One problem with Islam itself - it was founded by a conqueror [Archive]

andak01

03-27-2003, 12:27 PM

Surah Baqarah 2:62
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

The Christians and Jews referred to in verse 5:51 are not pious people who have submitted themselves to God. They are those who play games with the scripture. If they truly put God before anything else in their lives and worship God alone, they are believers (arabic Muslimoon) who live in submission (saleem, one of the root words of Islam) to God (Allah).

Jesus (SAW) in the Bible enjoins his followers to follow the words of the Pharisees without following their actions.

Matthew 023:001
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
023:002
Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
023:003
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

The Qura'n validates both the Bible and the Torah as having a holy provinance.

Matthew 005:017
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
005:018
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

What both the Qur'an and the Bible imply is that the majority of humans are hypocrites. We cannot increase our faith by surrounding ourselves with and befriending hypocrites or indeed by becoming hypocrites. At the same time, our duty towards them is simply to state truthfully what we believe. There is nothing to be gained by forcing someone to profess a belief against their will. And oppressing people is a grave sin.

Surah Maida, from whence comes the quote was revealed after the Treaty of Hudaybiya. The Muslims were still a minority and were subject to various attacks both militarily and psychologically. Just as the Jews were forced by the Pharoah's oppression to band closely together, so, the Muslim ummah was formed at that time as a cooperative force against the oppression of the Qaraish.

Mr. Pumps

03-28-2003, 08:54 AM

Now what is so hard to understand reliiogn and politics is dangerous together and a old relic of medieval times.

Why can't Muslims understand that????? for pete sakes this is the 21st century and everyone is expanding away from the one-sided religion-political thinking nonsense. They are the only ones left with that old style thinking left. No Christians, Jewish people, Hindus, Buddhists....ANYONE for that matter!..... has that medieval ultra conservative non sense anymore. Why are those people in the medieval age??????I don't get it!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is the golden age of technology, genetics, robotics, science, space, babes.......but at the same time 1 billion people ruled by thier religion......it's nuts!.

They treat religion as all encompassing, when there is vastly more in ideas and experiences nowadays, what is their clear problem??????????????????????????????????? truely who thinks along their line anymore??????????????????.

IlyaFurman

03-28-2003, 02:25 PM

Simon do you know the age of marriage's in biblical times???

Do you know that Hebrew and Arabic cultures married very very young 1500 + years ago?

Do you know what the life expentacy was in biblical times? Not 75 like it is today, might 40 - 50 years seem right?

Did you know Mary was about 12 - 13 when she gave birth to Jesus?

Did you know Joseph was 36 + when he was with Mary.

(These are from Catholic Sources)

Your comparing modern times to ancient times. Cultures and values were differnt back then.

IlyaFurman

03-28-2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Simon
Whether one believes in Christianity or not, one cannot but respect Jesus for the exemplary life he led and more importantly for the fact that he practised what he preached. Which was love and forgiveness, not violence. He Himself never committed violence, neither did he condone it under any circumstances. The closest parallel I find to him is the great Gautama Buddha.

Sorry, but to me Christianity doesnt make sense. The "God" in Christianity killed many people just for the sake of it. The "God" in Christianity drowned millions of people for 40 days and 40 nights. God killed many innocent people of a specific tribe or people cause they sided with him enemy.

But Jesus was supposed to be all "good" and turn the other cheek?

That truly doesnt make sense.

How do we know how "God" is, Im not a religous person, but if "God" exists I hope he forgives me but if you read any holy book, to me it seems like "God" can be violent at many times. Who are you to say "God" is a perfectly nice individual?

andak01

03-29-2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
They are the only ones left with that old style thinking left. No Christians, Jewish people, Hindus, Buddhists....ANYONE for that matter!..... has that medieval ultra conservative non sense anymore. Why are those people in the medieval age??????I don't get it!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is the golden age of technology, genetics, robotics, science, space, babes.......but at the same time 1 billion people ruled by thier religion......it's nuts!.

They treat religion as all encompassing, when there is vastly more in ideas and experiences nowadays, what is their clear problem??????????????????????????????????? truely who thinks along their line anymore??????????????????.

If you have any belief in an all powerful creator of all things, then religion DOES encompass all. That doesn't exclude science at all. Science and technology are also a result of man using what God has provided.

But in response to you first statement, you must have an extremely narrow view of the world to think that Muslims are the only ones that follow religious traditions and make them central to their lives. What about Hassidic Jews or Buddhist monks or nuns or Catholics that smear ashes on their heads or Copts that still wear traditional clothing, or Eastern orthodox women that still cover their heads, or Hindis that still follow their traditions.

We see Muslim doctors teaching at almost every major medical institute. A Muslim Chemist has won the Nobel Prize, and a Muslim writer. Persuit of knowledge is a requirement of Muslims, not a prohibition. In fact, the ullemah met in Morocco recently to discuss the Fiqh issues of cloning. The result, only human cloning should be prohibited on ethical grounds. This decision concurs with similar sentiments in the West.

andak01

03-29-2003, 03:09 AM

Whether one believes in Christianity or not, one cannot but respect Jesus for the exemplary life he led and more importantly for the fact that he practised what he preached. Which was love and forgiveness, not violence. He Himself never committed violence, neither did he condone it under any circumstances.

Then I suggest you read what the Qur'an has to say about Jesus (SAW). I don't even mention his name without stating "Peace and Blessings be upon him."= "Sullallahu Allahi Wasalaam."= SAW

Here are mentions of Jesus (SAW) in the Qur'an.

The Family Of 'Imran
3:3
It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

Ornaments Of Gold
43:61
And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way.

The Clans
33:7
And remember We took from the prophets their covenant: As (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant:

Iron
57:26
And We sent Noah and Abraham, and established in their line Prophethood and Revelation: and some of them were on right guidance. But many of them became rebellious transgressors.
57:27
Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our messengers: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah; but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors.

This is saying that the religion of Noah and of Abraham and the religion of Jesus are the true religion. And the true religion realizes and accepts that God/G_d/Allah is above all else.

Mr. Pumps

03-29-2003, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by andak01
If you have any belief in an all powerful creator of all things, then religion DOES encompass all. That doesn't exclude science at all. Science and technology are also a result of man using what God has provided.

But in response to you first statement, you must have an extremely narrow view of the world to think that Muslims are the only ones that follow religious traditions and make them central to their lives. What about Hassidic Jews or Buddhist monks or nuns or Catholics that smear ashes on their heads or Copts that still wear traditional clothing, or Eastern orthodox women that still cover their heads, or Hindis that still follow their traditions.

We see Muslim doctors teaching at almost every major medical institute. A Muslim Chemist has won the Nobel Prize, and a Muslim writer. Persuit of knowledge is a requirement of Muslims, not a prohibition. In fact, the ullemah met in Morocco recently to discuss the Fiqh issues of cloning. The result, only human cloning should be prohibited on ethical grounds. This decision concurs with similar sentiments in the West.

Sorry there is a athiest Hindu/Jewish person/Christian, Hardcore religious Hindu/Jewish person/ Christian and mainstream religious Hindu/Jewish person/Christian.......a distinct personal choice level Islam should have like all the rest.

Infact trying to destroy a small country just because it has a small unmuslim population is the ultimate in narrowmindedness.

Where are the Muslim astronauts, tech companies, beer makers...etc if they are so openminded huh???????? where is the openness of ideas?????????

If the Middle East countries don't become a open idea republics at some point, other nations like India, China. Europe, Israel, Asia will be well ahead of all of them and they will find it difficult to narrow the huge gap.

Only peace will happen if the Arab's make Islam as small as possible in their societies not the centre of everything.

Am Yisrael

03-29-2003, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
If the Middle East countries don't become a open idea republics at some point, other nations like India, China. Europe, Israel, Asia will be well ahead of all of them and they will find it difficult to narrow the huge gap.

I think that is what is already happening. Asia, specifically the Middle East, have the capacity to be high-tech countries, rich and resourceful. The way I see it is this... Let us enjoy our freedom and fast evolving society without imposing it on them. Maybe in time they will look at Western culture and envy our society. We do not have the resources to change their religious policies in society, so let them change it themselves. Anyway, I personally feel happy that Israel does not have to compete against fast developing Muslim Arab countries in technology, so lets be gratefull that Israel is way ahead on the scale compared to them.

Mediocrates

03-29-2003, 09:10 AM

Mr. Pumps -

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
If the Middle East countries don't become a open idea republics at some point, other nations like India, China. Europe, Israel, Asia will be well ahead of all of them and they will find it difficult to narrow the huge gap.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no when or if to this. It is already happening. As a region the arab states rate even according to the UNDP, barely better than sub saharan africa. Below even in some measures.

Simon

03-29-2003, 02:26 PM

Ahhhh Simon the Hindu bigot.

:D I see the wonderful world of Islamic Logic here. Cant prove a person wrong, kill him, insult him and threaten the wrath of Allah upon him.

In complete contrast to your ID, you have at no time proved any of my statements to be "factually incorrect." I certainly do not consider it worth my while to exchange words with an imbecile.

Simon

03-29-2003, 02:32 PM

Andak:

The entire Koran, is in my opinion an complete rip-off. Which explains all the screwed up contradictions. Virtually every verse dedicated to killing infidels, jews; raping their daugters and mothers, condoning rape, gouging their eyes out, cutting off limbs, etc. Then once in a while, for a change of pace, putting in some seemingly peaceful stuff about not killing innocents in a rather tongur-in-cheek fashion. Of course, Islam prevents killing of innocents. But when the hell has that stopped any muslims for two nearly two millenia now from doing exactly the same. The reason is obvious and lies in the true meaning of the word "innocent." By islamic definitions, an infidel or anyone not believing in Allah can never be innocent. See, quite clever that.

700 yrs after Christianity, along comes a man who declares himself a prophet, has no history of his own and so promptly steals that of the preceding Jews and Christians by magnanimously declaring that Allah is their God as well, then co-opting Jewish prophets for his own, declaring Jesus and Mary as muslim prophets and voila: a new cult called Islam.

Of course, mohammad realizes that there is nothing to prevent, say a Simon from coming along and pulling the same rip-off. So, he promptly declares himself to be the Last Prophet.

As to why any of the Jewish prophets or Jesus/Mary would have anything to do with a despicable individual like Mohammad or any entity like allah is beyond me.

So you see, Islam has no history of its own, has (mis) appropriated that of the Jews and Christians, declared their (jews and christian) prophets as his own, and thus was born a religion that perpetrated the biggest larceny in human history.

andak01

03-29-2003, 05:10 PM

Having been accused of being a terrorist sympathizer and a liar and God knows what else (I may have missed a couple of posts), and to be fair, having been defended more than once on this very board, little surprises me. Well, since everybody now knows that Muslims are trained by the Koran to kill, here I am, sword at my side, ready for action.

So Simon, since you have troubled to include a quote from the good Book, let's see who I'm allowed to kill, based upon that very quote.

Surah Baqarah 2:191 (Shakir Translation)
And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

First off, I don't know who THEY are from this verse, but THEY must be pretty bad, and anyway, my sword hand is itchy. Let's find out. We only have to go one verse back to 2:190.

2:190
And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

2:190 (Pickthal Translation)
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

Wait a second!!! That's not infidels at all, at least not just any infidels. That's people who fight me. And on top of that, I'm not allowed to exceed limits. I can't even begin the hostilities. And I can't even fight them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight me.

What happens if they stop fighting??? Then can I finish them off??? One verse more tells me...

2:192
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
2:193
And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

If they stop fighting, I MUST stop.

2:194
The prohibited month for the prohibited month,- and so for all things prohibited,- there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.
2:195
And spend in the way of Allah and cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands, and do good to others; surely Allah loves the doers of good.

You seem to have taken that quote very far out of context through deliberate ommission. Even on face value, it doesn't mean anywhere near to what you are implying. My sword is still by my side, and there will it remain until I am actively attacked and then only until the attack ceases. I am allowed to defend myself, thankfully. In the meantime, I am enjoined to do good unto others, not Muslim others, just others. So while the set of people I can do good deeds to is broad, the set whom I can kill is at present non-existant.

MichaelC

03-29-2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by andak01

2:190
And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
What are the limits?

2:190 (Pickthal Translation)
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And you think this is something that muslims actually adhere to? Tell it to New York!

[b]2:192
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
So, if eveyone just surrenders to muslims, they'll leave us in peace?

2:193
And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors .
That "oppressor" thing certainly looks open for interpretation.

[b]2:194
The prohibited month for the prohibited month,- and so for all things prohibited,- there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.
This one is so vague and abstract, I imagine it can be used to mean anything. I can't even tell what it said.

2:195
And spend in the way of Allah and cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands, and do good to others; surely Allah loves the doers of good.
Now, if you guys could just stick with this....I think. What the heck does "spend in the way of Allah" mean?

My sword is still by my side, and there will it remain until I am actively attacked and then only until the attack ceases
Good as far as it goes, but many of us still retain a lot of jitters about the loyalties of muslims.

So while the set of people I can do good deeds to is broad, the set whom I can kill is at present non-existant. Why is this such a rare choice in Islam?

andak01

03-30-2003, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by MichaelC
[B]Originally posted by andak01

[quote]What are the limits?

The limits set out here are the point where the attackers cease to attack.

And you think this is something that muslims actually adhere to? Tell it to New York!

You can't have it both ways. Either we do adhere to it and it is violent, or we adhere to it and it is non-violent, or we don't adhere to it and it is violent, or we don't adhere to it and it is non-violent. That covers the possiblilities. If you are saying that adhering to this non-violent message would have prevented WTC, I agree wholeheartedly. And this is only one verse we are referring to, but obviously one that Simon feels is a violent one. In his efforts to disgrace Islam, he is forced to take that verse completely out of context and include it with each post.

So, if eveyone just surrenders to muslims, they'll leave us in peace?

You've been exposed to Bush diplomacy too long. 'Cease' and 'Surrender' are separate concepts. There is such a thing as a treaty or diplomacy or simply ceasing hostility. Repeatedly in the Qur'an, it tells us that our duty ends when the unbelievers hear what we have to say, not when they convert. A forced or coerced conversion doesn't benefit anyone. The punishment of the Qaraish prisoners that refused to convert was that they teach a Muslim to read. Then they were set free.

That "oppressor" thing certainly looks open for interpretation.

You're correct to say that. By context here, we could perhaps confine it to religious oppression. But, I can't think of any sense broad enough to include WTC. Saddam and our own military's invasion might fall in that category. Personally, I would find having soldiers take over my country, searching my house and dropping bombs a bit oppressive. Call me hypersensitive.

This one is so vague and abstract, I imagine it can be used to mean anything. I can't even tell what it said.

First of all, it's a historic reference. There were months of the year where warfare was prohibitted prior to Islam. It isn't fair to cause others to break their own religious convictions when doing battle with them, unless they do likewise to you. The Muslims are told to honor the prohibitions against warfare during those months. In addition, they are enjoined to excercise restraint.

Now, if you guys could just stick with this....I think. What the heck does "spend in the way of Allah" mean?

Spending in the way of Allah is Charity, one of the five pillars of Islam. We are told to give quietly, not for the sake of impressing others.

Good as far as it goes, but many of us still retain a lot of jitters about the loyalties of muslims.
Why is this such a rare choice in Islam?

Why do so few Christians follow the golden rule? Why, if the message of the Bible exists are our prisons filled with people who don't even follow the ten commandments? Answer that one, and you can solve a good deal of the problems of the world. Those people exercise their free will to do evil.

I want you to note that this verse was chosen specifically to prove how violent the Qur'an is. But yet, you end by asking why more Muslims don't follow it. What does that tell you about the other verses that are held up as being violent?

IlyaFurman

03-30-2003, 04:35 AM

Andak, would you know who "they" are in this particular paragraph you mentioned?

Simon

03-30-2003, 07:06 AM

The entire Koran, is in my opinion an complete rip-off. Which explains all the screwed up contradictions. Virtually every verse dedicated to killing infidels, jews; raping their daugters and mothers, condoning rape, gouging their eyes out, cutting off limbs, etc. Then once in a while, for a change of pace, putting in some seemingly peaceful stuff about not killing innocents in a rather tongur-in-cheek fashion. Of course, Islam prevents killing of innocents. But when the hell has that stopped any muslims for two nearly two millenia now from doing exactly the same. The reason is obvious and lies in the true meaning of the word "innocent." By islamic definitions, an infidel or anyone not believing in Allah can never be innocent. See, quite clever that.

700 yrs after Christianity, along comes a man who declares himself a prophet, has no history of his own and so promptly steals that of the preceding Jews and Christians by magnanimously declaring that Allah is their God as well, then co-opting Jewish prophets for his own, declaring Jesus and Mary as muslim prophets and voila: a new cult called Islam.

Of course, mohammad realizes that there is nothing to prevent, say a Simon from coming along and pulling the same rip-off. So, he promptly declares himself to be the Last Prophet.

As to why any of the Jewish prophets or Jesus/Mary would have anything to do with a despicable individual like Mohammad or any entity like allah is beyond me.

So you see, Islam has no history of its own, has (mis) appropriated that of the Jews and Christians, declared their (jews and christian) prophets as his own, and thus was born a religion that perpetrated the biggest larceny in human history.

This is what I wrote in my previous post. Note that not one point has been factually refuted by the Islamophiles. Instead, we infidels are treated to some more disingenuous garbage.

andak01

03-30-2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
Andak, would you know who "they" are in this particular paragraph you mentioned?

2:190
And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits...

I thought I covered that. And the context is a religious context. It would be exceeding limits to attack those who don't attack us, and exceeding limits to continue fighting if a treaty is offered or if hostilities cease.

Do all Muslims follow this example? Do all Christians follow the example of Jesus (SAW)?

andak01

03-30-2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Simon
This is what I wrote in my previous post. Note that not one point has been factually refuted by the Islamophiles. Instead, we infidels are treated to some more disingenuous garbage.

Yeah, I got that. But you have yet to explain why even your signature is disingenuous. Once you show me that that verse proves your point, we can proceed to your other ignorant assertions.

Actually, there was one that I'll stand by. You are certainly allowed your opinion. If you wish to believe that the Qur'an is a ripoff, you are entitled to your opinion. I personally know a convert to Islam that did his master's thesis on that very subject. I suggest you research that subject further.

