their goal was never to convert protestants, but to kick out the British and have the 6 states unite with the rest of the country.

The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord were Christian terrorists as was the Army of God, so to the Aryan Nations the Christian Patriots and of course the KKK. In India there was the National Liberation Front of Tripura and the Nagaland Rebels. In Russia there was the Russian National Unity and the Russian National Socialists. And who could forget The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, lead by Joseph Kony who thought that he was the spokesperson for God.

All of these other groups had a Christian doctrine, but little outside support.

[andak01]

The IRA was never a Christian terrorist group. The fact that its members were born into Catholic families was coincidental. They had their roots in quasi Maxism, and to this day lean towards left wing socialism.

That's an unacceptable defense as Muslim groups are always classed by their religion with no regard to their underlying politics. Even insane, known to be mentally instable Muslims who commit murder are classed by their religion not as simply mass murderers or by the fact that such acts are known to happen in every society. In the case of Andrea Yates, she was a very religious Christian who killed all of her kids.

In the aftermath of the drownings, investigative reporter Suzy Spencer discovered letters written to Yates by the Woroniecki family that berated her for her "unrighteous standing before God". A newsletter called Perilous Times, authored by the Woronieckis the first month of 2000, was introduced into evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) at her trials to help establish the central motivating content behind her psychotic delusions.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates#cite_note-6)
Also introduced at the retrial was a video produced by the Woronieckis in 1996. In this video, the preacher condemns what he calls the modern "husband goes to work, wife just exists, hypocritical Christian lifestyle." Although the Yateses were not mentioned by name in the video, the Yateses did receive a copy mailed directly to them from the Woronieckis when it was first distributed. The defense argued that Yates' delusions followed the video's rationale that the life she was living would ensure her children's fate in hell.
Woroniecki taught in the video that parents must preach full time on the streets, "training" their children by example, so they could be "saved;" however, Russell continued to work at NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA) contrary to Woroniecki's instructions.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates#cite_note-7)
Yates told her jail psychiatrist, "It was the seventh deadly sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins). My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil). The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates#cite_note-8)
Yates told Dr. Michael Welner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Welner), who interviewed her at length before her second trial, that her husband and his mother spoke openly about his mother leaving the home within a couple of weeks, and that she felt incapable of caring for the children.PPT (http://www.forensicpanel.com/yates.ppt)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates

Honestly, if a Pakistani group was to strap people into trucks loaded with explosives like the IRA did in order to drive Indians out of Kashmir would they be given the leeway that you are affording the IRA?

The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord were Christian terrorists as was the Army of God, so to the Aryan Nations the Christian Patriots and of course the KKK. In India there was the National Liberation Front of Tripura and the Nagaland Rebels. In Russia there was the Russian National Unity and the Russian National Socialists. And who could forget The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, lead by Joseph Kony who thought that he was the spokesperson for God.

All of these other groups had a Christian doctrine, but little outside support.

At minimum the KKK were able to act openly for a period of some years in the early 20th century. They marched down the streets of Washington in droves.

[Kenneth]

That's an unacceptable defense as Muslim groups are always classed by their religion with no regard to their underlying politics. Even insane, known to be mentally instable Muslims who commit murder are classed by their religion not by the fact that such acts are known to happen in every society.

Honestly, if a Pakistani group was to strap people into trucks loaded with explosives like the IRA did in order to drive Indians out of Kashmir would they be given the leeway that you are affording the IRA?


I'm neither defending nor giving leeway to anybody. The IRA never killed in the name of Christianity. Their cause was a nationalist one. They did not kill for Jesus they killed for a united Ireland.

If the entire population of Britain had been Catholic and so too their descendants who settled the Northern plantations, the IRA would have still killed them because of Nationalism. It's that simple.

You see it's very easy to tell when a Christian is not a Christian. It's when he does not act like Jesus.

[Achihud]

(...) As it is, I was merely responding to a statement by Achihud that the NT stops cults. It's a load of manure. Okay, but I said that the rise of christian inspired cults "cannot be avoided but there is plenty wisdom available in NT to combat cults effectively."