D.Abraham

03-30-2003, 09:10 PM

Is it better that Islam exists or that the people of the region other than Jews and Christians be involved in pagan beliefs to this day and time? Perhaps Adonai designed it this way? I will not deny Muhammed's validity to this World. If it were not to be valid -Islam surely would have perished... The L-rd works in Mysterious Ways my Friends. Have you asked or spoken with Him about this? -Any of you that are Jews? Or do we all guess what is right and wrong? G-d only asks us all to follow his Commandments and be Humble and of our own "free-will", whatever the consequences may give. Live life to enjoy, respect, appreciate, honor, cherish, love -in your heart for what is good. Always strive to it. Never keep hate in the heart, even in the face and midst of those that seem wicked to you or your family & people. Perhaps this is Life's Challege, within each of ourselves the battle is waged to connect with all of Ellohem's creations including your Muslim Brother and Sister? When in fact, G-d is more complex and stifling to all of Us no matter the religion of choice or birth. Keep it simple and revere the Lawgiver and Father. Muslims too need to be aware of "The People of the Book" and follow
G-d's Commandments to there fullest if they are to be considered to be a part of the One Just G-d Family! Praise Hashem! Let it be His Glory!
Hallilujah!
Darin Abraham
Muhammed also said to be respectful to "The People of the Book" -The Hebrews.
Jesus was not the writer of the New Testiment. He must be respected as the human being he was, seeking Good paths in Life and not be associated with the interpretations of those that are or were his followers. If you believe He-Christ is your G-d then you have made that choice that is your "free-will" choice G-d gave you to exercise. Remember if you Know and believe in the
G-d of Abraham and were raised in good knowledge to your adulthood of this -you may be more accountable to Him the One G-d and His First Commandment.

ayesha

03-31-2003, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Simon
Excellent point. Not only that, Mohammad was a violent man as clearly demonstrated by his wanton slaughter of innocents. He condoned rape and clearly committed rape (paedophilia) himself by forcing himself on a 9-yr old girl.

the marriage to aisha was only consumated after she had begun menstruation. this was discussed here in this forum with manuel, ezra and many others before, and this claim was proven wrong Simon. I am greatly offended by what u have said.

andak01

03-31-2003, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by D.Abraham
Is it better that Islam exists or that the people of the region other than Jews and Christians be involved in pagan beliefs to this day and time? Perhaps Adonai designed it this way? I will not deny Muhammed's validity to this World. If it were not to be valid -Islam surely would have perished... The L-rd works in Mysterious Ways my Friends. Have you asked or spoken with Him about this? -Any of you that are Jews? Or do we all guess what is right and wrong? G-d only asks us all to follow his Commandments and be Humble and of our own "free-will", whatever the consequences may give. Live life to enjoy, respect, appreciate, honor, cherish, love -in your heart for what is good. Always strive to it. Never keep hate in the heart, even in the face and midst of those that seem wicked to you or your family & people. Perhaps this is Life's Challege, within each of ourselves the battle is waged to connnect with all of Ellohem's creations including your Muslim Brother and Sister? When in fact, G-d is more complex and stifling to all of Us no matter the religion of choice or birth. Keep it simple and revere the Lawgiver and Father. Muslims too need to be aware of "The People of the Book" and follow
G-d's Commandments to there fullest if they are to be considered to be a part of the One Just G-d Family! Praise Hashem! Let it be His Glory!
Hallilujah!
Darin Abraham
Muhammed also said to be respectful to "The People of the Book" -The Hebrews.
Jesus was not the writer of the New Testiment. He must be respected as the human being he was, seeking Good paths in Life and not be associated with the interpretations of those that are or were his followers. If you believe He-Christ is your G-d then you have made that choice that is your "free-will" choice G-d gave you to exercise. Remember if you Know and believe in the
G-d of Abraham and were raised in good knowledge to your adulthood of this -you may be more accountable to Him the One G-d and His First Commandment.

That's a beautiful post. We are all, each of us going to be judged by what we do, not what Muhammad (SAW) or Jesus (SAW) or even Buddha did.

The Table 5:66
If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil.

Only Allah has the power to determine what is a right course and what is not. He has given us the tool of free will to determine our own course, but not those of others. That is why attacking others when we ourselves have not been attacked is wrong.

The recent comments of the Pope exemplify what living together is all about. He has called on the world community not to make this into a Christian crusade against Islam. That is not a struggle you can win, anymore than the Germans could have 'won' the Holocaust. If Allah had wanted the world to be Muslim, He (genderless He) need only have lifted His hand. Instead, we have a challenge to mankind to live together.

Mr. Pumps

03-31-2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
There is no when or if to this. It is already happening. As a region the arab states rate even according to the UNDP, barely better than sub saharan africa. Below even in some measures.

Exactly, that is what I don't get.... if making religion is as big as it is in these societies, which makes for the backwardsness. who in there right mind, after seeing others moving on, would tolerate it.

I saw a program about Western educated Jordanians........well! I said to myself if they are western educated then why not take Jordan into the 21st century.....huh?????? they MUST be sick seeing the pathetic ancientness of their undeveloped society.

High-Tech tiny Israel shows what a determined people can do! and the Arabs have 99% of almost unused land.

I think if the Arabs were opening up, and progressing nicely toward freedom and ideas, the Middle East would be alot happier and Israel could let down her guard alittle, the Arab would focus more on their selves than constantly Israel. But right now Arabs states are'nt doing that so to makeup for no fresh ideas or political modernization they have to go to old complaints like the Palestinians and hating Israel. Maybe they should think alot more about economic and social and political progress than always staying on the same topic that get them nowhere.

Isiah 2:4

03-31-2003, 09:06 AM

700 yrs after Christianity, along comes a man who declares himself a prophet, has no history of his own and so promptly steals that of the preceding Jews and Christians by magnanimously declaring that Allah is their God as well, then co-opting Jewish prophets for his own, declaring Jesus and Mary as muslim prophets and voila: a new cult called Islam.

Am i right in saying that you believe Islam to be an Irrelevent, illogical cult?

It also seems to me that you believe that no one else should be able to adopt monotheistic religion in a form that suits them.

Remember that the Jews were chosen by God to deliver him to all of humanity.

God has not chosen the Jews for any other reason, and they are not do not have a unique claim to be His people.

Same goes for Christians and Muslims too i think.

D.Abraham

03-31-2003, 09:16 AM

Isiah, you are well said. Haven't Jews brought G-d to the world? I see it as so. Those that follow Him do so at their own choosing including Jews that do not follow the strict guidelines He has set forth for His "Witnesses" and "Kingdom of Priests". Jews of all the One G-d Faith and followers of the Torah are extremely judged by the Almighty if they do not follow His Ways. Maybe that is why Jews at times have suffered and endured throughout history? We are more accountable to Him perhaps? And need to be the apitamy of exemplary behavior to our G-d, Adonai?!
D. Abraham

The One Holy G-d cannot be "Stolen" as was suggested. Only He can decide Who can be a part of Him! If that included Muslims than so be it...

Mediocrates

03-31-2003, 09:36 AM

That only makes sense from an evangelical point of view though. To everyone else that is apostacy.

D.Abraham

03-31-2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
That only makes sense from an evangelical point of view though. To everyone else that is apostacy.

Who is everyone else you speak of? I do not renounce my faith nor do I consider myself to be traitor. I believe the Holy One will decide and Judge me on my merits and how I try and live up to His expectations and not yours ar anyone persons ideas on what is right and wrong. I am just a man under G-d who says what's in his heart, which may in fact be a translation of the good G-d gave me. I personally live by the Torah as my guide and do my very best to follow those words that are described to be from the Almighty Himself. I cannot dictate to you how to live, you must try and find G-d within oneself or beside oneself (your neighbor" to be in standing to judge. I will not judge anyone including you on this board until I've had time to get to know you. Maybe not until I actaully have met you personally and seen your actions.. But I will question how you can be of the belief of who you are that can decide who is right and wrong -in the "Faith". Who gave you the authority? Live your life simply, defend yourself but do not take judgement in your hands if acts of wrongdoing have not been commited, especially against you. -Those are my thoughts, take it or leave it, I'm not going to tell you what is right and wrong or define who you are? I do not know you well enough to label or "judge" you fairly as you have done to me. I pray that G-d may have mercy on you. It appears You breed hatred, that is my belief but not my judgement. But again I will not judge, you know what you are in your heart.

Do you truly know what the defintion of evangelical is? Please explain to me your definition and understanding of term if you wish to "name call" so adametely. The definition I discover in Webster's Encylopedia of Dictionaries (Ottenheimer Publishers) discusses the relation of of a "religious movement to spread actively the tenets of the Gospel" -also, "to convert by preaching the -Gospel ". Being that Adonai asks me not to partake in other regions as fundamental beliefs of my own being a Jew I will not sucumb to the definiton you define me as.
Shalom,
D. Abraham

Instead of argueing why not seek Shalom? I suspect most everyone on this board would feel something missing from there lives if they couldn't argue or have extreme differences with their neighbor. Matter of fact I believe you all love each other so much you enjoy fighting with each other over who is right and wrong? Just my thoughts... Instead of seeking a distraction here,(or on the streets of the problem areas of the world) maybe we all should enjoy the good G-d has provided and go hiking, enjoy the flowers or go fishing? Or perhaps play a game with your kids or family members? Enjoy a good meal? Invite the stanger in you home? There are far more constructive ways to live, how about donating physical time to a worthy helping cause or people who are suffering or need help? Monetarily as well. More energy needs to be put there than any place else in our world. War may be inevitible at this time in the history of the world and in the plan designed by G-d's will?

Simon

03-31-2003, 10:38 AM

the marriage to aisha was only consumated after she had begun menstruation. this was discussed here in this forum with manuel, ezra and many others before, and this claim was proven wrong Simon. I am greatly offended by what u have said.

My point was to illustrate a contrast between the founders of Christianity and Islam. While one can indulge in semantics and argue that aisha was menstruating, it nevertheless is a disgusting thought that a man that old would force himself on a 9-yr old girl. If he claimed that he did so on Allahs' orders, then a similar conclusion follows.

It is clearly written in many verses of the koran that muslims can "possess" and do as they please with women captured in war. That is a direct condonation of rape, a practice that was followed by mohammad himself. Now you and yours will trumpet out the familiar "O! Those times such things were normal, etc."

Well, Jesus lived even before mohammad but indulged in none of the bestiality that was perpetrated by mohammad. That pretty much deals with the arguement that mohammad's actions were in consonance with the times.

I had previously researched various sites and quoted verse upon verse in the koran that directed its followers to commit horrendous acts.

What is more important is that such acts are committed to the letter by muslims worldwide.

Whereas ancient texts such as the Torah (perhaps) or even Indian texts (may) contain such violent references, it is significant to note that its adherents have moved away from such literal interpretation for a number of years now. OTOH, Islam forces such literal interpretation. In fact, a muslim cannot pick and choose which parts of the koran he/she will follow. Its all or nothing.

Which begs the question: Can the followers of islam ever live in peace with anyone else? Even themselves?

The answer, based on my experience as an Indian, is a resounding NO.

I have seen what Pakistan and Bangladesh has done to its hindu minorities. And it is a hundred-thousand times more than what happened in Gujarat as some muslims are quick to point out. Equally, significant is that none of these muslims mention the 59 hindu men, women and children who were burnt alive by muslims and this atrocity is what triggered the subsequent Gujarat riots. When in pointed this out, a bright fellow muslim, one Intellectualme, said that it was OK as pakistan was not really a democracy and therefore, by implication it was ok for muslim regimes to butcher its minorities.

Just a few days ago, 24 hindus were butchered in JK by these followers of allah. Even two kids, age 2-3 yrs old, were dragged out and shot in the head.

So, even at the risk of pi$$ing of a moderator, i say to you this. We have had enough of islam and muslims in india. We have tolerated this for 1 thousand years. I sincerely wish that during partition, we had not listened to idiots like gandhi and nehru and effected a complete change of populations. that way, you muslims could have lived in your islamic paradises and left us infidels alone. Pity that.

What were are seeing now is a hindu/sikh population that has had it with islamic terrorism and the daily calls for jihad that butcher/rape in your allahs' name. Now, we fight back. And when that happens, what do muslims do. They whine about us bad hindus. Well, tough luck. We took it in the chin for a thousand years while you muslims raised literally mountains of hindu skulls (that is what the term Hindu Kush of Hindu Kush mountains means). The hindu/sikh retaliation is just beginning.

Re being disingenuous, that's a hoot. Muslims are free to deny other minorities any rights in the countries that they predominate. And people like you have the unmitigated gall to question hindus or jews.

A sincere question: Why not spread this message of love that the koran seemingly claims to have and go to Islamic countries first? What are you afraid of? That you will get stoned to death or decapitated? Why the sermons and homilies directed at non-muslims? Fix your own house first.

MichaelC

03-31-2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by D.Abraham
Who is everyone else you speak of? I do not renounce my faith nor do I consider myself to be traitor. I believe the Holy One will decide and Judge me on my merits and how I try and live up to His expectations and not yours ar anyone persons ideas on what is right and wrong. I am just a man under G-d who says what's in his heart, which may in fact be a translation of the good G-d gave me. I personally live by the Torah as my guide and do my very best to follow those words that are described to be from the Almighty Himself. I cannot dictate to you how to live, you must try and find G-d within oneself or beside oneself (your neighbor" to be in standing to judge. I will not judge anyone including you. But I will question how you can be of the belief of who you are that can decide who is right and wrong. Live your life simply, defend youself but do not take judgement in your hands if acts of wrongdoing have not been commited, especiallly against you. -Those are my thoughts, take it or leave it, I'm not going to tell you what is right or wrong who you are? I do not know you well enough to label or "judge" you fairly as you have done to me. May G-d have mercy on you. It appears You breed hatred, that is my belief but not my judgement, but again I will not judge, you know what you are in your heart. D. Abraham
Instead of argueing why not seek Shalom? I suspect most everyone on this board would feel something missing from there lives if they couldn't argue or have extreme differences with their neighbor . Matter of fact I believe you all love each other so much you enjoy fighting with each other over who is right and wrong? Just my thoughts... Instead of seeking a distraction here,(or on the streets of the problem areas of the world) maybe we all should enjoy the good G-d has provided and go hiking, enjoy the flowers or go fishing? Or perhaps play a game with your kids or family members? Enjoy a good meal? Invite the stanger in you home? There are far more constructive ways to live, how about donating physical time to a worthy helping cause or people who are suffering or need help? Monetarily as well. More energy needs to be put there than any place else in our world.
When I read your first post at this board, it seemed pleasant enough and I was inclined to accept it at face value, though there was something there that just made me wonder how you would continue your dialogue.

It did not take long to see.

The red highlighted areas are self contradictory. The blue highlighted area contains your contradictions in a single sentence.

You are not the honest broker that you pretend to be, but are stirring things up in precisely the manner that you accuse others of.

Judging from what you yourself have stated, I am sure that you will merely categorize my words as falling into YOUR category of,

"most everyone on this board would feel something missing from there lives if they couldn't argue or have extreme differences with their neighbor." which is, to any intelligent person, a character judgement, though you exonerate yourself of that.

You judge others and think they will simply let it pass because of a "holier than thou" attitude that says judgements made by YOU are not actually judgements

D.Abraham

03-31-2003, 11:02 AM

Simon,

Perhaps it is because so many are confused, vexed or forced to follow G-d in the context of what "people" wish and educate them to do. Perhaps it has nothing to do with the One G-d in the good sense, perhaps the bad lesson sense? G-d is not to be used as tool by anyone including Jews, Chrsitians and Muslims, especially extremism in any religion. It is perhaps o.k. to ask for His infinite guidance and protection but not to use as a means of man-designed force of His wills? He will Bless with whom ever He chooses as Worthy of that blessing and with Whom He sees as being an instrument for Him to bring His world into being in due season. We must all strive to understand our differences He gave us and not argue over who is the favorite or the correct child of His. Let's not whine, much as many Muslims have and plenty of others have as well.

An intereting quote:

"Tazria - Metzorah - No Escaping G-d
By Rabbi Aron Tendler

The comprehensive nature of Halacha addresses every situation and circumstance and establishes clear expectations for our behavior and attitudes. Whether issues in the kitchen or the bedroom, our lifestyle is focused on the constancy of Hashem's involvement in our lives and the purpose that living life was intended to have. G-d's inclusion in our daily living transforms the mundane into the divine, the mortal into the eternal; and it is the mission of the Jewish people to model a lifestyle that integrates G-d into its every facet. The two Parshiot that we read this Shabbos underscore the meaning of "Dah Lifnay Mee Atah Omed" - know before whom you are standing, and the symbolic but real manifestation of that awareness.

In the beginning, it wasn't easy. The Jewish people had to come to terms with a G-d who revealed Himself as a constant in their lives. Along with His constancy came changes, expectations, and responsibilities. The various Mitzvos directed the Bnai Yisroel's thinking toward the constancy of G-d, and the building of the Mishkan established a physical focus for their devotion. However, it became clear that "Know before whom you are standing" involved more than praying three times a day, keeping Shabbos, and having separate dishes. It was a constant demand on their attitudes to consciously involve G-d in every facet of their lives.

Time took on new and greater significance. Eating and sleeping became the means toward the greater end of serving G-d. Social engagements and relationships referenced G-d as the scale by which their integrity and intent were judged. Family relationships reflected the successes and failures of parental education and training; and individual accomplishment was redirected toward the greatness of spirit rather than monetary or societal gain.

However, more overwhelming and invasive than anything else was the awareness of being constantly judged. "Know before whom you are standing" positioned G-d as judge, jury, and executioner. Nothing escaped His scrutiny. Actions, thoughts, hopes, and dreams were laid bare before the all-seeing and all-knowing Master of the Universe. Privacy was only in the eyes of the beholder or the self-delusion of the individual, when in reality everything was open and recorded by the Judge of all Judges! Add to this the extraordinary experiences of living in the desert and the constancy of G-d became nearly impossible.

For example, the Manna. Chazal teach us that the daily "food from heaven" involved much more than the daily reemphasis of their total dependence upon G- d. It also involved a daily and public assessment of their relationship with G-d. The greater and more responsible our relationship with G-d, the closer the Manna would fall. Some found it outside their front doors while others had to walk out into the fields to collect their daily allotment. This created the truest yet most difficult manifestation of "Know before whom you are standing." It wasn't only G-d who knew your true self, but every neighbor and stranger could see your truest self!" - Torah.org

Be happy with you lot as is described.

Shalom, D. Abraham

D.Abraham

03-31-2003, 11:13 AM

MichaelC,

Look, maybe you needed to highlight also that "I am under
G-d" not "Holier than Thou" as you have suggested. I merely wish folks would seek common ground instead of pounding out their differences in such demeaning, mean spirited and useless ways that contradict everything G-d speak directly to us as Jews about. It is like a merry-go-round at the carnival here. When is somebody going to seek the commonality we all have and celebrate the differences? It takes baby steps for there to be progress. If you make one person feel better, differently about the current sticking points then perhaps they will teach that to their children changing the future one day? By the way, you did not outline your defintion of Evengelical. Sounds like you put youself on a pedastal in this statement. Like I said also to ironically "contridict" myself more positively, one can and should defend onself from personal attack if they deem it necessary to speak for their being. Your attack was of a personal nature, and with that you have to now live with the fact that you attacked me and I will respond in kind. This is just the kind of situation that gets things started. You lit the fire I threw it back at you hoping it would end at you but instead you throw more fuel on the fire instead of throwing water to extinguish it. I'll try and throw water on it now...

Atleast I pose many of my ideas as questions and maybe's a not a "certains" as you seem to have done for yourself and others.... I will now have to atone next Yom Kipper for my exclamations at you directly. But no doubt you will need to do the same -I would hope. In fact I will do it here and say sorry for any direct thoughts I had of you or you feel from me. Who said I was perfect, Only G-d is I'm not Him even though you seem to believe I am or want to be.
I will be the Peace giver here,
Shalom to you, D. Abraham
P.S. -Very good highlighting by the way, I have to learn that. I wish you would have only highlighted my positive comments instead... :)

Mediocrates

03-31-2003, 11:26 AM

DA there is no name calling - it's simply a matter of fact and halachic law. One is Jewish or one is not, halachically. If one is Jewish and believes that Jesus or Mohammed were prophets then that is apostacy as a matter of simple law.

That is what I mean by evangelical. Evangelical Jews for example may believe in Jesus as the Messiah or Mohammed as His last prophet but that is by no stretch of the imagination anything to do with mainstream Judaism or halacha. It's not meant as an insult merely a point of fact. If an evangelical were to go to either a Conservative or Orthdox rabbi for example and ask that person to sign off on a certificate for aliyah then the answer would be a crisp no, no different than asking Catholic priest to accept a Baptist act of contrition (or whatever the equivalent is...)

D.Abraham

03-31-2003, 11:38 AM

Medio,

Thanks for the clearification of the point. I see your point as well too. I agree. But no, maybe what I am suggesting is not that these two figures are prophets, but perhaps they were "Men" that brought G-d to the masses both directly and indirectly even though they or their followers hence and since do not follow all the Directions Given by G-d in His original communications with Our Forefathers and known "good" Prophets. Many people come and will come later who will lead us or anyone astray from the "Good-Path". That is the Challenge perhaps? Can one not say that it is better we are all(people of the world) "closer" to Him than we "were" before this time? Even in the face of it's misunderstanding or indifference? Are we not all "Zionist" in the larger sense if we truly believe in the same "One-G-d" -Hashem, Allah, The L-ord? Maybe He does work in Mysterious ways? We(the Jewish People) should not be so selfish but rather should be humbly-proud to know we are the original "Witnesses" of Him and the "Kingdom of Priests" and continue to be to this day.
Sincerely, D. Abraham

MichaelC

03-31-2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by D.Abraham
MichaelC,

Look, maybe you needed to highlight also that "I am under G-d" not "Holier than Thou"
OK, I highlighted, but both appelations mean the same thing to me and, I suspect, to others as well.

By the way, you did not outline your defintion of Evengelical. Sounds like you put youself on a pedastal in this statement.
Since I never said anything about "evangelism" I suppose it would follow that I put myself on NO pedestal.

Your attack was of a personal nature, and with that you have to now live with the fact that you attacked me and I will respond in kind. This is just the kind of situation that gets things started. You lit the fire I threw it back at you hoping it would end at you but instead you throw more fuel on the fire instead of throwing water to extinguish it.
I am somewhat confused by this statement. First of all, pointing out the inherent contradictions in the post of someone who by posting is attempting to promote his own view, is not an attack.

I suppose that my characterizaion of your position as "holier than thou" might be considered an attack, but people who sprinkle religious terminology throughout the conversation might find that tag put upon them from time to time. Hey, if the shoe fits......

The confusing part of your post is the part where you said:

You lit the fire I threw it back at you hoping it would end at you but instead you throw more fuel on the fire
Since THIS post is only my second reply to you, I suspect that you are not distinguishing between posters, but just lumping together the various replies you are receiving.

In fact I will do it here and say sorry for any direct thoughts I had of you or you feel from me. Who said I was perfect
Now, who can argue with that?

P.S. -Very good highlighting by the way, I have to learn that. I wish you would have only highlighted my positive comments instead... :)
Well, it was my intention merely to point out the contradictions that undermined the point you had been attempting to make, not to pick on you. It just struck me that somebody who made judgements but tried to convince others that these judgements were not indeed judgements, had opened themselves to the feedback of a dissenting opinion.

I will say again, that my own use of the term "holier than thou" might well be considered as provocative and, at least with you, I will be more careful in choice of words.

D.Abraham

03-31-2003, 12:07 PM

Thanks MichealC, maybe I added you into the mix the with Medio -I need to go back and check... Thanks for keeping me inline by the way. I hope I'm not so confusing next time and get the poster right!

Anyway, we are all equal here and no matter our status in life and hopefully we all are concerned with one anothers well being everyday.

Hey, it is better to fight within your own family(Jewish) then to take it out on a stranger simply because most good folks don't take violence or kiling out on there own family...Or so I hope that is true?!
Sincerely, D. Abraham

P.S. Michael thanks for taking note to "Holier than Thou" that is bold statement and only G-d truly knows the answer to that one. My Aunt has used that phrase often when she gets upset at criminal behavior particularly that which involves a member of our family....

Simon

03-31-2003, 01:38 PM

http://www.cdu.jesusanswers.com/islam.html

Islam and the Koran are plagued with many historical and moral problems.

The Koran or Qur'an is the 'Holy Book' of the religion of Islam. The Koran is made up of 114 chapters called Surahs and then sub-divided into verses. People who follow the teachings of Islam and the Koran are called Muslims. Muslims have had a long history of supporting and harboring terrorists. Unfortunatly, the terroists of September 11th were simply doing what their Koran tells them to do..."destroy the unbeleivers". Muslims claim that their religion stands for peace and tolerance and that the Koran is the perfect word of God without flaws or contradictions.

The truth is: Islam and the Koran are loaded with intolerance, hatred, contradictions, and errors.

Contradictions in the Koran

Bible vs. Koran

Koran teaches hatred

Unbelievable Koran

The Koran contradicts itself.
Note what the Koran says about contradictions: "Will they not ponder on the Koran? If it had not come from Allah, they could have surely found in it many contradictions."
____________________

Heavens/Earth came together at creation. (Surah 41:11)

Heavens/Earth were ripped apart at creation. (Surah 21:30)
____________________

Creation took six days. (Surah 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59)

Creation took eight days. (Surah 41:9-12)
____________________

Earth created first. (Surah 2:29)

Heavens created first. (Surah 70:27-30)
____________________

All angels obey Allah. (Surah 16:49-50)

Not all angels obey Allah. (Surah 2:34)
____________________

Pharaoh drowned. (Surah 17:103, 28:40, 43:55)

Pharaoh did not drown. (Surah 10:92)
____________________

All of Noah's sons were aboard the ark. (Surah 21:76-77)

Not all of Noah's sons were aboard the ark. (Surah 11)
____________________

One angel spoke to Mary. (Surah 19:17-21)

Several angels spoke to Mary. (Surah 3:42-45)
____________________

Paradise has one garden. (Surah 39:73, 41:30, 57:21, 79:41)

Paradise has many gardens. (Surah 18:31, 22:23, 35:33, 78:32)
____________________

Allah can have a son. (Surah 39:4)

Allah can't have a son. (Surah 6:101)
____________________

Face Mecca while praying. (Surah 2:115, 144)

Face Jerusalem while praying. (Surah 2:115, 144)
____________________

The Bible vs. the Koran
____________________

Bible: Noah's ark landed on Mt. Ararat. (Genesis 8:4)

Koran: Noah's ark landed on Mt. Judi. (Surah 11:44)
____________________

Bible: Abraham's father was Terah. (Genesis 11:31)

Koran: Abraham's father was Azar. (Surah 6:74)
____________________

Bible: Abraham attempted to sacrifice Isaac. (Genesis 22:1-12)

Koran: Abraham attempted to sacrifice Ishmael. (Surah 37:100-112)
____________________

Bible: Pharaoh's daughter adopted Moses. (Exodus 2:1-10)

Koran: Pharaoh's wife adopted Moses. (Surah 28:8-9)
____________________

Bible: Jesus was crucified. (Mark 15:25-32)

Koran: Jesus was not crucified. (Surah 4:157-158)
____________________

Bible: Abraham lived in the Valley of Hebron. (Genesis 13:18, 23:2, 35:27)

Koran: Abraham lived in Mecca. (Surah 14:37)
____________________

Bible: God loves us even though we sin. (Romans 5:8)

Koran: God does not love sinners. (Surah 2:190)
____________________

Bible: Husbands to love wife as themselves. (Eph. 5:25-28)

Koran: Husbands may beat their wives. (Surah 4:34)
____________________

The Koran teaches the hatred of Christians and Jews
____________________

"Do not take the Jews and Christians for friends"
(Surah 5:51)
____________________

"fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness"
(Surah 9:123)
____________________

"fight those who do not believe in Allah"
(Surah 9:29)
____________________

"and fight them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"
(Surah 8:39)
____________________

"fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace"
(Surah 9:14)
____________________

"Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them"
(Surah 9:30)
____________________

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
(Surah 8:12)
____________________

The Unbelievable Koran
____________________

Heaven is a place of sex and wine. (Surah 2:25, 4:57, 11:23, 47:15)
____________________

Mary (Jesus' mother) was Moses sister. (Surah 19:28)
____________________

Jesus taught people even in his "old age". (Surah 5:110) :D :D :D
____________________

Moses lived at the same time as Noah. (Surah )
____________________

According to Surah 18:86, The sun literally sets
into a muddy spring here on Earth and
Surah 18:90 mentions a speciffic place
on Earth where the sun rises.
____________________

See what I mean by a rip-off

Simon

03-31-2003, 01:50 PM

http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/bible/islam.html

The Koran also contradicts itself: Allah created everything "in the twinkling of an eye" (54:49,50), "in two Days" (41:9,12), "in four Days" (41:10), "in six Days" (7:54; 10:4; 32:4); "a Day," equaling "a thousand years" (32:5) and also "fifty thousand years" (70:4); Jesus is not the Son of God (4:171) yet He is (19:17-21), etc.

In real life, Allah's forgiveness never comes in time to prevent a hand, foot or ear from being cut off as the penalty for stealing.

Westerners naively accept Allah, who inspired Muhammad, as the God of the Bible. Yet Allah has no son, and rejects the Trinity (4:171), is unknowable, and was the pagan idol/god of Muhammad's tribe before he was born. Allah tells Muslims, "Take not the Jews and Christians for friends...slay the idolaters [infidels] wherever ye find them."

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:WXvnEzwgLfcC:www.delusionresistance .org/christian/koranhate.pdf+5:110+koran&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://www.delusionresistance.org/christian/koranhate.html

Communication

03-31-2003, 02:08 PM

LOL! :rolleyes:

andak01

03-31-2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Simon
[B]My point was to illustrate a contrast between the founders of Christianity and Islam. While one can indulge in semantics and argue that aisha was menstruating, it nevertheless is a disgusting thought that a man that old would force himself on a 9-yr old girl. If he claimed that he did so on Allahs' orders, then a similar conclusion follows.

First off, there is still considerable dispute as to her age at the time of her marriage. The ages given by the biographers of Aisha do not always jive with the ages mentioned in the Hadith. Here is just some of the background of that dispute.
http://www.understanding-islam.com/ri/mi-004.htm
If we accept the famous Seerah of Ibn Ishaq, Aisha's age would not have been less than eighteen at the time of her marriage.

But, since there is dispute, and you wish to take the most contraversial version, let's look at that. For centuries after the birth of Islam, people wrote scathingly of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Do we find the Arabs of his time and place were shocked by such a marriage? Is there any account of a dispute arising because someone questioned the marriage? If there had been such a dispute, we would expect to find somewhere that the Prophet had spoken to clarify or justify his decision. Do even the early Christian biographers of Mahomet (archaic spelling) point this up as a character flaw? So, the marriage was so uncontroversial as to escape mention even by the Prophet and his own people. And even so uncontroversial that his enemies at the time didn't take it up as a case against him.

We know that the marriage had a political element. Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr, who later became Calif. She was given not only with her father's permission, but with his blessings. Political marriages were often arranged at very young ages, even in more modern times in the European monarchy.

Today such a marriage would be contraversial and even a crime in many places. In America, marriage to a nine year old girl, even with parental consent is only legal in two states and then with a judge's sign off. There are two major reasons for such laws, pedophilia or predatorial systematic abuse of children and pornographic exploitation. The second can fairly be ruled out. There were no porn movies or photography in the Prophet's day and there is no evidence in the least that he treated her as anything other than a loving wife. So, does anything in the life of Mohammad (SAW) lead us to think of him as a predator of children? Pedophilia is a fetish, and people who have fetishes are limited to the partners they can enjoy by such fetishes. Yet Mohammad's (SAW) first wife was considerably older than him and most of his other wives were widows or divorcees. A pedophile would have exhibited a history of such relationships.

Finally, as to your charge that he forced himself upon her, we have Aisha's own words for that. Forget the fact that her own accounts are very loving. What about the fact that it was she that transmitted more Hadith than almost anyone else (over 2000 if memory serves)? Why would a victim of child abuse spend her energies memorizing every word spoken by her abuser?

It is clearly written in many verses of the koran that muslims can "possess" and do as they please with women captured in war. That is a direct condonation of rape, a practice that was followed by mohammad himself. Now you and yours will trumpet out the familiar "O! Those times such things were normal, etc."

No, I only ask that you point out where this is 'clearly' written. You continue to post a 'clear' indicator of the violence of the Koran in your signature. Yet I have demonstrated in this thread that it is far from clear.

Well, Jesus lived even before mohammad but indulged in none of the bestiality that was perpetrated by mohammad. That pretty much deals with the arguement that mohammad's actions were in consonance with the times.

I don't worship Mohammad (SAW) or for that matter Jesus (SAW). There is a constructive model in the lives of each of them. But I would miss that model in each case if I analysed each of them with a cynical eye. If I spent my life searching for evil in people, I could certainly find it.

I had previously researched various sites and quoted verse upon verse in the koran that directed its followers to commit horrendous acts.

I've seen many such sites myself. They quote half of a verse out of context and claim it for the whole.

Whereas ancient texts such as the Torah (perhaps) or even Indian texts (may) contain such violent references, it is significant to note that its adherents have moved away from such literal interpretation for a number of years now. OTOH, Islam forces such literal interpretation. In fact, a muslim cannot pick and choose which parts of the koran he/she will follow. Its all or nothing.

You mean like murdering people for having relations outside of caste?
http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2001/144/
Or violence against untouchables?
http://indianterrorism.mybravenet.com/violenceagainstdalits.htm
http://wakingbear.com/india1.htm
Or murdering them for killing a cow?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,12559,821015,00.html
Or the practice of wives throwing themselves on the flaming bodies of their husbands?
http://www.healthekids.net/course.phtml?course_id=872
Or bride burning?
http://www-cgi.cnn.com/WORLD/9608/18/bride.burn/
http://www.changemakers.net/library/temp/nyt122600.cfm
Or the killing of female children?
http://www.eclj.org/news/euro_news_010627unborn_baby_girls.asp

Yeah. You guys are real charmers.

Which begs the question: Can the followers of islam ever live in peace with anyone else? Even themselves?

I'll take my chances.

D.Abraham

03-31-2003, 02:19 PM

Simon,

Very well cited indeed. You obviously have been doing some homework. Though, I believe as a Jew we are not to even study anothers religion in it's context and beliefs...-Correct me if I'm wrong somebody...? Now I suppose we will see those that are brave enough to do so to show the positive light that can be found there -if any? Perhaps Muhammed is/was blatently wrong in most of his interpretations of the world during his time and let matters of personal discourse be his guide instead of the One and Only -as time wore on? Or perhaps those that were his followers lead and wrote the text to fit their personal needs as well? Perhaps Muhammed indeed did have a moment with G-d, -we all seemingly can including yourself if you seek, but that does not validate Muhammed's interpretation (lack there of) or perhaps personal motivations after his believed inspiration gained from the Holy One.... Yes, maybe he did create religion out of his own selfish dream like a David Coresh figure. But perhaps this acted as the catalyst to spread knowledge of the One G-d no matter it's misdirection or intentions. Time will tell I suppose...?
Shalom Alenu, D. Abraham

Adnak,

If you don't mind, I would like to give you a little credit for this quotation:
"I don't worship Mohammad (SAW) or for that matter Jesus (SAW). There is a constructive model in the lives of each of them. But I would miss that model in each case if I analysed each of them with a cynical eye. If I spent my life searching for evil in people, I could certainly find it."

Yes, I'm certain you are right that you can find wrong doing, transgression perhaps in the term eveil of some degree in each and every human being throughout the course of history. The battle may lye within oneself to constantly keep G-d and his good ways close to you. Though at times He drifts from us, or maybe we drift from Him.....By the way Adnak what are your feeling about the destructive writings in the Qu'ran?

andak01

03-31-2003, 02:43 PM

D. Abraham,

You seem to be following a constructive path. Inshallah, I only wish to do the best with the blessings that Allah has provided me with.

By the way Andak what are your feeling about the destructive writings in the Qu'ran?

The only thing destructive in the Qur'an are the descriptions of what will happen to those who plot against G_d on when the day of Judgement arrives. I don't really have time to answer each of the many quotes above on a case by case basis, but you could feel free to ask me about any particular one.

The Qur'an says what the Torah said and what the Bible said. Love G_d. Have faith. Deliver yourself over to something more powerful than yourself. Don't get caught up in petty disputes.

The Qur'an is critical of hypocrites, be they Christians or Jews or Muslims. And it points out that most people behave hypocritically, but that anyone at anytime can decide to devote his life to worship. It places the burden of salvation squarely on our shoulders.

It recognizes both Abraham (SAW) and Jesus (SAW) as great messengers of the word of G_d. And it deplores that so few truely listened to their message.

Neither all Christians nor all Jews nor all Muslims are guaranteed a place in Paradise. Only those who humble themselves to their creator, ask forgiveness and give to others.

D.Abraham

03-31-2003, 02:59 PM

This is a truism:

" those who humble themselves to their Creator, ask forgiveness and give to others" - are in my book good people and I hope G-d feels the same way. I'm sure in his Great Wisdom He does...

Sincerely, D. Abraham

Andak, Hopefully you teach and explain to your children, your family, your neighborhood and your congregation (I'll do the same for Jews) of how good Muslims need to behave to ALL of G-d's Children. Including even those that may not be religious. Greater education is done with objective-loving teaching than through forceable teaching.
Let G-d be the judge of those that go against Him when the time comes....

Simon

03-31-2003, 03:55 PM

Andak: All of the sites you mentioned are correct and such crimes horrifying. Yet none have sanction in any hindu religious texts.

Casteism, burning of brides for lack of dowry etc are more cultural than religious based.

However, what you may have also failed to see is that in the cities of India, such crimes are declining precipitously. Inter-caste marriages are common.

Every atrocity that you cited was condemned unequivocally by all segments of indian society. No ifs, ands or buts. No hindu religious leader sought to sanction or condone such acts.

Since you cited the Dalits (or backward castes), did you know that India's Constitution was written by the great Babasaheb Ambedkar. He was a lower caste hindu and had to overcome tremendous obstacles to rise to such heights of glory. He converted to Buddhism. Such examples abound.

Furthermore, such discrimination has no sanction from the Indian govt.

In other words, we are not a perfect society or nation. But we are moving in the right direction. And in fact, would have been already there had our hindu society not been brutalized for a 1000 yrs by your followers of allah and the British rule.

That is much more that i can say for any muslim country.

andak01

03-31-2003, 05:46 PM

Andak: All of the sites you mentioned are correct and such crimes horrifying. Yet none have sanction in any hindu religious texts.

OK. So could we move on to something more positive. I am no expert on Hinduism, but I could probably scour the net for anti-Hindi articles and come up with more like the above. How would that help anything? That's how I feel about your own attacks on my religion. You don't know as much as you think you do.

Nobody is perfect, the angels who don't sin neither do they have free will. There are lots of people of every religion that commit attrocities. They are the ones that loose track of the humanity of others and paint them with a broad brush. Among them are the KKK lynch mobs and the witch hunters and the Tutsis and the Nazis. And among them are certain Muslims. As regards India, the Muslims were neither the first nor the last to fight there. And like every group that fought, they also settled.

A brief history,
530 BC Persian Invasion
326 BC Greek Invasion
180 BC Persian, Greek and Central Asian Invasions
100 BC Kushanas of Central Asia Invade
470 AD Huns Invade

All that prior to the first Muslims.

D.Abraham

03-31-2003, 05:46 PM

Simon,

I'm new on this board and wondering if you are Indian? Of what faith are you if you mind my asking? I don't want to interpret you wrong.
Sincerely, Darin Abraham

andak01

04-01-2003, 03:12 AM

As I mentioned. I don't have the time to go through all of the verses mentioned. I have gone through such verses on other boards. Anyone who can read can usually see the fallacy of such claims.

Below is claimed a contradiction. Because in the first verse the words come together and in the second verse clove (split) asunder (apart) appear. Read it!!! The second verse says that they were joined together AND then split apart. There is nothing mutually exclusive about being together and apart at separate times. And in Shakir, the heavens and the earth are closing and opening. And again no contradiction.

But even that only holds true in some translations. According to Pickthal and Shakir. The heavens and the earth together obeyed the will of Allah. There is no contradiction at all.