Of course you need two things for that; 1) NT 2) someone who knows how to use it. The greatest fear of a cult leader is that he can't win a big argument. If people don't stand up for themselves and what they believe in, it's always their own fault if something bad happens to them.

I don’t blame cult leaders as much as I blame the people who get sucked into it. It’s their own fault if they fall victim to one or other form of mind contol.

[andak01]

Okay, but I said that the rise of christian inspired cults "cannot be avoided but there is plenty wisdom available in NT to combat cults effectively."

Do you have any example of that?

Of course you need two things for that; 1) NT 2) someone who knows how to use it. The greatest fear of a cult leader is that he can't win a big argument. If people don't stand up for themselves and what they believe in, it's always their own fault if something bad happens to them.

You've made a premise "The greatest fear of a cult leader is that he can't win a big argument." As usual, you drop this premise upon us as if it is fact without offering an example or a reason why this is true. A cult leader doesn't have to win any arguments, he simply has to retain his following. He might do that by offering a diet of smores and Kumbayah every evening. What a cult leader does not do is turn away an opportunity to gain more control and power over his subjects.

[Achihud]

Do you have any example of that? Only a few days ago you were reminding the IF visitors how >I< became the main reason behind your resignation and NOW you want to discuss things as if there ain't a cloud in the sky. Awkward...I think the whole idea of having this discussion stinks, so I'll pass.

[andak01]

Only a few days ago you were reminding the IF visitors how >I< became the main reason behind your resignation and NOW you want to discuss things as if there ain't a cloud in the sky. Awkward...I think the whole idea of having this discussion stinks, so I'll pass.

There isn't a cloud in the sky. You put out a thread complaining about me which should have gotten you banned in my opinion. However, the owners of this board did not see fit to ban you and therefore you remain. Since I no longer felt any support in my position as moderator, I resigned. That's about the end of the story. My opinion that you should have been banned was based on my own take about what the limits and the lines were for being on IF. The moderators disagreed with that. In another time on IF, perhaps you would have been banned, in another time perhaps me.

I'm more sore at the other mods for not supporting my decisions than with you for doing what you do naturally. But even they are simply doing what they do. I'm beginning to be convinced that what that is is an irrevertable spin towards Islamaphobic hatred. I'm sure you'll feel right at home soon.

[Achihud]

(...) I'm beginning to be convinced that what that is is an irrevertable spin towards Islamaphobic hatred. No no, WE ARE BOTH (!!!) PLAYERS, you know that, I know that and everyone of importance (Admin, mods) know us well enough to judge what we're after at any given time.

I'm sure you'll feel right at home soon. If you will notice, it's not like I've taken over R/C with a stream of anti-islam threads.

[Steven]

The word is Islamophobic is just a word, used by Muslims to try to silence people. No one in the world should look forward to Muslims taking over. Considering the way they treat non-Muslims. Just LOOK at the Middle East, and now it has even spread to Europe.

Islamophobic is really just Islamic awareness.

The two worlds just do not mix.

[savvy]

Hellooooo it wasn’t meant in a flathering way...
Like I’ve said before, if you look into the box that way, “the spirit goes into the void without anyone noticing.”
You can not truely believe in God without the -if- and -how- and -why-. If you base your belief in God on feelings and religious sentiments as the highest form of inspiration, i.e. when you IDOLIZE the mystery about it, you might as well start communicating in sounds instead of words. Your mystery worship will be completed... After all, if reason only plays the second violin of supporting faith it’s obvious that it will be kept restricted on purpose. However, what you can not explain can not be defended and what you can not defend, you can not truely believe. What you have instead is an environment of dogmatic mind control that feels safe as long as you stay in the framework but has zero chance should God decide to throw you in a REAL confrontation with satan such as Jesus encountered in the desert or Job for that matter.