So what does it really mean in Arabic? All of that and more. I know some Arabic, and each time I learn new words, I uncover more of the astounding depth of the Qur'an. Sometimes a word has ten meanings and no less than five are appropriate to the particular verse. Each meaning compliments the others and adds to it.

041.011
YUSUFALI: Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
PICKTHAL: Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient.
SHAKIR: Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.

021.030
YUSUFALI: Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
PICKTHAL: Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?
SHAKIR: Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything living, will they not then believe?

andak01

04-01-2003, 05:00 AM

Here we are told by the cynical commentor that the same act is said to take a different amount of time in two places. Actually there is consistancy in 4 verses and appearant inconsistancy in the fifth one. Are we indeed referring to the same act? I have included three translations to remind us that we are not reading the original Arabic.

7:54 6 days: Creation of the heavens and the earth
10:3 6 days: Creation of the heavens and the earth
11:7 6 days: Creation of the heavens and the earth
25:59 6 days: Creation of the heavens and the earth AND all that is in between.

41:9 2 days: Creation of the earth OR
Shakir translation: 2 PERIODS
41:10 4 days: Mountains, food, plants
Shakir translation: 4 PERIODS
41:12 2 days: Creation of the seven firmaments

The Shakir translation accords the creation of the earth to two PERIODS. That means that part (the earth itself) was achieved in two days and part (mountains, food, etc.) in two more days.

Nowhere in this second set of verses do we see, eight days were required in total. It is the cynical reader that has done the addition and made the assumption, not contained in the text, that the periods mentioned are mutually exclusive.

We know from modern physics that time is bent and distorted, and particularly close to the time of creation. Yet for our belief in God, we rely on simple arithmetic when speaking of physical events which defy everything we know about time and geometry. How arrogant to think that the first day of existence passed like any other day with 24 hours. Any being capable of such creation would necessarily live outside of time, bending time to His will.

Creation took six days. (Surah 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59)
007.054
YUSUFALI: Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!
PICKTHAL: Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then mounted He the Throne. He covereth the night with the day, which is in haste to follow it, and hath made the sun and the moon and the stars subservient by His command. His verily is all creation and commandment. Blessed be Allah, the Lord of the Worlds!
SHAKIR: Surely your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods of time, and He is firm in power; He throws the veil of night over the day, which it pursues incessantly; and (He created) the sun and the moon and the stars, made subservient by His command; surely His is the creation and the command; blessed is Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

010.003
YUSUFALI: Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority), regulating and governing all things. No intercessor (can plead with Him) except after His leave (hath been obtained). This is Allah your Lord; Him therefore serve ye: will ye not receive admonition?
PICKTHAL: Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then He established Himself upon the Throne, directing all things. There is no intercessor (with Him) save after His permission. That is Allah, your Lord, so worship Him. Oh, will ye not remind?
SHAKIR: Surely your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods, and He is firm in power, regulating the affair, there is no intercessor except aher His permission; this is Allah, your Lord, therefore serve Him; will you not then mind?

011.007
YUSUFALI: He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His Throne was over the waters - that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, "Ye shall indeed be raised up after death", the Unbelievers would be sure to say, "This is nothing but obvious sorcery!"
PICKTHAL: And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His Throne was upon the water - that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. Yet if thou (O Muhammad) sayest: Lo! ye will be raised again after death! those who disbelieve will surely say: This is naught but mere magic.
SHAKIR: And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods-- and His dominion (extends) on the water-- that He might manifest to you, which of you is best in action, and if you say, surely you shall be raised up after death, those who disbelieve would certainly say: This is nothing but clear magic.

025.059
YUSUFALI: He Who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between, in six days, and is firmly established on the Throne (of Authority): Allah Most Gracious: ask thou, then, about Him of any acquainted (with such things).
PICKTHAL: Who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in six Days, then He mounted the Throne. The Beneficent! Ask anyone informed concerning Him!
SHAKIR: Who created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six periods, and He is firmly established on the throne of authority; the Beneficent Allah, so ask respecting it one aware.

[i]Creation took eight days. (Surah 41:9-12)
041.009
YUSUFALI: Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.
PICKTHAL: Say (O Muhammad, unto the idolaters): Disbelieve ye verily in Him Who created the earth in two Days, and ascribe ye unto Him rivals? He (and none else) is the Lord of the Worlds.
SHAKIR: Say: What! do you indeed disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two periods, and do you set up equals with Him? That is the Lord of the Worlds.

041.010
YUSUFALI: He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).
PICKTHAL: He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all) who ask;
SHAKIR: And He made in it mountains above its surface, and He blessed therein and made therein its foods, in four periods: alike for the seekers.

041.011
YUSUFALI: Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
PICKTHAL: Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient.
SHAKIR: Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.

041.012
YUSUFALI: So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.
PICKTHAL: Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and We decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knower.
SHAKIR: So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and revealed in every heaven its affair; and We adorned the lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it) to guard; that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing.

andak01

04-01-2003, 06:05 AM

Only the Pickthal translation of 2:29 even lends itself to the interpretation that the heavens were created after the earth. So even in this verse, there is disagreement over the translation. Yet throughout the rest of the Qur'an, the heavens are always given presidence: Simiwaati wal ard. The Yusuf Ali translation only says that His design included the heavens and the earth. And the Shakir translation is not clear.

002.029
YUSUFALI: It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; Moreover His design comprehended the heavens, for He gave order and perfection to the seven firmaments; and of all things He hath perfect knowledge.
PICKTHAL: He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens. And He is knower of all things.
SHAKIR: He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth, and He directed Himself to the heaven, so He made them complete seven heavens, and He knows all things.

29. Huwa allathee khalaqa lakum ma fee al-ardi jameeAAan thumma istawa ila alssama-i fasawwahunna sabAAa samawatin wahuwa bikulli shay-in AAaleemun

Below are verses 70:27-30 which you purport states that the heavens were created before the earth. It must be a wonderful convenience to be able to spout out anything about the Qur'an as a non-believer and be taken for your word, while I, who read and recite it every day of my life am taken for a liar.

070.027
YUSUFALI: And those who fear the displeasure of their Lord,-
PICKTHAL: And those who are fearful of their Lord's doom -
SHAKIR: And those who are fearful of the chastisement of their Lord--

070.028
YUSUFALI: For their Lord's displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquillity;-
PICKTHAL: Lo! the doom of their Lord is that before which none can feel secure -
SHAKIR: Surely the chastisement of their Lord is (a thing) not to be felt secure of--

070.029
YUSUFALI: And those who guard their chastity,
PICKTHAL: And those who preserve their chastity
SHAKIR: And those who guard their private parts,

070.030
YUSUFALI: Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,
PICKTHAL: Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy;
SHAKIR: Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess-- for these surely are not to be blamed

andak01

04-01-2003, 06:33 AM

The angels, part of God's own creation obey His will.

If we wanted to describe the attributes of rabbits, we would say that they have two long ears. Yet some rabbits are born deformed and perhaps with two heads or no ears. Still, we would say, rabbits all have two long ears. We wouldn't mention the rare exception in our description, and nobody would think it a lie or a contradiction. There are in fact, many more rabbits born with two heads than there are Iblis (there is only one).

So, I guess the text could have paused in its majesty and said: All angels obey Allah, except this one exception, Iblis. But the verse isn't about Iblis. It's about the majesty of Allah.

016.049
YUSUFALI: And to Allah doth obeisance all that is in the heavens and on earth, whether moving (living) creatures or the angels: for none are arrogant (before their Lord).
PICKTHAL: And unto Allah maketh prostration whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth of living creatures, and the angels (also) and they are not proud.
SHAKIR: And whatever creature that is in the heavens and that is in the earth makes obeisance to Allah (only), and the angels (too) and they do not show pride.

016.050
YUSUFALI: They all revere their Lord, high above them, and they do all that they are commanded.
PICKTHAL: They fear their Lord above them, and do what they are bidden.
SHAKIR: They fear their Lord above them and do what they are commanded.

We do not see in this verse that Iblis is ever referred to as an angel. I think he is. But, since he is God's creation and his free will is also allowed or not allowed him by God, and God knows both the present and the future of what he will do (as well as the results and repercussions of anything he COULD do), how is it possible for Iblis to truly disobey? Iblis is only part of God's complete plan. At any rate, once he falls into disbelief, he is no longer an angel like the others. He became the exception that proves the rule.

002.034
YUSUFALI: And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith.
PICKTHAL: And when We said unto the angels: Prostrate yourselves before Adam, they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He demurred through pride, and so became a disbeliever.
SHAKIR: And when We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam they did obeisance, but Iblis (did it not). He refused and he was proud, and he was one of the unbelievers.

Isiah 2:4

04-01-2003, 07:14 AM

Instead of argueing why not seek Shalom? I suspect most everyone on this board would feel something missing from there lives if they couldn't argue or have extreme differences with their neighbor. Matter of fact I believe you all love each other so much you enjoy fighting with each other over who is right and wrong? Just my thoughts... Instead of seeking a distraction here,(or on the streets of the problem areas of the world) maybe we all should enjoy the good G-d has provided and go hiking, enjoy the flowers or go fishing? Or perhaps play a game with your kids or family members? Enjoy a good meal? Invite the stanger in you home? There are far more constructive ways to live, how about donating physical time to a worthy helping cause or people who are suffering or need help? Monetarily as well. More energy needs to be put there than any place else in our world. War may be inevitible at this time in the history of the world and in the plan designed by G-d's will?

Helenu Shalom, my visceral friend

D.Abraham

04-01-2003, 08:42 AM

Isiah,

To you too, you have a good heart my brother.

* Accomplishing your goals
* Never saying the wrong thing
* Being liked by everyone
* Living a good and moral life
* A wonderful family

Yes, all of these are very important, and yet, if you have no
Shalom (Peace), then all you will ever do is to no avail.

Peace with G-D is the highest form of inward satisfaction that will
reflect upon the outward person.

HOW CAN I OBTAIN SHALOM ... ?

" Thou wilt keep him (her) in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee:
because he (she) trusteth in thee. Trust in the L-rd for ever: for in the
L-rd G-D is everlasting strength".

(Isaiah 26:3-4)

WHY, aren't most people experiencing S H A L O M (PEACE) ?

Because .......

most people are not TRUSTING IN THE L-RD G-D.

" Trust in The L-RD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine
own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and
He shall direct thy paths".

(Proverbs 3:5-6)

What keeps an individual
from experiencing S h a l o m (Peace)
WITH G-D ?

SIN

WHAT IS SIN ?

It is the transgression or violation of The Law of G-D.

The Law of G-D ...... consists of BETWEEN 10 to 613 do's AND don'ts.

Just imagine,

If we are honest with ourselves .............

NO ONE can keep to perfection ONE OF G-D'S LAWS.

AND, the breaking of any of The LAWS of G-D

Places us in a state of separation (NO Shalom-Peace) from G-D...

HOW THEN,

can we WHO are in SIN be made righteous in G-D'S EYES?

NOW, it's one thing to know all of this, but nevertheless,
GOD'S WORD tells us that we must act
willingly upon this TRUTH ...

BUT HOW ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

By FAITH ! By EXERCISING

F = Full
A = Assurance
I = In
T = The
H = Holy-one"

-SHALOM
IS A HEBREW WORD THAT MEANS
PEACE
By Dr. Elias E. Hidalgo
-----Shalom Scripture Studies, Inc.

:) Shalom, Peace be with you, D. Abraham

andak01

04-01-2003, 09:05 AM

Here are three verses that concur that the Pharoah of Moses was drowned, same as the bible. Followed by one from Surah Jonah. Still it says that "drowning overtook him". It also says that they were flung into the sea. I may need assistance in this verse for the meaning of the Arabic word drown. For example, the Arabic word for orphan means any child without a father. Although it is close, there is no word to equate our own concept of the word. Does the word here translated as drown include death, or can we think of the Pharoah as having been given respite after having actually died as sometimes happens with drowning victims? Because of the nature of drowning, these people are often subject to near death experiences or crossing over.

Even in translation, we are here quibbling about the difference between being drowned and being overtaken by drowning, followed by a revival. How clear is that? If my heart and breathing stop, I am drowned whether or not I am revived.

017.103
YUSUFALI: So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him.
PICKTHAL: And he wished to scare them from the land, but We drowned him and those with him, all together.
SHAKIR: So he desired to destroy them out of the earth, but We drowned him and those with him all together;

028.040
YUSUFALI: So We seized him and his hosts, and We flung them into the sea: Now behold what was the end of those who did wrong!
PICKTHAL: Therefor We seized him and his hosts, and abandoned them unto the sea. Behold the nature of the consequence for evil-doers!
SHAKIR: So We caught hold of him and his hosts, then We cast them into the sea, and see how was the end of the unjust.

043.055
YUSUFALI: When at length they provoked Us, We exacted retribution from them, and We drowned them all.
PICKTHAL: So, when they angered Us, We punished them and drowned them every one.
SHAKIR: Then when they displeased Us, We inflicted a retribution on them, so We drowned them all together,

10:90
SHAKIR: And We made the children of Israel to pass through the sea, then Firon and his hosts followed them for oppression and tyranny; until when drowning overtook him, he said: I believe that there is no god but He in Whom the children of Israel believe and I am of those who submit.

010.092
YUSUFALI: "This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!"
PICKTHAL: But this day We save thee in thy body that thou mayst be a portent for those after thee. Lo! most of mankind are heedless of Our portents.
SHAKIR: But We will this day deliver you with your body that you may be a sign to those after you, and most surely the majority of the people are heedless to Our communications.

92. Faalyawma nunajjeeka bibadanika litakoona liman khalfaka ayatan wa-inna katheeran mina alnnasi AAan ayatina laghafiloona

Simon

04-01-2003, 10:18 AM

D Abraham:

I am an Indian citizen. By birth a hindu, although I consider myself to be a buddhist, jain and Sikh too.

Hinduism is the oldest indian faith followed by Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. These are the four indigenous faiths of India. And I consider myself a part of all of them.

Besides these indian religions, we also have muslims, christians, Parsis (Zoroastrians) and Jews.

The muslims and christians have caused India incalculable harm and the good deeds of a few of them do not even begin to balance the holocaust that muslims/islam and christians perpetrated on indian society.

In fact, the faith of Sikhism was founded by the first Sikh Guru, Guru Nanak, to fight Islam and muslims.

Of the India's minorities, the least numerically are Parsis and Jews. Yet the contribution of Parsis and Jews to India is huge compared to their tiny numbers.

The main reason for this is that neither Parsis nor Jews are evengelical in nature and do not believe in converting others to their religion, by words or under the sword.

In fact, had India comprised ONLY its indigenous religions AND in place of the murderous muslins/evengelical christians, if we had Jews and Parsis in equal numbers (these would add up to approx 150 million), India would have been a developed country and a super power as I write this line.

However, the burden of a 150 million murderous and treasonous muslims (the odd exception merely proving the rule) has proved too much for India.

In fact, we made the same mistake that you Israelis did at about the same time.

Instead of effecting a total separation of populations by expelling every murderous muslim, we not only gave muslims their separate homeland (Pakistan and Bangladesh) but allowed SO MANY to stay behind that they now comprise nearly 150 million muslims. In turn, the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, true to the teachings of their Islamic faith, have virtually decimated the minority hindus that stayed back in those countries.

In essence, the followers of allah in the Indian subcontinent got to have their cake and eat it too.

Simon

04-01-2003, 10:27 AM

A brief history,
530 BC Persian Invasion
326 BC Greek Invasion
180 BC Persian, Greek and Central Asian Invasions
100 BC Kushanas of Central Asia Invade
470 AD Huns Invade

The last I checked, the Indian subcontinent, comprising the countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal had the following numbers of the above invaders:

Persian - ZERO
Greek - ZERO
Central Asian - ZERO
Kushanas - ZERO
Huns - ZERO

The muslims however, add up to an estimated (all countries of the sub-continent combined) 450 million. So the above mention of various invaders of the indian sub-continent before islam amounts to just about a complete ZERO.

Now, you see why we are so badly screwed. I mean, if you muslims had chosen to stay where your faith was founded instead of murdering the followers of every other religion, we in the Indian sub-continent would have been a rich and prosperous people. Who knows, we might have even been united enough to have overcome British invasions?

Isiah 2:4

04-01-2003, 10:53 AM

All I ask of any of the members of this forum is this.

Do not allow to yourself to become merely Hateful, as this is a disgusting human trait.

It affects anyone, of any faith and can come quickly wihout a moments warning in one spiteful second.
Sometimes it can fester longingly for years and become so bitter that it is impossible to reverse.

Never allow yourself to be lowered to the that level of hatred.

Speak your mind and voice your passions, but do not turn your concerns of fear and injustice into the ugly and violent emotion that is Hate.

I say this to all humans, irrespective of faith or belief, race or religion.

Humanity is what binds us, let us not forget that, for it is the truth. It is a tragedy and a truly sad day when we come to bicker and point the finger instead of communicating and educating.

'Divided as we are by religion, united as we are by love and charity' - Rashi

MichaelC

04-01-2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Isiah 2:4
All I ask of any of the members of this forum is this.

Do not allow to yourself to become merely Hateful, as this is a disgusting human trait.

It affects anyone, of any faith and can come quickly wihout a moments warning in one spiteful second.
Sometimes it can fester longingly for years and become so bitter that it is impossible to reverse.

Never allow yourself to be lowered to the that level of hatred.

Speak your mind and voice your passions, but do not turn your concerns of fear and injustice into the ugly and violent emotion that is Hate.

I say this to all humans, irrespective of faith or belief, race or religion.

Humanity is what binds us, let us not forget that, for it is the truth. It is a tragedy and a truly sad day when we come to bicker and point the finger instead of communicating and educating.

'Divided as we are by religion, united as we are by love and charity' - Rashi Showing up here to preach and suggest that you know better than others how things should be handled at the Forum is just annoying.

Your implication that nobody has a clue how to behave without your input is demeaning. I get the feeling that you did not do much exploring of this Board and the range of topics and posters before you started in. It might have served you well to have studied the way things are here before weighing in with unneeded advice.

IlyaFurman

04-01-2003, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Simon
The last I checked, the Indian subcontinent, comprising the countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal had the following numbers of the above invaders:

Persian - ZERO
Greek - ZERO
Central Asian - ZERO
Kushanas - ZERO
Huns - ZERO

72% of the Indian Population is INDO-ARYAN, which is the Persian people, the Southern Indians the Dravidians which compromise only 25% are the only true Indians. So the "Persian - Zero" is totally false, make that "Persian - 72%"

andak01

04-01-2003, 03:30 PM

All of Noah's sons were aboard the ark. (Surah 21:76-77)
Nowhere, NOWHERE, in this verse does it say that all of Noah's sons were aboard. It says he and his family. And it doesn't say his ENTIRE family either. So this verse doesn't even say what is claimed here. READ IT!

021.076
YUSUFALI: (Remember) Noah, when he cried (to Us) aforetime: We listened to his (prayer) and delivered him and his family from great distress.
PICKTHAL: And Noah, when he cried of old, We heard his prayer and saved him and his household from the great affliction.
SHAKIR: And Nuh, when he cried aforetime, so We answered him, and delivered him and his followers from the great calamity.

021.077
YUSUFALI: We helped him against people who rejected Our Signs: truly they were a people given to Evil: so We drowned them (in the Flood) all together.
PICKTHAL: And delivered him from the people who denied Our revelations. Lo! they were folk of evil, therefor did We drown them all.
SHAKIR: And We helped him against the people who rejected Our communications; surely they were an evil people, so We drowned them all.

Not all of Noah's sons were aboard the ark. (Surah 11)
Since the first verse doesn't say what is purported, the last verse is not a contradiction, because it doesn't say the opposite, or anything that is exclusive of the first verse.

011.043
YUSUFALI: The son replied: "I will betake myself to some mountain: it will save me from the water." Noah said: "This day nothing can save, from the command of Allah, any but those on whom He hath mercy! "And the waves came between them, and the son was among those overwhelmed in the Flood.
PICKTHAL: He said: I shall betake me to some mountain that will save me from the water. (Noah) said: This day there is none that saveth from the commandment of Allah save him on whom He hath had mercy. And the wave came in between them, so he was among the drowned.
SHAKIR: He said: I will betake myself for refuge to a mountain that shall protect me from the water. Nuh said: There is no protector today from Allah's punishment but He Who has mercy; and a wave intervened between them, so he was of the drowned.

Revkha

04-01-2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by ayesha
the marriage to aisha was only consumated after she had begun menstruation. this was discussed here in this forum with manuel, ezra and many others before, and this claim was proven wrong Simon. I am greatly offended by what u have said.

I may have overlooked the posting regarding this discussion. How old was aisha when the marriage was consumated.

andak01

04-01-2003, 04:12 PM

One angel announced the birth of her son.

One angel spoke to Mary. (Surah 19:17-21)
019.017
YUSUFALI: She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.
PICKTHAL: And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man.
SHAKIR: So she took a veil (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our spirit, and there appeared to her a well-made man.

019.018
YUSUFALI: She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah."
PICKTHAL: She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art Allah-fearing.
SHAKIR: She said: Surely I fly for refuge from you to the Beneficent Allah, if you are one guarding (against evil).

019.019
YUSUFALI: He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.
PICKTHAL: He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.
SHAKIR: He said: I am only a messenger of your Lord: That I will give you a pure boy.

019.020
YUSUFALI: She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
PICKTHAL: She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste?
SHAKIR: She said: When shall I have a boy and no mortal has yet touched me, nor have I been unchaste?

019.021
YUSUFALI: He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed."
PICKTHAL: He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained.
SHAKIR: He said: Even so; your Lord says: It is easy to Me: and that We may make him a sign to men and a mercy from Us, and it is a matter which has been decreed.

Well this is really pure deception. When Zakariya is praying is obviously not the same moment as when the single angel appears to Mary. The angels here in fact appear to be speaking to Zakariya and Mary not Mary alone. This is obviously a separate occasion. But why bother with the facts. People who don't actually READ the verses are inclined to believe such ill-founded statements about contradictions that don't even exist.

Several angels spoke to Mary. (Surah 3:42-45)
003.038
YUSUFALI: There did Zakariya pray to his Lord, saying: "O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer!
PICKTHAL: Then Zachariah prayed unto his Lord and said: My Lord! Bestow upon me of Thy bounty goodly offspring. Lo! Thou art the Hearer of Prayer.
SHAKIR: There did Zakariya pray to his Lord; he said: My Lord! grant me from Thee good offspring; surely Thou art the Hearer of prayer.

003.039
YUSUFALI: While he was standing in prayer in the chamber, the angels called unto him: "Allah doth give thee glad tidings of Yahya, witnessing the truth of a Word from Allah, and (be besides) noble, chaste, and a prophet,- of the (goodly) company of the righteous."
PICKTHAL: And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: Allah giveth thee glad tidings of (a son whose name is) John, (who cometh) to confirm a word from Allah lordly, chaste, a prophet of the righteous.
SHAKIR: Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: That Allah gives you the good news of Yahya verifying a Word from Allah, and honorable and chaste and a prophet from among the good ones.

003.040
YUSUFALI: He said: "O my Lord! How shall I have son, seeing I am very old, and my wife is barren?" "Thus," was the answer, "Doth Allah accomplish what He willeth."
PICKTHAL: He said: My Lord! How can I have a son when age hath overtaken me already and my wife is barren? (The angel) answered: So (it will be). Allah doeth what He will.
SHAKIR: He said: My Lord! when shall there be a son (born) to me, and old age has already come upon me, and my wife is barren? He said: even thus does Allah what He pleases.

003.041
YUSUFALI: He said: "O my Lord! Give me a Sign!" "Thy Sign," was the answer, "Shall be that thou shalt speak to no man for three days but with signals. Then celebrate the praises of thy Lord again and again, and glorify Him in the evening and in the morning."
PICKTHAL: He said: My Lord! Appoint a token for me. (The angel) said: The token unto thee (shall be) that thou shalt not speak unto mankind three days except by signs. Remember thy Lord much, and praise (Him) in the early hours of night and morning.
SHAKIR: He said: My Lord! appoint a sign for me. Said He: Your sign is that you should not speak to men for three days except by signs; and remember your Lord much and glorify Him in the evening and the morning.

003.042
YUSUFALI: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations.
PICKTHAL: And when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah hath chosen thee and made thee pure, and hath preferred thee above (all) the women of creation.
SHAKIR: And when the angels said: O Marium! surely Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of of the world.

003.043
YUSUFALI: "O Mary! worship Thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down."
PICKTHAL: O Mary! Be obedient to thy Lord, prostrate thyself and bow with those who bow (in worship).
SHAKIR: O Marium! keep to obedience to your Lord and humble yourself, and bow down with those who bow.

003.044
YUSUFALI: This is part of the tidings of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Messenger!) by inspiration: Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: Nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point).
PICKTHAL: This is of the tidings of things hidden. We reveal it unto thee (Muhammad). Thou wast not present with them when they threw their pens (to know) which of them should be the guardian of Mary, nor wast thou present with them when they quarrelled (thereupon).
SHAKIR: This is of the announcements relating to the unseen which We reveal to you; and you were not with them when they cast their pens (to decide) which of them should have Marium in his charge, and you were not with them when they contended one with another.

003.045
YUSUFALI: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;
PICKTHAL: (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).
SHAKIR: When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah).

andak01

04-01-2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Revkha
I may have overlooked the posting regarding this discussion. How old was aisha when the marriage was consumated.

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=47948#post47948

I covered it pretty thoroughly here.

Revkha

04-01-2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by andak01

In America, marriage to a nine year old girl, even with parental consent is only legal in two states and then with a judge's sign off. .

Name the two states.

andak01

04-01-2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Revkha
Name the two states.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm
Mississippi
California

There is no age limit in those states given parental consent. However, a judge would have to approve such a marriage.

I would like to add that I would never defend such a marriage. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) makes it clear that oppressing a woman is wrong. Subjecting anyone to the type of stigma that would arise from such a marriage in this society would be unthinkable. His alliance with Abu Bakr was good for his own society, but today, the same marriage would probably have caused a rift. There is no Hadith enjoining Muslims to marry at such a tender age.

Revkha

04-01-2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by andak01
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm
Mississippi
California

There is no age limit in those states given parental consent. However, a judge would have to approve such a marriage.

I would like to add that I would never defend such a marriage. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) makes it clear that oppressing a woman is wrong. Subjecting anyone to the type of stigma that would arise from such a marriage in this society would be unthinkable. His alliance with Abu Bakr was good for his own society, but today, the same marriage would probably have caused a rift. There is no Hadith enjoining Muslims to marry at such a tender age.

Both Mississippi and California state that -

(v) Below age of consent parties need parental consent and permission of judge, no younger than 14 for males and 13 for females.

D.Abraham

04-01-2003, 06:21 PM

Proverbs 11:12
"He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbour: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace."

MichaelC,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. But I think Isiah is just trying to make people aware of something he strongly beleives in. That is all. He isn't claiming to be the next Prophet. -Geeze! ;) It seems to me that you might believe some here are trying to coerce people into some sort of cult or belief that they are supreme as individuals. :D It's good of you to be critical, to the point of humbling a man but perhaps is there not a more constructive way to make peace and your point to not be-little him? Whether you will or not believe in what Isiah has to say in his moment of "passion" is for you or anyone else to decide what you will or will not take from it. Nobody can force an individual to believe anything in this Universe, you must decide for yourself based on what others share with you and what you experience for yourself. Yes, he may have come across as a bit direct in his proclamation, but I suspect it is because he strongly believes in what he says. Maybe questions would be better than answers? Perhaps -Kibitz? Just an idea?

Proverbs 14:15 "The naive believes everything, but the sensible man considers his steps."

Isiah,

Nice of you to believe in something so strongly and not be ashamed to share your thoughts on how things might be or work in our world. We can all use more ideas to better ourselves or judge for ourselves what would or could be of good value. Pehaps a better way to share this would be to suggest rather than boldly state your thoughts or beliefs? Personally I rather liked what you had to say and will ponder those ideas. We need more Tikkun Olam today! Way to be BEBAIOS!

Mori'el, Darin Abraham :)

MichaelC

04-01-2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by D.Abraham
Proverbs 11:12
"He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbour: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace."

MichaelC,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. But I think Isiah is just trying to make people aware of something he strongly beleives in. That is all. He isn't claiming to be the next Prophet. -Geeze! ;) It seems to me that you might believe some here are trying to coerce people into some sort of cult or belief that they are supreme as individuals. :D It's good of you to be critical, to the point of humbling a man but perhaps is there not a more constructive way to make peace and your point to not be-little him? Whether you will or not believe in what Isiah has to say in his moment of "passion" is for you or anyone else to decide what you will or will not take from it. Nobody can force an individual to believe anything in this Universe, you must decide for yourself based on what others share with you and what you experience for yourself. Yes, he may have come across as a bit direct in his proclamation, but I suspect it is because he strongly believes in what he says. Maybe questions would be better than answers? Perhaps -Kibitz? Just an idea?

Proverbs 14:15 "The naive believes everything, but the sensible man considers his steps."

Isiah,

Nice of you to believe in something so strongly and not be ashamed to share your thoughts on how things might be or work in our world. We can all use more ideas to better ourselves or judge for ourselves what would or could be of good value. Pehaps a better way to share this would be to suggest rather than boldly state your thoughts or beliefs? Personally I rather liked what you had to say and will ponder those ideas. We need more Tikkun Olam today! Way to be BEBAIOS!

Mori'el, Darin Abraham :) Neither of you seem to get it. Both of you are new to this board and both of you chose to judge others and hand out advice. Call it whatever you want. It's preachy and unwanted.

D.Abraham

04-01-2003, 07:36 PM

MichaelC,

Genuk! Are not you being a true critic? You seem to cite everyone on here and never speak your ideas or good thoughts. It appears thus far to me you only criticize others. Are you not being preachy and judging me telling me to take off or are not wanted? Who made you the Judge of material on this board? Are you the Rabbi or the mod on here? I respect you opinion but to tell me what to do, write or say? Who are you? I'm not telling you what to say, say what you want but it would be pleasant to hear some good ideas or thoughts from you. It is very unkind of you to tell your fellow Jew to get lost? May G-d have mercy on you. Where are your manners? Don't be such a kvetch. We are all here to add things not to destruct things.(which of course now I seem to be doing..oi-ve!) Do I need to ask the moderators if and what I can post?- I will? I will confirm if the material I presented above is worthy... Especially when we all need to study Torah and religous text more and hear one anothers ideas? Besides I was doing it with humor and good intentions. G-d willing I hope...

I got an idea....How about going to a different thread? Most of us seem to be getting along. Negative people are not welcome -how bout that for rules? Did you have tough day at work or something?
How about three or four of us "don't get it" include Andak as well. Trust me I get G-d! This is a religious pagethread not a news page. Maybe your in the minority here? Look at yourself as well sometimes. -I'm sorry but You seem to have all the answers too? No?-Ironic indeed... I know I will look at myself more since you have made me aware of it, I hope you do too....

Advice is good! :) I will take yours to some degree but will not let it interfere with how I feel and what I feel other people should hear or read. I like conviction in people and respect them for it no matter their beliefs or ideas. I might not agree, but hey, that's life. Ill take what is good from it.
I think and hope we are learning now, it's about people like you and me and Isiah?

Shalom, D. Abraham

P.S. -You're a good reader/listener though. That is good! Amen!

MichaelC

04-01-2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by D.Abraham
MichaelC,

Genuk! Are not you being a true critic? You seem to cite everyone on here and never speak your ideas or good thoughts. It appears thus far to me you only criticize others. Are you not being preachy and judging me telling me to take off or are not wanted? Who made you the Judge of material on this board? Are you the Rabbi or the mod on here? I respect you opinion but to tell me what to do, write or say? Who are you? I'm not telling you what to say, say what you want but it would be pleasant to hear some good ideas or thoughts from you. It is very unkind of you to tell your fellow Jew to get lost? May G-d have mercy on you. Where are your manners? Don't be such a kvetch. We are all here to add things not to destruct things.(which of course now I seem to be doing..oi-ve!) Do I need to ask the moderators if and what I can post?- I will? I will confirm if the material I presented above is worthy... Especially when we all need to study Torah and religous text more and hear one anothers ideas? Besides I was doing it with humor and good intentions. G-d willing I hope...

I got an idea....How about going to a different thread? Most of us seem to be getting along. Negative people are not welcome -how bout that for rules? Did you have tough day at work or something?
How about three or four of us "don't get it" include Andak as well. Trust me I get G-d! This is a religious pagethread not a news page. Maybe your in the minority here? Look at yourself as well sometimes. -I'm sorry but You seem to have all the answers too? No?-Ironic indeed... I know I will look at myself more since you have made me aware of it, I hope you do too....

Advice is good! :) I will take yours to some degree but will not let it interfere with how I feel and what I feel other people should hear or read. I like conviction in people and respect them for it no matter their beliefs or ideas. I might not agree, but hey, that's life. Ill take what is good from it.
I think and hope we are learning now, it's about people like you and me and Isiah?

Shalom, D. Abraham

P.S. -You're a good reader/listener though. That is good! Amen! The active threads of all forums appear on one page. If someone raises a topic in a forum that YOU wish to keep private, it will still be posted on the "Most Active Threads" page. If I see a thread on that page, which is where I picked up this thread, that interests me, I join in. I have been posting to this thread since before you made your first post at the Israel Forum. Since it continues to appear on the "most active thread " page, I may or may not continue posting to it.

By the way, I never indicated that you should leave this forum. I don't know where you got that idea. I took you to task only for telling others how they should behave. You're new here. Why do you think this forum should follow your guidelines? The ONLY thing that I have taken exception to from your posts, and I challenge you to disprove my assertion, is your showing up here and judging others and telling us how we could post. Never questioned any other thing you said.

Here, I will help you and give you a way to understand my lack of manners. I am not Jewish.

Now, whenever you don't like what I am doing, you can just say say to yourself, or whoever, "eh, what'dya expect from a goy?"

D.Abraham

04-01-2003, 09:53 PM

You said:

"The active threads of all forums appear on one page. If someone raises a topic in a forum that YOU wish to keep private, it will still be posted on the "Most Active Threads" page. If I see a thread on that page, which is where I picked up this thread, that interests me, I join in. I have been posting to this thread since before you made your first post at the Israel Forum. Since it continues to appear on the "most active thread " page, I may or may not continue posting to it.

By the way, I never indicated that you should leave this forum. I don't know where you got that idea. I took you to task only for telling others how they should behave. You're new here. Why do you think this forum should follow your guidelines? The ONLY thing that I have taken exception to from your posts, and I challenge you to disprove my assertion, is your showing up here and judging others and telling us how we could post. Never questioned any other thing you said.

Here, I will help you and give you a way to understand my lack of manners. I am not Jewish.

Now, whenever you don't like what I am doing, you can just say say to yourself, or whoever, "eh, what'dya expect from a goy?""

Well said, it's nice to see you write some words down my man! :) But hey, if your not Jewish and not Israeli or even Arab or Muslim maybe you do not undertand how SOME OF US think sometimes. Just a thought? And how "preaching" (speaking truth)OF SOME KIND may be neccessary to relate and teach and share our ways to one another in our convictions, customes, beliefs and values. Maybe it's time then that new "blood" come in here to this forum? Grandfather posters like yourself may be moving on? ;) How are your studies in Jewish Law or Hebrew literature or the Torah? You seem intelligent. I wouldn't doubt if you've done some homework on the subject. That is good especially if you are going to discuss relevantly some of the issues in this forum. If you don't mind my asking, of what Faith and beliefs are you? -Especially since you referred to "Holy'r than Thou" in your earlier post.
Shalom, D. Abraham Brenner
By the way, thanks for being honest my friend 'goy". :)
One more thing, I not familiar with how the technical aspects of this board work so give me some slack....I'll figure it out in due season.

Hey everyone else out there:Really -how many Jews or Israeli's(Arab, Christian or Muslim) are on this board anyway?

D.Abraham

04-01-2003, 10:18 PM

Michael C and others,

Here is a basic overview of Judiasm, some things which you maybe familar with others maybe less or no familarity or confusion with. I''ll cite:

What Do Jews Believe?
Level: Basic

"This is a far more difficult question than you might expect. Judaism has no dogma, no formal set of beliefs that one must hold to be a Jew. In Judaism, actions are far more important than beliefs, although there is certainly a place for belief within Judaism.

The closest that anyone has ever come to creating a widely-accepted list of Jewish beliefs is Rambam's thirteen principles of faith. Rambam's thirteen principles of faith, which he thought were the minimum requirements of Jewish belief, are:

G-d exists
G-d is one and unique
G-d is incorporeal
G-d is eternal
Prayer is to be directed to G-d alone and to no other
The words of the prophets are true
Moses's prophecies are true, and Moses was the greatest of the prophets
The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses
There will be no other Torah
G-d knows the thoughts and deeds of men
G-d will reward the good and punish the wicked
The Messiah will come
The dead will be resurrected
As you can see, these are very basic and general principles. Yet as basic as these principles are, the necessity of believing each one of these has been disputed at one time or another, and the liberal movements of Judaism dispute many of these principles.

Unlike many other religions, Judaism does not focus much on abstract cosmological concepts. Although Jews have certainly considered the nature of G-d, man, the universe, life and the afterlife at great length (see Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism), there is no mandated, official, definitive belief on these subjects, outside of the very general concepts discussed above. There is substantial room for personal opinion on all of these matters, because as I said before, Judaism is more concerned about actions than beliefs.

Judaism focuses on relationships: the relationship between G-d and mankind, between G-d and the Jewish nation, between the Jewish nation and the land of Israel, and between human beings. Our scriptures tell the story of the development of these relationships, from the time of creation, through the creation of the relationship between G-d and Abraham, to the creation of the relationship between G-d and the Jewish people, and forward. The scriptures also specify the mutual obligations created by these relationships, although various movements of Judaism disagree about the nature of these obligations. Some say they are absolute, unchanging laws from G-d (Orthodox); some say they are laws from G-d that change and evolve over time (Conservative); some say that they are guidelines that you can choose whether or not to follow (Reform, Reconstructionist). For more on these distinctions, see Movements of Judaism.

So, what are these actions that Judaism is so concerned about? According to Orthodox Judaism, these actions include 613 commandments given by G-d in the Torah as well as laws instituted by the rabbis and long-standing customs. These actions are discussed in depth on the page regarding Halakhah: Jewish Law and the pages following it. "

-Judaism 101
Â© Copyright 5756-5761 (1995-2001), Tracey R Rich

Sholom D.A.

MichaelC

04-01-2003, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by D.Abraham
You said:

"The active threads of all forums appear on one page. If someone raises a topic in a forum that YOU wish to keep private, it will still be posted on the "Most Active Threads" page. If I see a thread on that page, which is where I picked up this thread, that interests me, I join in. I have been posting to this thread since before you made your first post at the Israel Forum. Since it continues to appear on the "most active thread " page, I may or may not continue posting to it.

By the way, I never indicated that you should leave this forum. I don't know where you got that idea. I took you to task only for telling others how they should behave. You're new here. Why do you think this forum should follow your guidelines? The ONLY thing that I have taken exception to from your posts, and I challenge you to disprove my assertion, is your showing up here and judging others and telling us how we could post. Never questioned any other thing you said.