I understand what you'r trying to say, but Catholicism is not based on scripture only, but also on objective evidence. Sola Scriptura is very subjective and opens the door to subjective feelings which people often turn into dogma. There's no room in Catholicism for that.



Yes, I totally agree (!) but that doesn’t change the reality on the ground where the forces of good and evil try to influence our lives and they do it with the equal weapons of THEIR dualistic nature. Neither can you escape from yours. Spirit in its most essential being is captured in the word of its creation and the word for spirit is ‘roeach’ written resh-vaw-cheth. In gematria, it is 200-6-8. Your spirit starts from the DUALISTIC nature of 200 and is linked (with 6) to/ meant for ETERNITY like it is, in 8. So you can not EVER escape from your very nature and neither can an angel or devil in spirit escape from their dualistic nature. To lose yourself in mystery that is above the explainable is to convince yourself that your faith is stronger then it really is and whose to say that this isn’t a light of self-deception?

Due to the dualistic nature of all creation, it’s possible for Lucifer to act in the presence of great light. In the same way, many people are drawn to the light of mystery while there can only be one protection against such light; perfect understanding of creation. It starts with the -if-, the -how- and the -why-, it does not start nor end with dogmatic mind-control!
So you need your own dualism to create light that is bigger then the light of mystery… the light of understanding that teaches that there are no mysteries. Mysteries are for fools and fools get attracted to cults. Catholicism is only one of the many…islam is another.

Here's what I mean. Angels are persons, but they have no bodies, animals have bodies, but are not persons. We are the only body persons. A human being is a body-spirit unity. Christianity believes in the resurrection of the Body. Sacramental theology is not hard to understand once you get rid of puritan body bad, spirit good theories.

Mysteries are for fools and fools get attracted to cults. Catholicism is only one of the many…islam is another.[/QUOTE]

Jesus used parables to explain spiritual things. A Mystery is not something that's unknown, it's something that's not fully know, for example we know that God is all powerful, but cannot fully fathom it. J.R. Tolkein, Shakespere, C.S. Lewis, were fools according to you, since you'r so ingenius.

*sigh*...ignore! You know well enough that I’m NO trinitarian.

That's a shame , I blame it on Sola Scriptura. You choose what you want to believe and then call it God's revelation.

It always applies, if God has given free will, it speaks for itself that He has the power of free will. You cannot give what you don’t have. So in theory, God can decide to act in an unjust way and make and unjust decision.
What the rebellious angel is trying to prove is that this happened to him when he fell from grace and he tries to prove that in everyone’s mind.
When all minds are turned against God, the devil feels strong enough to bring up again his case. How does propaganda work on earth? If everyone believes the propaganda, the liar will feel safe to continue what he wants to believe. So does the devil.

I know how propaganda works, that's why Catholicism is all about asking questions. I once went to an Evangelical fellowship, I started asking a lot of questions, the guy told me I was not really saved and just needed faith. Faith without reason is blind and vice versa.


On a side note; many books didn’t make the first canon because they were already so forged that the church fathers couldn’t keep up fixing the loose ties. Every falsification creates more textual anomalies in a greater or lesser degree so more passages needed to be rewritten until the whole text was a mess and could not be saved anymore.

So the Bible is a corrupted book with falsifications. No wonder you think the way you do!

[Achihud]

*sigh*...ignore! You know well enough that I’m NO trinitarian. That's a shame. (...) You choose what you want to believe and then call it God's revelation. blah blah...I'm gonna grant dayag the last word in here;
You are absolutely correct that if we Jews worship a different G-d from the Muslim Allah, then even more so is our G-d different from the Christian Trinity. That is hardly a call for holy war between Christians and Jews. It is mere recognition that theologically Judaism is closer to Islam than Christianity....see if I care

[j_y]

saudis are racist
I am a christian, they consider even arab christians evil and blah blah blahthen they come to lebanon just because we have whore houses and bars that are banned in saudi

we don't need to build churches there
and we don't need to recognise mohammed
the world is moving forward, they can't keep moving back against the flow, sooner or later saudi arabia will catch up
once they lose their oil reserves they will become insignificant anyway, just a big fat desert