Here, I will help you and give you a way to understand my lack of manners. I am not Jewish.

Now, whenever you don't like what I am doing, you can just say say to yourself, or whoever, "eh, what'dya expect from a goy?""

Well said, it's nice to see you write some words down my man! :) But hey, if your not Jewish and not Israeli or even Arab or Muslim maybe you do not undertand how SOME OF US think sometimes. Just a thought? And how "preaching" (speaking truth)OF SOME KIND may be neccessary to relate and teach and share our ways to one another in our convictions, customes, beliefs and values. Maybe it's time then that new "blood" come in here to this forum? Grandfather posters like yourself may be moving on? ;) How are your studies in Jewish Law or Hebrew literature or the Torah? You seem intelligent. I wouldn't doubt if you've done some homework on the subject. That is good especially if you are going to discuss relevantly some of the issues in this forum. If you don't mind my asking, of what Faith and beliefs are you? -Especially since you referred to "Holy'r than Thou" in your earlier post.
Shalom, D. Abraham Brenner
By the way, thanks for being honest my friend 'goy". :)
One more thing, I not familiar with how the technical aspects of this board work so give me some slack....I'll figure it out in due season.

Hey everyone else out there:Really -how many Jews or Israeli's(Arab, Christian or Muslim) are on this board anyway? When I first discovered this board, I monitored the posting here for five months before I even registered. There were so many separate forums and so many people posting here that I considered it a courtesy to know what the temperature was before I jumped in.

After I registered, I commented only a few times over the next five months, while I continued assessing the level of the exchange and learning the temperament of the posters. So, it was 10 months, more or less, before I began posting in ernest.

I am certainly nobody's favorite poster, certainly not andak's or takeo's or.........well, some others. I have never been admonished by any moderator, though I am at times a little salty. But around here, we discuss volatile issues with all comers no matter who they are. They just have to be able to deal with the process.

Your suggestion that you've come with something that people should listen to and that older posters, especially I felt it implied, non-Jewish ones, should move along is out of line.

You've been registered for about a week, is it, with a total, at the moment of 18 posts, and you are giving off this air that my time here is done and you're here to put things straight.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.............this view is part of what I refer to as "holier than thou'.

I did not need to share with you that I am not Jewish, though it is no secret to those who have been here longer than I. I will not tell you anything else about me, though. You strike me as someone who likes to "pidgeonhole" people, and when you have them properly categorized, they are then irrelevant to you.

One of the very interesting things about this Forum, and the internet in general, is that you never really know with whom you are conversing. It is the words themselves, their syntax and context that establishes your "bona fides", your "signature" as it were. Not your grasp of some religion or another, nor your age, though some really youthful minds have fled after being unmasked for the callow youths that they were.....no, none of the castes systems of the world need separate anyone here. Only the ideas you express. That is the coin of the realm.

D.Abraham

04-01-2003, 11:16 PM

Michael C,

You are very bright MC! :) Well thought out too! But I hope you stop judging me and others here telling who I am or they are or what they or I should do with ourselves personally -atleast so negatively with "labeling"(-even "Goy" is labeling and I can refrane from using it if it offends you, though the word is not offensive in nature and you seem to accept it). By giving praise to you that you are bright -I am in essense judging you, no? Just ironic, don't you see the double edge sword here or -the "two sides of the coin"? You must look at yourself to as I am trying to for myself right now. How do you know I haven't been scouting out this site for three years before "posting my first time"? Who gave you this infinite wisdom of knowing me so well? Why are you so upset? Is it your duty to put people in their place? Because in conclusion you will most likely only serve to put -yourself in place that I'm sure. You must let it go. I have and will hopefully continue, G-d willing. I think it is shame to close youself up and not share the true person you are, even in the face of boards like this. I like seeing the real persons -like you. I know I can learn much and come away with a greater appreciation of you and others from our personal contact. I would miss hearing from the insightful person you are if you did not share yourself every once in while. That is truly the only way people can connect! Maybe it is better to seek that which is good in people and stop looking for their faults or inperfections? Because when one(-me too) looks for others(-like yours) faults it is usually serves a deconstructive purpose and a selfish one. So in defense of your position I will say this: Though it is said, "Doubt is the Handmaiden of Truth." so, with that said maybe it is better to ask questions when you doubt an individual than point fingers at individuals. Better to use deductive reasoning as to their ideas and in so helping one understand themselves more positively?

an interesting quote:

"Courtesy and deference are the oil of society. Be yourself since anonymity breeds obnoxiousness. "

-I understand your feeling regarding this and I use my real name on here because I believe that to be true as you seem to too as well. I do think you were wise to do as you saw fit to gain perspective on this board. (But that's just my personal feeling not necessarily the answer) I have been on similar boards before with many intelligent and educated Palestineans, Lebonese, Egyptians, Iraqi's, Armenians, Europeans, and Israeli's and discussed(arguing even spitting on each other via email) similar to these topics we find on "Israeliforum". It was fairly comfortable for me to "jump-in" as a new registered member. So, sooner or later you posted as well as me. There is always the first. I did not know there was a time frame I must wait... Next time I will ask the moderators for permission? I did not want to see a moment go by in my life when I could contribute some ideas to these thoughtful discussions.. I may not be on this earth next year or next month or for that matter tomarrow. Who knows? -Only Ha-shem knows in future of my well being. G-d willing I hope, I will be here tomarrow to learn and grow and be here for my family. Being well educated is good and wise but the Book of Life is written now. Let me tell you I had some very interesting conversations prior to this board with one of my new Palestinean buddies by the name of "Syko" on one board. -Whew! Extreme he was! He was also very well educated and a well schooled individual having experienced first hand, much more than me, and much brighter than me. But yet in still we learned much about each other and our respective families and peoples even in the "heat" of the moment. So can we I hope. "Goyim" ;)
Peace!
P.S. You ARE NOT IRRELEVANT! G-d says it is so and I believe this is the Truth. All people are relevant . Any Jew who thinks less of people because of their "Crown of Faith" is surely mistaken in G-d's eyes. You are important even to me since we have discussed matters. I need your input to learn so do you I hope. Before with your comments to Isiah, I was merely TRYING to make an understanding between you and him, -I guess it didn't work. G-d says to make peace between people. I can only try my best.
By the way, it sounds like you believe in the One G-d in some way since you use "Holier than Thou". If you know Him and cleave to Him you surely know what it means to be "Holier than Thou". (I suggest if you believe in Him you use capitals when using His name because He will probably judge You for those choice of words! Do you believe in the One L-rd?

D.Abraham

04-01-2003, 11:50 PM

Some words on Judaism for understanding for everyone:

"In general, Jews do not try to convert non-Jews to Judaism. In
fact, according to halakhah (Jewish Law), rabbis are supposed to make three vigorous attempts to dissuade a person who wants to convert to Judaism.

Jews have a lot of responsibilities that non-Jews do not have. To be considered a good and righteous person in the eyes of G-d, a non-Jew need only follow the seven Noahic commandments, (whether they know them or not) Noahic or Noahide commandments, are inferred from Genesis Ch. 9, and are as follows: 1) to establish courts of justice; 2) not to commit blasphemy; 3) not to commit idolatry; 4) not to commit incest and adultery; 5) not to commit bloodshed; 6) not to commit robbery; and 7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal. These commandments are fairly simple and straightforward, and most of them are recognized by most of the world as sound moral principles. Any non-Jew who follows these laws has a place in the world to come. Whereas a Jew has to follow all 613 commandments given in the Torah.(G-d forbid, do the best you can!) If the potential convert is not going to follow those extra rules, it's better for him or her to stay a gentile, and since we as Jews are all responsible for each other, it's better for us too if that person stayed a gentile. The rabbinically mandated attempt to dissuade a convert is intended to make sure that the prospective convert is serious and willing to take on all this extra responsibility.

Once a person has decided to convert, the proselyte must begin to learn Jewish religion, law and customs and begin to observe them. This teaching process generally takes at least one year, because the prospective convert must experience each of the Jewish holidays; however, the actual amount of study required will vary from person to person (a convert who was raised as a Jew might not need any further education, for example, while another person might need several years).

After the teaching is complete, the proselyte is brought before a Beit Din (rabbinical court) which examines the proselyte and determines whether he or she is ready to become a Jew. If the proselyte passes this oral examination, the rituals of conversion are performed. If the convert is male, he is circumcised (or, if he was already circumcised, a pin of blood is drawn for a symbolic circumcision). Both male and female converts are immersed in the mikvah (a ritual bath used for spiritual purification). The convert is given a Jewish name and is then introduced into the Jewish community.

In theory, once the conversion procedure is complete, the convert is as much a Jew as anyone who is born to the religion. In practice, the convert is often treated with caution, because we have had a lot of bad experiences with converts who later return to their former faith in whole or in part. However, it is important to remember that Abraham himself was a convert, as were all of the matriarchs of Judaism, as was Ruth, an ancestor of King David. "

Only Food for thought.
Shalom, Darin Abraham
P.S. O.k I best start a new thread with this.....sorry! :rolleyes:

Isiah 2:4

04-02-2003, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by MichaelC
Showing up here to preach and suggest that you know better than others how things should be handled at the Forum is just annoying.

Your implication that nobody has a clue how to behave without your input is demeaning. I get the feeling that you did not do much exploring of this Board and the range of topics and posters before you started in. It might have served you well to have studied the way things are here before weighing in with unneeded advice.

Of course, when i submitted my last reply, i did so in order to make people aware of how i feel things in the World have been, and continue to be, quarelled over and conflicted over.

It was a direct attempt to point out that, so many of these discussions end up dissolving into pointless trawls through History, and arguments divided by age-old hatred.

IMHO, this is not constructive or beneficial. Thats all.

I wasn't preaching and i didn't expect everyone to be exuberant in their responses.

Thankyou for considering my thoughts. Don't judge me because of it.

andak01

04-02-2003, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by Revkha
Both Mississippi and California state that -

(v) Below age of consent parties need parental consent and permission of judge, no younger than 14 for males and 13 for females.

Yes, and look at both California and Mississippi and you will see that (v) does not appear.

The majority of these laws in any case are to protect minors from sexual predation and abuse. What real evidence do we have that Muhammad (SAW) was a sexual predator? He had no pattern of marrying or even chasing after very young women. His first wife was in her fifties.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/030206/43/20u4n.html
In 1998, The New York Times reported on a survey that apparently interviewed 5,000 married women in Rajasthan and found 56 percent had married before they turned 15.

In rural societies in many parts of the world today, many women are married young. Such marriages in our own society prevent women from seeking an education and are against their welfare. Do we see that Aisha was a victim of abuse, was denied an education, lost status, was stigmatized, was exploited? I would very much like to see the evidence of this. Forget about, 'relative to her day'. She was treated with more love and respect than many women in our own society receive.

Let me end by stating that we are in no way enjoined to follow his example in this. Contrary to what is said about Muslims, we do not mindlessly copy everything that Muhammad (SAW) did. For example, we do not reveal new Qur'ans, we do not perform miracles. We use him as a guide. Marrying that young in today's society would have very different repercussions from what it had for him.

Simon

04-02-2003, 05:43 AM

Ilya: The Aryan invasion theory has been thoroughly discredited. It was a figment of the ruling British imagination that wanted to develop some nonsense of martial races where they sought to prove that the dark-skinned people could not fight. It was a rascist theory that the British propounded and used as another wedge to rule india.

If at all, the predominance of evidence points in the other direction. That people from Southern India migrated northwards. Studies in liguistics and the origins of languages supports that. The South Indian languages are closer to Sanskrit than the North indian languages.

Andak/Aisha/Ilya: What have you people done to convince your fellow muslims about the apparent peaceful nature of islam?

It seems to me that your efforts should begin at home, not on the Israeli forum.

For the past 50 yrs, the saudi scum have been funding madrassahs worldwide to sponsor their wahhabbi thought. The pakistanis provide the training grounds and men. The Iranians, Syrians and Libyans have also been huge sponsors of terrorism.

So, instead of wasting your time telling us kufrs about how "peaceful" islam is, why not tell your fellow muslims?

Actually, it is pretty easy to guess why not. You'd probably be stoned to death in the first few minutes of your attempts to do so. So what do you do. Turn to the israeli forum. :D

andak01

04-02-2003, 09:07 AM

The voice of toleration speaks again. I would not lower myself to post a pack of lies about someone else's religion. I come here to see to it that when people like you do, there is a response besides "Thanks for the info, I don't know anything about Islam so I'll take your word for it." You could have just as easily quoted Surah 153 as saying that Muslims should eat the infidels (there is no Surah 153), because people that are inclined to dislike Islam are always eager to get dirt on it. They generally just pass along anything negative they hear without bothering to check it out. Since they don't believe anyway, they feel no duty to know the truth or the specifics. Well, if you fear Islam, it is your duty to know the truth about it. You cannot get the whole truth from people who are bigots.

Simon

04-02-2003, 09:33 AM

Hehehe

Pretty much what I expected. Too afraid to spread the message of "peaceful" Islam among their fellow muslims- where perhaps it is needed the most.

BTW, it is your co-religionist who are the most bigotted people on the face of the earth.

Revkha

04-02-2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by andak01
Yes, and look at both California and Mississippi and you will see that (v) does not appear.

.

You are correct. I misread the chart. I read both the California and Mississippi statutes in full today. I am trying to locate the legislative history and discussion that was done prior to enacting the statues. I was taken aback that these two states did not have a minimum age restriction of at least 13 for females and 14 for males. It highly unlikely that a judge would allow a female younger than 12 to marry even in Mississippi.

D.Abraham

04-02-2003, 09:55 AM

Simon,

I have question, of course you don't have to answer. Are you Hindu or from India? If not, are you faithful to a religion or philosophy?
Sincerely, Darin

Revkha

04-02-2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by andak01
The voice of toleration speaks again. I would not lower myself to post a pack of lies about someone else's religion. I come here to see to it that when people like you do, there is a response besides "Thanks for the info, I don't know anything about Islam so I'll take your word for it." You could have just as easily quoted Surah 153 as saying that Muslims should eat the infidels (there is no Surah 153), because people that are inclined to dislike Islam are always eager to get dirt on it. They generally just pass along anything negative they hear without bothering to check it out. Since they don't believe anyway, they feel no duty to know the truth or the specifics. Well, if you fear Islam, it is your duty to know the truth about it. You cannot get the whole truth from people who are bigots.

In life we teach each other. Hopefully in a civil manner. It is a two way street. Lack of knowledge breeds enemies and hatred - pursuit of knowledge produces friends and enlightenment. Do a majority of Muslims have a desire and duty to learn more about Christianity and Judaism other than what is taught in the mosques? Are the repressive regimes in the Middle East the obstacle that prevents Muslims from distinguishing between the untruths about these religions that are spread by the militant Islamic clerics and the actual truths that are readily available from a multitude of unbiased, historical, scholarly sources that are directed to fact not conjecture. Your comment that "You cannot get the whole truth from people who are bigots" should also be directed to the Muslim world.

Simon

04-02-2003, 09:59 AM

D. Abraham

I saw you pose the same question before and I answered (at least partially) in post # 55. Kindly go through that post and feel free to ask me any more questions you have.

D.Abraham

04-02-2003, 10:23 AM

Sorry.... :rolleyes:
Shalom, Darin

andak01

04-02-2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Revkha
You are correct. I misread the chart. I read both the California and Mississippi statutes in full today. I am trying to locate the legislative history and discussion that was done prior to enacting the statues. I was taken aback that these two states did not have a minimum age restriction of at least 13 for females and 14 for males. It highly unlikely that a judge would allow a female younger than 12 to marry even in Mississippi.

I won't say I wasn't surprised myself. Child abuse and pedophilia have become such political hot buttons that we have forgotten why such strict laws were put in place to begin with. The fear of child pornography and child prostitution is a major reason. Prior to this plague, girls in rural societies were often pregnant soon after puberty. The economic advantage of having large families in these comunities meant that a girl should use as many child bearing years as possible to produce children. To the extent that producing children in a rural society is a type of bread winning.

In our own society, the reasons to forbid such a marriage would be to prevent exploitation. Was Aisha exploited? To prevent abuse. Was she abused? To allow her to be educated. Here we see, the biggest difference between a young girl and a woman in our society is education. But the survival skills necessary to get by in a rural environment can be learned at a young age. Aisha knew how to read and write and was well respected for her memory and intellect. Most of what we know about the Prophet's (SAW) domestic life comes from her.

andak01

04-02-2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Revkha
Do a majority of Muslims have a desire and duty to learn more about Christianity and Judaism other than what is taught in the mosques?

I don't know many pious Muslims that don't own and refer to a Bible. Myself, I look upon the Qur'an as a sort of commentary of the Bible among other things. There are stories in the Bible that are assumed to be familiar to readers of the Qur'an. They appear in the Qur'an in encapsulated form.

It is extremely unfortunate what has happened to relations between the Jews and Muslims in the past century. I can't think of any religion that resembles Islam more than Judaeism.

Anti-Semitism is a wide-spread problem both within the Islamic community and elsewhere. It didn't start with us, and it won't end with us.

If you really feel that Islam is critical of Judaeism, read what the Qur'an has to say about Abraham (SAW) or Moses (SAW). You will never see a word of criticism of anything they ever did. Each of my five daily prayers contains a blessing upon Abraham and his family.

Those who follow the example of Abraham (SAW) and of Jesus (SAW) have nothing to fear on the day of Judgement.

2:38
We said: "Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from me, whosoever follows My guidance, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

2:62
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

6:48
We send the messengers only to give good news and to warn: so those who believe and mend (their lives),- upon them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

7:35
O ye Children of Adam! whenever there come to you messengers from amongst you, rehearsing My signs unto you,- those who are righteous and mend (their lives),- on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve.

Are the repressive regimes in the Middle East the obstacle that prevents Muslims from distinguishing between the untruths about these religions that are spread by the militant Islamic clerics and the actual truths that are readily available from a multitude of unbiased, historical, scholarly sources that are directed to fact not conjecture. Your comment that "You cannot get the whole truth from people who are bigots" should also be directed to the Muslim world.

Muslims willing to extend the olive branch are chastised by their own communities and mocked by others. My own experience on this board is that I am often called disingenuous or a liar. I have seen Jews who attempt to understand Muslims referred to as self-hating Jews.

I am often dared to voice my own views to other Muslims. But in fact, I often repeat things I have discussed here with a very positive reaction from my Muslim friends. The assumption that I am two-faced or deliberately deceptive is simply wrong.

Personally, I am facinated by the many similarities between our faiths. The most important things, those things we practice everyday, we agree upon. I recite the following in Arabic 17 times per day. Is there any point of it that you as a Jew would find offensive?

In the name of G_D, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
Praise be to G_D, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;
Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
Master of the Day of Judgment.
Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.
Show us the straight way,
The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

MichaelC

04-02-2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by andak01
My own experience on this board is that I am often called disingenuous or a liar. I have seen Jews who attempt to understand Muslims referred to as self-hating Jews.

I am often dared to voice my own views to other Muslims. But in fact, I often repeat things I have discussed here with a very positive reaction from my Muslim friends. The assumption that I am two-faced or deliberately deceptive is simply wrong.
[b] I am clearly one of those who has challenged you often. But, I am sure you are aware that the only point that I have ever hammered on is the reality observed among the infidels of the West, myself included, who do not see nor hear, sufficient support of your contentions within the Islamic community.

Many, many, terrorists acts commited in the name of Allah have taken thousands of lives. A great Army now stands in the midst of Islam having reacted to the bringing of jihad to our shores. We'd rather fight the jihad in the area from whence the jihad arose.