[bararallu]

saudis are racist
I am a christian, they consider even arab christians evil and blah blah blahthen they come to lebanon just because we have whore houses and bars that are banned in saudi

we don't need to build churches there
and we don't need to recognise mohammed
the world is moving forward, they can't keep moving back against the flow, sooner or later saudi arabia will catch up
once they lose their oil reserves they will become insignificant anyway, just a big fat desert

Hi, are you a Maronite? Would you say that most Christians in the ME, identify themselves as ethnic Arabs these days? or only the majority of Eastern Orthodox?

There were instances where some Jews, based on the primary language they used growing up, identified as "Arab Jews", but that was deconstructed, rightfully reversing centuries of Muslim Arab cultural colonialism. Now days, I would say barring possibly a handful of confused or fearful individuals in North Africa and Yemen there is no such fish in the ocean. :). Under the same premise, many of us Israelis have always supported and continue to support cultural-religious-ethnic self determination, or at least distinct ethnic identity, of non Arab-Muslim minorities in the greater Middle East. This, implicitly, is one thing Israel stands for. A token of a type.

Instead of creating antisemitic conferences, and helping fabricate warlike nationalities [i.e., "Palestinians"], the UN should be made to sponsor a conference on Muslim-Arab cultural hegemony and imperialism in the Middle East. All like minded people should demand it. Perhaps we can start with targeting the central causal entity, Sodi Arabia.

[Zohar Yeshayahu]

Under the same premise, many of us Israelis have always supported and continue to support cultural-religious-ethnic self determination, or at least distinct ethnic identity
I absolutely agree.

Fact of the matter is, most people in ME are not Arabs. Inhabitants of the middle-east (bar people from the Arab peninsula) need to know that their ancestors are not ethnic Arabs, and that they are not from the same bloodline as that illiterate camel jockey Muhammad.

I believe that if you take the Islam (a religion created by an illiterate, hypocritical and lying true Arab) factor out of people in ME, you'll realize that most people in the ME are an intelligent bunch, They are a group of people with capabilities to become a functioning, and a more positive part of a more globalized economy.

We must never forget that civilization started, not in Europe, not in the Americas, not in Australia, but rather in the Middle East. And most middle easterners are descendants of these very intelligent people, not the descendants of a bunch of people who continued goat herding until black gold was discovered in their area (i.e true ethnic Arabs), but rather descendants of people who came up with the concepts of written language, mathematics, and science (Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Assyria and so and so forth).

Now if these people dissociated themselves from this Arab culture, we can see a return to a more prosperous ME. If ethnic nationalism were to foster in ME, we can see a return to the instinctual competitive mindset that is embedded in the psychic of every human being, which in turn would lead to a better middle east.

So I say, Iraqis are not arabs, but rather descendants of Mesopotamian, and Babylonians. Egyptians are not descendants of Arabs, but rather, they are Copts. Lebanese are not Arabs, but rather descendants of people who created the great Levant.

True Arabs, are only to be found in the Arabian peninsula. All other inhabitants of the middle-east just happen to speak Arab, because of Islamic colonialism. Its time for ME to return to its ancient cultural roots, and recreate that economic and cultural renaissance. That awesome coextensive of different mid-eastern cultures that once existed when Solomon was alive.

[andak01]

I'm sure you and yours will do your best to rewrite history and to destabilize the ME in any way possible by fomenting revolt among the Copts and the Berbers and anyone else you can convince to hate Arabs. You're right about Islamic colonialism. It works the same as British colonialism and American colonialism and French colonialism. The local populations are told that their history is worthless, that their founders were liars and that all their history is defunct just as that was told to the Jews by the Babylonians and the Greeks and the Romans and the Russians and the Germans and the British. Ignorance causes people to loose touch with their roots and to follow the latest colonial fashion. But there will always be those who know who they are.

I object to the term camel jockey. Abraham (SAW) was also an illiterate bedouin.