I have been trying to ratchet back my immense anger at the failure of Islam to restrain its radicals, only to have every contention deflected by assertions that Islam is (A) actually a religion of peace, (B) the jihadists are not really Muslims, (C) everyone else is just as bad, if not now, then at some point in history, (D) I'm bigoted because I want to wipe out every jihadist on earth, (E) it's all America's fault, (F) it's all Israel's fault, (G) it's all the fault of the Jews, etc, etc, etc.

Look, somehow the terrorism thing among Muslims must be solved, not by pointing at everyone else and saying that it is their fault. It must be discredited as an option from within Islam by the respected imams and leaders, the influential "peaceful" Muslims with the courage to be a "martyr" for THIS cause, rather than a person who becomes a "shahid" only in order to kill others.

I just don't think it is too much to expect, after all the assurances you've have given that such activities are not part of the "true" Islam.

Revkha

04-02-2003, 03:46 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by andak01
Muslims willing to extend the olive branch are chastised by their own communities and mocked by others.
[QUOTE]

Why in the name of religion does this occur. Why is the olive branch such an elusive object for the Muslims to grasp. For centuries the Muslims were in the forefront of enlightment. Then it began to evaporate. Why is there not a desire to succeed, make a contribution to the world. One can only wonder how many potential Jonas Salks, Gandhis, Michaelangelos, Einsteins, Madame Curries, Neil Armstrongs, Louis Pasteurs, Martin Luther Kings, Jr.s in the Muslim world have been lost to the world. Why does hatred consume this region of the world to the detriment of their own well-being.

Jews just want to be left alone to live our lives, raise our families, make a contribution to the world and practice our religion, those of us who are observant. Jews would grasp the olive branch without hesitation with assurances that Muslims are indeed sincere about stopping the hatred and terror directed to Jews and Israel and that we have a strong sense of security. Jews have made innumerable contributions to world in spite of the all the atrocities done to Jews. The terror must end one day. If not then Islam will greatly suffer. As we say in the sports world --- the ball in your court.

andak01

04-02-2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by MichaelC
I have been trying to ratchet back my immense anger at the failure of Islam to restrain its radicals, only to have every contention deflected by assertions that Islam is (A) actually a religion of peace, (B) the jihadists are not really Muslims, (C) everyone else is just as bad, if not now, then at some point in history, (D) I'm bigoted because I want to wipe out every jihadists on earth, (E) it's all America's fault, (F) it's all Israel's fault, (G) it's all the fault of the Jews, etc, etc, etc.

I just don't think it is too much to expect, after all the assurances you've have given that such activities are not part of the "true" Islam.

You're off the hook MichaelC. Compared to the hatred exhibited by Simon, you are a real teddybear. Comparing criticism of acts by Muslims, some of which is richly deservered, to attacks directly on Islam, you come off as a real chum. And comparing your concern that not enough is being done, to blaming all of the problems that India has ever had on the Muslims and British, you're positively enlightened.

One thing I will say about you. You spend much less time telling us what we are and more time telling us what we should do. I can tolerate that a little better, though I may never agree.

andak01

04-02-2003, 05:03 PM

REALLY? So it is impossible for a garden to contain gardens? What about the garden of Versailles? I hardly need to justify that referring to a huge garden as a garden or as gardens is hardly a huge contradiction. Those who can read the original Arabic may know of a reason for the differentiation.

At least in the example I give, two different words are used. Jannah as in aljannati could mean Paradise or a garden. I am uncertain of the meaning of AAnaban.

Paradise has one garden. (Surah 39:73, 41:30, 57:21, 79:41)
039.073
73. Waseeqa allatheena ittaqaw rabbahum ila aljannati zumaran hatta itha jaooha wafutihat abwabuha waqala lahum khazanatuha salamun AAalaykum tibtum faodkhulooha khalideena
YUSUFALI: And those who feared their Lord will be led to the Garden in crowds: until behold, they arrive there; its gates will be opened; and its keepers will say: "Peace be upon you! well have ye done! enter ye here, to dwell therein."
PICKTHAL: And those who keep their duty to their Lord are driven unto the Garden in troops till, when they reach it, and the gates thereof are opened, and the warders thereof say unto them: Peace be unto you! Ye are good, so enter ye (the Garden of delight), to dwell therein;
SHAKIR: And those who are careful of (their duty to) their Lord shall be conveyed to the garden in companies; until when they come to it, and its doors shall be opened, and the keepers of it shall say to them: Peace be on you, you shall be happy; therefore enter it to abide.

41:30
In the case of those who say, "Our Lord is Allah", and, further, stand straight and steadfast, the angels descend on them (from time to time): "Fear ye not!" (they suggest), "Nor grieve! but receive the Glad Tidings of the Garden (of Bliss), the which ye were promised!

57:21
Be ye foremost (in seeking) Forgiveness from your Lord, and a Garden (of Bliss), the width whereof is as the width of heaven and earth, prepared for those who believe in Allah and His messengers: that is the Grace of Allah, which He bestows on whom he pleases: and Allah is the Lord of Grace abounding.

79:41
Their abode will be the Garden.

Paradise has many gardens. (Surah 18:31, 22:23, 35:33, 78:32)
18:31
For them will be Gardens of Eternity; beneath them rivers will flow; they will be adorned therein with bracelets of gold, and they will wear green garments of fine silk and heavy brocade: They will recline therein on raised thrones. How good the recompense! How beautiful a couch to recline on!

22:23
Allah will admit those who believe and work righteous deeds, to Gardens beneath which rivers flow: they shall be adorned therein with bracelets of gold and pearls; and their garments there will be of silk.

35:33
Gardens of Eternity will they enter: therein will they be adorned with bracelets of gold and pearls; and their garments there will be of silk.

78:32
Hada-iqa waaAAnaban
Gardens enclosed, and grapevines;

MichaelC

04-02-2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by andak01
You're off the hook MichaelC. Compared to the hatred exhibited by Simon, you are a real teddybear. Comparing criticism of acts by Muslims, some of which is richly deservered, to attacks directly on Islam, you come off as a real chum. And comparing your concern that not enough is being done, to blaming all of the problems that India has ever had on the Muslims and British, you're positively enlightened.

One thing I will say about you. You spend much less time telling us what we are and more time telling us what we should do. I can tolerate that a little better, though I may never agree. I appreciate the direction that we are both taking at the moment, though I do not really understand why you would not agree with me that the solutions for the problem of terrorism in the name of Allah must be produced by Muslims, and that it will take righteous people willing to "martyr" themselves for the reformation of an erroneous interpretation of Islam, rather than martyrdom in order to murder.

Until this happens, there will always be those nations who, being targets of this terrorism, will accept nothing less than the clear and vehement action of peaceful Muslims to excise any justification for terrorism from being accepted anywhere on earth.

And until we can see that, how is it difficult to understand the need for force of arms to defend ourselves?

A Big Job, to be sure, but absolutely vital to the future security of the human race. It can be, and must be, done. Is it really that hard to agree with this position?

IlyaFurman

04-02-2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Simon
Ilya: The Aryan invasion theory has been thoroughly discredited. It was a figment of the ruling British imagination that wanted to develop some nonsense of martial races where they sought to prove that the dark-skinned people could not fight. It was a rascist theory that the British propounded and used as another wedge to rule india.
\

Get real, now you wish to change history. 99% of historians agree with the Aryan invasion of India, so do most Indians, go look at any source it will tell you India is 70%+ Indo-Aryan. I guess they were lying. :rolleyes:

D.Abraham

04-02-2003, 07:07 PM

MichaelC,
You said:
"I have been trying to ratchet back my immense anger at the failure of Islam to restrain its radicals, only to have every contention deflected by assertions that Islam is (A) actually a religion of peace, (B) the jihadists are not really Muslims, (C) everyone else is just as bad, if not now, then at some point in history, (D) I'm bigoted because I want to wipe out every jihadist on earth, (E) it's all America's fault, (F) it's all Israel's fault, (G) it's all the fault of the Jews, etc, etc."

Very good I like it! You are a "teddybear" after all! The rest of your last post was good too.

Sincerely, Darin Abraham

MichaelC

04-02-2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by D.Abraham
MichaelC,
You said:
"I have been trying to ratchet back my immense anger at the failure of Islam to restrain its radicals, only to have every contention deflected by assertions that Islam is (A) actually a religion of peace, (B) the jihadists are not really Muslims, (C) everyone else is just as bad, if not now, then at some point in history, (D) I'm bigoted because I want to wipe out every jihadist on earth, (E) it's all America's fault, (F) it's all Israel's fault, (G) it's all the fault of the Jews, etc, etc."

Very good I like it! You are a "teddybear" after all! The rest of your last post was good too.

Sincerely, Darin Abraham
I should be careful, lest someone declare a GROUP HUG !

elke

04-03-2003, 02:04 AM

I think that a group hug is in order now!;) It's good to see you guys sheathing your metaphorical swords.

andak01

04-03-2003, 02:45 AM

Before we go for that group hug, I would like to clarify where I stand on Michael's list of assertions.

Originally posted by MichaelC
I have been trying to ratchet back my immense anger at the failure of Islam to restrain its radicals, only to have every contention deflected by assertions that Islam is (A) actually a religion of peace, (B) the jihadists are not really Muslims, (C) everyone else is just as bad, if not now, then at some point in history, (D) I'm bigoted because I want to wipe out every jihadist on earth, (E) it's all America's fault, (F) it's all Israel's fault, (G) it's all the fault of the Jews, etc, etc."

A) Yes at least to the extent that Christianity and Judaeism are. Note that Jesus (SAW) message of peace is inclusive within Islam. But not a religion of peace like the Quakers or the Buddhists. We are allowed to fight defensively in order to protect our religion. If I told you otherwise, I would be lying.

B) The jihadists are not in every case fighting a jihad as defined by Islam. Certainly, those who kill innocent women and children are using un-Islamics methods. But they don't get excommunicated for that, so they are still counted as Muslims. I believe your term would be sinners. Allah knows, but their punishment may be as great as that of a non-believer. If I start making judgements about who falls within Islam and who doesn't, I will be the one to pay for those judgements on judgement day. That's why you aren't going to find many Muslims willing to take a stance on this. We also have a duty to enjoin good and to prohibit evil. Some Muslims believe that it is proper to risk their lives informing on their fellows. You won't see those people in the news.

C) In those cases where you speak of general human ills such as bigotry, murder or wife abuse and claim that the Muslims practically invented such things, it is fair to point out that they existed before us, and they exist external to us.

D) You are bigotted if you don't differentiate between the small portion committing terrorist acts and the Muslims that would never condone such a thing. If you paint 1.3 billion of us based upon the actions of a few hundred, you are bigotted.

How about a rule of thumb. As long as you don't make statements that are likely to get me and my family attacked on the street, I won't call you a bigot. :)

E), F) How about a second Rule of thumb. Imagine America wasn't in the picture. Without America and England, there would be no Israel, so F) is a moot point.

G) Is something I have never said, you may be confusing me with someone else.

To be fair Michael, sometimes I aim my responses at several people at once. I would not respond to you for example in the same way that I respond to Abu or Simon.

Simon

04-03-2003, 06:48 AM

Compared to the hatred exhibited by Simon

Compared to the hatred contained in Islam, I certainly am a teddy bear.

I have seen what you muslims have done to my people for centuries, and even now in Kashmir and Godhra.

It is islam that preaches hatred and intolerance. To tell it like it is is not hatred.

Like the Jews, I want to be left alone. To never have to interact with a muslim. Unfortunately, to live and let live is not anywhere in the Koran.

The day you muslims stop murdering my people in the name of your allah and jehad and leave is kufr alone, that day my hatred for you will also vanish.

Again, if you cannot get it through your skull, I DONT WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM OR MUSLIMS AS LONG AS YOU LEAVE US ALONE.

Ilya: Just because the British propounded an asinine theory does not make it correct. Unlike the Jews, we have not done a good job of unearthing our history and culture. Those who rely on the British version are often derisively referred to as Macaulites. These indians tend to be more British than the British themselves. Of course, to people like you wedded to the "Aryan" concept, it might be a bit too much.

Simon

04-03-2003, 07:06 AM

Actually, Islam is the one religion that is incapable of introspection. It actually commands its adherent to take leave of his/her common sense. Its all of nothing. You cannot use your own sense of decency or the knowledge or right or wrong to guide your actions. It requires total submission to a text that is confused at best.

The other peeve I have with muslims is the large scale destruction of the places of worship of other religions. Only the Christians have in turn destroyed the mosques which were built atop islam-destroyed churches.

There are numerous such examples in India. The most prominent one in Israel is Solomon's temple and the Wailing Wall. The most sacred site in Judaism and these followers of allah can find no other place to put up their mosque.

The same in India. The holiest of hindu shrines have either been destroyed or huge mosques constructed right next to it. There is no concept of respecting the religious beliefs of others in Islam.

D.Abraham

04-03-2003, 09:00 AM

Simon,

How about "Conservative" "Reform" or "Reconstructionalist"- Islam as an alternative to those Muslims that would not want to take the Qu'ran so literal in every sense of the word much like Judiasm can portray with these forms of prayer? Fundamentalist that "take" sevre action can be the most dangerous of the bunch. Their strict, uncompromising "orthodoxness" is what can deliver them to "ACT" out forceably their extreme ways. How one(a Muslim) defines his or hers definition of "defense" can be interpreted many ways. And further more, the contridictions we see in the Qu'ran regarding how Muslims should view thier neigbor, namely Christians and Jews shows just how confusing and open for interpetation the religion of Islam is in the literal -Qu'ran sense. Perhaps it is to be decided upon by the individual to see the good or the bad? Example being in one passage the Qu'ran says be respectful of the "People of the Book" (The Hebrews/Jews) and in the other we see the exact oposite in later passage saying despise them -what is that about? I think we may have either some leaky false statements that sneaked into the Qu'ran(I'd beg to say anything that teaches hatred was a slip of the tongue or the wrong persons thoughts) or perhaps there was some personal vindication by Muhammed to be upset at his neigbors(Jews) at a later time in his history and thus he displayed his anger- personally? Without realizing the signifigance of his mistake or statement and how it might effect his followers in the world to come? I highly doubt G-d, Allah told Muhammed to believe such things. He the Holy One be He always said to the Hebrews that He was the "Shield of Abraham" 9forever and to all decendants) and that anyone that curses you(the Hebrew/Jew) is to be judged by G-d and cursed by Him in return favor. When the One Holy G-d Hashem says something He keeps his Covenant. He promised. I do not think Adonai lies......

We all just want to be left alone Simon. Let one decide what they wish to believe but once they decide and learn they should be bound to that religion in th case of Hashem and should not go against Him.
I hope no Jehovah witnesses come to my door later today...Can't the see I've got a Muzusah over the front door??? -Gee wiz, if I wished to partake in their religion I would seek it out by learning about it's goodness and wanting to be part of it. I do not need a "used carsman" sale. G-d's word is not forsale. Though I like some Jehovah's personally... --Same goes for Islam, don't force me, G-d does not force he merely guides your footsteps once you've decided what path to take. If you go against Him after wishing to be closer to Him you will surely be judged for your mistakes, especially the ones you know.

Simon, I'm sure Andak would give you a hug he seems like a "good' Muslim, better yet a good person.

All right I need a hug?!
Peace, Darin Abraham

andak01

04-03-2003, 10:16 AM

D. Abraham,

You are on the right track. Many of the verses which refer to Jews and Christians were revealed at historic periods. There were Jews and Christians in Medina who created truces with the Muslims and later fought against them with their enemies. Our modern term for such action would be treason or double-cross. There was no mercy to these people. But the Muslims and Christians of Mecca were given amnesty. They refused to convert, but they were allowed to continue on there at least for the lifetime of the Prophet (SAW). Also, during his lifetime, unbelievers were allowed into mosques.

...and that anyone that curses you(the Hebrew/Jew) is to be judged by G-d and cursed by Him in return favor.

That is precisely what Muslims believe. That is why some of us are so reluctant to go around qualifying who is Muslim and who is not. If you call someone an unbeliever and they are not, you are judged as an unbeliever yourself, and they gain the benefit of your good deeds.

I can't give Simon a hug for the time being, but if you knock on my door and ask for shelter, I would put you up for up to three days.

We do have a concept of forgiveness. Note how Muhammad (SAW) treated Hind after she desicrated his uncle's body and ate part of his liver. She was given amnesty along with the others.

Mediocrates

04-03-2003, 10:41 AM

Months and months ago I posed the suggestion that what Islam needs is its own Protestant Reformation. It needs that schism to divide its own world of the holy and the faithful. The moderates in Islam can't ever rein in the radicals at the other end and the fundamentalists speak a language as different from the moderates as Chinese is from Portuguese. No, the reform that Islam needs is to break up and each faction can claim their own value system and priorities.

There is little purpose in the andaks of the world attempting to reconcile with the Islamist Radicals because the position those radicals have staked out is that you cannot have a footing in both worlds. And there is no point in trying to westernize (or modernize, or reconcile with or whatever you call it) the Islamist Radicals either because for the moderates one can be devoutly muslim, strictly observant, even religiously fundamental without being wedded to a political agenda. For the Islamist Radicals there is no difference between religion and politics, they are the same thing.

andak01

04-03-2003, 10:55 AM

I keep hearing about how this Protestant Reformation created a bunch of secular peaceful Christians. So what happened to Catholics? Were all the militants killed off by the peaceful Protestants? What year did the Protestants become peaceful? Was it during the Witch burnings or the creation of the KKK or was it in Protestant reprisals in Northern Ireland? I missed this very important point in history when Protestants decided to be peaceful while the Catholics continued in their violent rampages. I also missed when the snake handling, speaking in tongue Christians stopped being fundamentalists.

IlyaFurman

04-03-2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Islam needs is its own Protestant Reformation.

I belive they have it, I think its Sufi Islam, it is very much like Buddhism the way it is practiced, meditation etc etc..

Kurds follow Sufi Islam I believe.

andak01

04-03-2003, 11:30 AM

Actually, Wahhabbism contains many similarities to the original Protestant Reformation, the iconoclasm, the intolerance, etc. I have used the comparison of Cromwell's rampage through Wales and elsewhere burning and bombing monasteries.

http://www.castlewales.com/tintern.html

Here are the ruins of Tintern Abbey, that, but for the Protestant Reformation would still look much like many early Abbeys in Europe.

In the 1500s monastic life in England and Wales was brought to an abrupt end by the political actions of King Henry VIII. The Dissolution of the Monasteries was part of the king's policy to establish total control over the church in his realm. But in addition to severing links with Rome, their suppression was a considerable source wealth to the crown. Even so, the brutal demise of some 800 religious houses between 1536 and 1540 was a major step, perhaps made easier by a changing tide of opinion against the monasteries and what they stood for. Certainly, by the time of the Tudor dynasty, much of the freshness and vigour of the monastic way of life had been lost.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm
Reformation Iconoclasm
Some of the Protestant reformers encouraged their followers to destroy Catholic art works by insisting that they were idols. Huldreich Zwingli and John Calvin promoted this approach to the adaptation of earlier buildings for Protestant worship. In 1562, some Calvinists destroyed the tomb of St. Irenaeus and the relics inside, which had been under the altar of a church since his martyrdom in 202.

The Netherlands (including Belgium) were hit by a large wave of Protestant iconoclasm in 1566. This is called the Beeldenstorm.

In fact the Wahhabbi practice of plastering over mosque decorations leaves them looking like the simple white church houses I grew up with. I might add that the excesses of some Muslims in many ways resemble those of the pre-Reformation Catholics. On my recent trip to Morocco, I even found people selling candles at the entrance to a Muslim saint's tomb. Prayers of intercession were being made, as to a Christian saint.

D.Abraham

04-03-2003, 11:38 AM

Andak,

Precisely! I was thinking of Medina as one example of "neighbors." Maybe it was wrong of Muhammed to "claim" to the Jews of his time that he indeed was prophet. Perhaps he would have been better off letting his greatness shine without proclaiming -the mark of a true prophet of all of G-d's religions. But atleast he was tolerant after being ridiculed. I give him peace.
D. A

andak01

04-03-2003, 12:00 PM

He was terrified when he first realised that he had been chosen. In fact, he was crying under the covers when Kadijah, his wife became the first convert to Islam. It's not surprising that he felt he was going crazy when he began getting the revelations. In fact, on those instances where others witnessed him receiving them, they describe him as sweating or having some distress. On one instance, we are told he was riding a camel, and the camel stopped and sat down under the weight of such a revelation.

And his friends and family begged him for his safety not to speak of his revelations. He was in fact offered great sums of money and political positions not to. His response:

"If they put the sun in one hand and the moon on the other hand for giving up Islam; I'll never do it, or die before that!"

MichaelC

04-03-2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by andak01
Before we go for that group hug, I would like to clarify where I stand on Michael's list of assertions.

A) Yes at least to the extent that Christianity and Judaeism are. Note that Jesus (SAW) message of peace is inclusive within Islam. But not a religion of peace like the Quakers or the Buddhists. We are allowed to fight defensively in order to protect our religion. If I told you otherwise, I would be lying.

B) The jihadists are not in every case fighting a jihad as defined by Islam. Certainly, those who kill innocent women and children are using un-Islamics methods. But they don't get excommunicated for that, so they are still counted as Muslims. I believe your term would be sinners. Allah knows, but their punishment may be as great as that of a non-believer. If I start making judgements about who falls within Islam and who doesn't, I will be the one to pay for those judgements on judgement day. That's why you aren't going to find many Muslims willing to take a stance on this. We also have a duty to enjoin good and to prohibit evil. Some Muslims believe that it is proper to risk their lives informing on their fellows. You won't see those people in the news.

C) In those cases where you speak of general human ills such as bigotry, murder or wife abuse and claim that the Muslims practically invented such things, it is fair to point out that they existed before us, and they exist external to us.

D) You are bigotted if you don't differentiate between the small portion committing terrorist acts and the Muslims that would never condone such a thing. If you paint 1.3 billion of us based upon the actions of a few hundred, you are bigotted.

How about a rule of thumb. As long as you don't make statements that are likely to get me and my family attacked on the street, I won't call you a bigot. :)

E), F) How about a second Rule of thumb. Imagine America wasn't in the picture. Without America and England, there would be no Israel, so F) is a moot point.

G) Is something I have never said, you may be confusing me with someone else.

To be fair Michael, sometimes I aim my responses at several people at once. I would not respond to you for example in the same way that I respond to Abu or Simon.

Just as the door seemed to have been opened for progress, it is slammed shut once more. I am not â€œoff the hookâ€ after all, and there will be, it seems clear, no Group Hug.

Your letter by letter refutation of my concerns has thrust you back into a reactionary mode. I donâ€™t understand why you get so defensive when it is suggested that there may possibly be some (read many ) jihadists (read Muslim ) engaged in nefarious (read murderous ) activities in the name of Allah.

I have suggested that perhaps Martyrdom for the reformation of Islam might be a more sacred undertaking than the commonly understood â€œmartyrdomâ€ with which we in the west have become familiar, ie-the murder of civilians in the name of Islamâ€™s deity.

All your evasions do is show us that you donâ€™t think any particular effort should be made by Muslims to clean up their own house.

Well, itâ€™s too bad, because as we can see by turning on our TV sets these days, their houses will be cleaned for them if they cannot do it themselves.

Again, I must remind you, that this point is pretty much the only point Iâ€™ve dwelt on in my ongoing â€œconfrontationâ€ with you.

A couple of major nits to pick with your characterization of my own clearly defined â€œpositionsâ€:

originally posted by andak
C) In those cases where you speak of general human ills such as bigotry, murder or wife abuse and claim that the Muslims practically invented such things, it is fair to point out that they existed before us, and they exist external to us.
You have put words in my mouth before, but this example is particularly egregious.

originally posted by andak D) You are bigotted if you don't differentiate between the small portion committing terrorist acts and the Muslims that would never condone such a thing. If you paint 1.3 billion of us based upon the actions of a few hundred, you are bigotted. .
Whatever â€œproportionâ€ (another minimization by the way) it may represent, it has MANY supporters within the ranks of Islam and a disproportionate effect on the peace and security of the world.

You continue to avoid committing yourself to the Reformation of Islam in order to encourage an alteration in the understanding and use of the concept â€œshahidâ€.

originally posted by andak
How about a second Rule of thumb. Imagine America wasn't in the picture. Without America and England, there would be no Israel.

It is almost embarrassing to see you return to the famous "red herring" defense in which you wish others to construct an opinion based on a fantasy rather than on "what is".

Simon

04-03-2003, 01:33 PM

All your evasions do is show us that you donâ€™t think any particular effort should be made by Muslims to clean up their own house.

Precisely, it is always someone elses' fault.

If muslims indulge in terrorism, it is always "they made me do it."

Again, why the andak's of the world wont take their message to Saudia, Pakistan, Iran instead of lecturing the kufr is not hard to see. The islamic world is largely, if not completely, intolerant. And the freedom that the andaks of the world have in American, Jewish or hindu societies allows them to speak their mind.

As i said before, if such people were to try the same stuff in Saudia or Pakistan, they would get stoned to death or their throats slit by their own muslim brethren.

D. Abraham: With due respect, i am not looking for any hugs from any muslim. I just want these murderers to leave the rest of the non-islamic world alone. Within their societies, i dont care what they do.

Simon

04-03-2003, 01:45 PM

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_226548,00050002.htm

'Killing Hindus' is the best approach: LeT founder

The founder and former head of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba has dismissed Pakistani efforts for talks with India over Jammu and Kashmir, saying "killing Hindus" was the best approach ...........................

..........Saeed, released from seven months' arrest in December, was speaking after addressing a conference of terrorists.

Simon

04-03-2003, 01:47 PM

I am sorry, did some one want me to hug these scum?

andak01

04-03-2003, 01:52 PM

Your letter by letter refutation of my concerns has thrust you back into a reactionary mode. I donâ€™t understand why you get so defensive when it is suggested that there may possibly be some (read many ) jihadists (read Muslim ) engaged in nefarious (read murderous ) activities in the name of Allah.

I think I'm more offended by your use of big fonts. Of course there are jihadists doing nefarious things. I don't live on Mars. There was such a thing as WTC (I stood on top of it once), purpetrated by people from Saudi Arabia. I have less in common with those people than I have with you. People can do anything they want in the name of Allah/God/G_D. It doesn't mean they are truly following Him.

I have suggested that perhaps Martyrdom for the reformation of Islam might be a more sacred undertaking than the commonly understood â€œmartyrdomâ€ with which we in the west have become familiar, ie-the murder of civilians in the name of Islamâ€™s deity.

I don't make a practice of killing people, and I don't intend to start by killing Muslim people.

All your evasions do is show us that you donâ€™t think any particular effort should be made by Muslims to clean up their own house.

If you want to read criticism of Islam, you can go all over the net nowadays. Why bother, turn on your local 24 hour Gospel network.

Well, itâ€™s too bad, because as we can see by turning on our TV sets these days, their houses will be cleaned for them if they cannot do it themselves.

Draining the swamp, I believe they call it. And any number of other dehumanizing phrases. Look at your wife or child and imagine their head exploding. Tell me you would really care if it was done by a suicide bomber or by Saddam Hussein or by an American bomb. Death and human misery are universal. When a suicide bomber kills some child, he kills my daughter. When an American soldier's satellite bomb kills an Iraqi, he kills my daughter, when Saddam tortures someone to death, he kills my daughter.

Again, I must remind you, that this point is pretty much the only point Iâ€™ve dwelt on in my ongoing â€œconfrontationâ€ with you.

And again I must commend you for criticizing what we do rather than telling us who we are.

You continue to avoid committing yourself to the Reformation of Islam in order to encourage an alteration in the understanding and use of the concept â€œshahidâ€.

I don't deny that it exists. But the core of Islam is monotheism, not warfare. If we can follow all of the prescriptions of the first 51 books of Sahih Bukhari, THEN and only THEN are we prepared for jihad. These are the rules of warfare, advanced at a time before there were rules of warfare. Among them are honoring treaties and prohibitions on killing women and children.

It is almost embarrassing to see you return to the famous "red herring" defense in which you wish others to construct an opinion based on a fantasy rather than on "what is".

Next time you accuse me of that, I'm going to offer you a recipe. Perhaps red herring in a ginger sauce. :cool:

MichaelC

04-03-2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by andak01
I think I'm more offended by your use of big fonts. Of course there are jihadists doing nefarious things. I don't live on Mars. There was such a thing as WTC (I stood on top of it once), purpetrated by people from Saudi Arabia. I have less in common with those people than I have with you. People can do anything they want in the name of Allah/God/G_D. It doesn't mean they are truly following Him.

I don't make a practice of killing people, and I don't intend to start by killing Muslim people.

If you want to read criticism of Islam, you can go all over the net nowadays. Why bother, turn on your local 24 hour Gospel network.

Draining the swamp, I believe they call it. And any number of other dehumanizing phrases. Look at your wife or child and imagine their head exploding. Tell me you would really care if it was done by a suicide bomber or by Saddam Hussein or by an American bomb. Death and human misery are universal. When a suicide bomber kills some child, he kills my daughter. When an American soldier's satellite bomb kills an Iraqi, he kills my daughter, when Saddam tortures someone to death, he kills my daughter.

And again I must commend you for criticizing what we do rather than telling us who we are.

I don't deny that it exists. But the core of Islam is monotheism, not warfare. If we can follow all of the prescriptions of the first 51 books of Sahih Bukhari, THEN and only THEN are we prepared for jihad. These are the rules of warfare, advanced at a time before there were rules of warfare. Among them are honoring treaties and prohibitions on killing women and children.

Next time you accuse me of that, I'm going to offer you a recipe. Perhaps red herring in a ginger sauce. :cool:
You have never done a thing to show me what Islam is doing, I mean REALLY doing, to put an end to terrorism. Just the same old lame statements. You make a huge deal on this board about your religious convictions but I, for one, have never cared for those who endlessly quote their sacred books but are helpless when it comes to the "heavy lifting".

Since you seem to represent the "best" of the islamic world to some on this board, I have now arrived at the conclusion that if that is so, then there is no hope of peace with islam. Muslims won't do a thing, unless compelled by guns or fear, to right the wrongs perpetrated in their name.

The weirdness part of your post;

But the core of Islam is monotheism, not warfare. If we can follow all of the prescriptions of the first 51 books of Sahih Bukhari, THEN and only THEN are we prepared for jihad. These are the rules of warfare, advanced at a time before there were rules of warfare. Among them are honoring treaties and prohibitions on killing women and children
This means precisely NOTHING to anyone but you. There is so much evidence on this planet to the contrary. The rest of us will have to go kill the people that islam does nothing about while all the raging fanatics race about in the streets foaming at the mouth denoucing us. All they ever shriek is, "It's someone else's fault that we hate and kill, but we still do it for allah."

Your lack of message is sad, but par for the course.

andak01

04-04-2003, 03:40 AM

You make a huge deal on this board about your religious convictions but I, for one, have never cared for those who endlessly quote their sacred books but are helpless when it comes to the "heavy lifting".

Talk about a red herring! I am throwing out quotes from the Qur'an??? I'm responding to misquotes. If I went out and started making up quotes from the Torah or the Bible (I wouldn't do so), everyone would be inclined to look them up to see if they are true. When it comes to the QUr'an, until very recently, most non-believers never cared to read it. The so-called contradictions that I have gone through one after the other are disproven simply by reading the text. I haven't even gotten to some of them that are truly laughable, in the interest of doing them in order.

That's the old box again. Anyone can put up a bunch of numbers and describe what they say without posting the quotes themselves. A reader who is already negatively predisposed is going to nod and high five without so much as bothering to read what is beneath them.

But when I quote the actual text in order to defend the acusation, I'M throwing up a red herring??? It must be nice to make up the rules for others as you go along.

Simon

04-04-2003, 06:01 AM

Among them are honoring treaties and prohibitions on killing women and children.

By far the Joke of the Millenium.

The one thing I have learnt that any treaty/pact signed with a muslim, and this includes mohammad, was not worth the paper it was written on.

mohammad lead the way in this regard. muslims only sign treaties when they perceive themselves as incapable of getting victory. When numerically superior, those treaties get shredded. mohammad did this himself (was it the Banu Quraish tribe? to Jews).

More recently, when pakistan lost to india during the Indo-Pak war of 1971, and India not only returned captured territory but 90,000 POWs (these warriors of allah were very good at murdering raping civilians but when faced with a real army could not surrender fast enough :D ), ZA Bhutto, then the Paki PM tore the Shimla Agreement the moment he landed at islamabad airport . In doing so, he did not perceive himself to be doing anything wrong but was following in mohammad's footsteps.

When musharraf was confronted by Bush, he speedily abandoned the Taliban that pakistan created, funded, armed and fought alongside with. On national TV, he stated clearly that his abandonment of the taliban was in accordance with the acts of mohammad, who made tactical treaties when perceived himself to be weaker.

Moral of the story: A treaty/pact/promise signed with an islamic entity is generally not worth the paper it is written on. The odd exception of course, merely serves to contrast the rule.

reason

04-04-2003, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Simon
Precisely, it is always someone elses' fault.

If muslims indulge in terrorism, it is always "they made me do it."

Again, why the andak's of the world wont take their message to Saudia, Pakistan, Iran instead of lecturing the kufr is not hard to see. The islamic world is largely, if not completely, intolerant. And the freedom that the andaks of the world have in American, Jewish or hindu societies allows them to speak their mind.

As i said before, if such people were to try the same stuff in Saudia or Pakistan, they would get stoned to death or their throats slit by their own muslim brethren.

D. Abraham: With due respect, i am not looking for any hugs from any muslim. I just want these murderers to leave the rest of the non-islamic world alone. Within their societies, i dont care what they do.

A hamburger seems appropriate at this very second.

D.Abraham

04-04-2003, 10:43 AM

Finally a voice of "Reason"! That is funny,....-a hamburger. Now hopefully everyone here will be lighthearted especially Simon on this one.

I quote Simon:

"Again, why the andak's of the world wont take their message to Saudia, Pakistan, Iran instead of lecturing the kufr is not hard to see. The islamic world is largely, if not completely, intolerant. And the freedom that the andaks of the world have in American, Jewish or hindu societies allows them to speak their mind."

Andak I have to agree with Simon that more Muslims need to speak out, question and take action on their own people in more constructive ways. To often Muslims use other peoples of the earth as a painting canvas in which to express their disagreements and "reasons for acting or should I say reacting to what to other societies and religions". And of course many of these reactions are quite extrordinarily aggressive to percieved threats. Personally I have a question in this regard. "Jihadist"(in the term many of us relate these days, not true Jihadist) or fundementalist Muslims that take action, sometimes violently and become categorized as terrorist. Are they not breaking one of G-d's most fundemental Laws of Supreme Justice when they commit suicide and kill others in the process? See Noah's Seven Laws and then later the Ten Commandments. -That is if we believe in the same G-d? Even in the face of claims of defense, such as the defense of claimed innocents in the West Bank or Gaza?

G-d asks us to protect life and cherish life. It is not to be so carelessly wasted. A terrorist that martyrs himself or herself is in essense disrespecting G-d's Holy Commandments, not just one such as murder but also suicide and many others....I don't think they will be visiting Paradise....They never had a chance to repent (formally or informally, even for second) before putting themselves before G-d...Does not compute. Even the soldier in the field, let's say the Israeli or the American for instance, is not in the business of commiting suicide. Suicide is counteractive to their duty(need more soldiers alive) and moral responsiblity as soldiers not counting the individuals moral responsiblity to his or hers beliefs. He seeks to preserve his own life as well as that of his fellow soldier, the people he is defending(nation) and even at his best abilites to the innocents on the enemies side.

In this country for instance(U.S.) we no longer tollerate abusers of any religion particularly the religion of Christianity. Are we more evolved? I don't know, but it appears so. If a group like David Coresh or the Aryan Nation decide to take their beliefs a step farther for ANY cause and become violent and disrupt peoples civil and moral rights we(the U.S. people and Government) take immediate and severe action to repremand these "loose-cannons" and create justice. More nations, particularly those in the middle east need to go after their Muslim fanatical brothers on their own(with out being forced or lead by other nations ideas) accord and seek jutice by removing these problem people from peaceful society and maybe more importantly, from the religion.

Michael C's comments to Andak in reply -I quote:

"Your letter by letter refutation of my concerns has thrust you back into a reactionary mode. I donâ€™t understand why you get so defensive when it is suggested that there may possibly be some (read many ) jihadists (read Muslim ) engaged in nefarious (read murderous ) activities in the name of Allah.

I have suggested that perhaps Martyrdom for the reformation of Islam might be a more sacred undertaking than the commonly understood â€œmartyrdomâ€ with which we in the west have become familiar, ie-the murder of civilians in the name of Islamâ€™s deity."

These are valid points from MichaelC my smart Muslim brother Andak. It seems to be the general feeling in many Muslims seems to take a defensive position when "others"(Americans, English, Indian, Japanees etc...) critize any Muslim group or individual no matter their wrongness or possible sin.

We need only look to Saddam Hussein and see this to be true. He is a true and very large sinner in the Laws that I have studied according to Adonai. Yet in still many Muslims in various places of the world tend to jump on his "band-wagon" mostly in defense of a fellow Muslim Brother and a Muslim historical geographical location. Of course some Muslims will not join in and may even condemn him(often they tend not to say anything and more or less turn their heads). What I'm trying to point out is how either dumb, uneducated or aggressive many Muslims can become when "their" geographical people are attacked from outside forces (-other people from different religions or beliefs and mixes.)

Maybe it would be far better if more Muslim nations took collective action in the face of justice against people, groups and tryants that break the Covenants of the L-rd and the doctrines of the Qu'ran even amoungst fellow Muslims? When crimes are commited justice is needed according to G-d. "Courts of Justice are to be Established" as G-d Commands. To see people oppressed in another Muslim nation by such violent means such as Iraq -should not a blind eye turn. Perhaps the United States, Brittain and Australia would not be in Iraq at this moment if the neighboring Muslim nations to Iraq were not to turn that "blind eye" from what was happening to their fellow Muslim brothers and sisters there?

I know Christians and Jews in this world today do not tollerate injutice for long, even within our our own borders, nations and own people. G-d works in mysterious ways.
Let me tell you, I'd be the first Jew to step up and call out for jutice in the face of another Jew not following G-d Laws and societies laws. Don't expect me to give him a break even if a Muslim is judging him for his crime.

Maybe think of yourself as the best tool to help your own people through good education an reverance for the Holy Laws and texts. Be willing to take positive action against other Muslims who offend the Law. I'm done rambling now...! :D

Shalom, D. Abraham

P.S. Thanks Michael, I hope this is little better. ...

andak01

04-04-2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by D.Abraham
Finally a voice of "Reason"! That is funny,....-a hamburger. Now hopefully everyone here will be lighthearted especially Simon on this one.

I quote Simon:

"Again, why the andak's of the world wont take their message to Saudia, Pakistan, Iran instead of lecturing the kufr is not hard to see. The islamic world is largely, if not completely, intolerant. And the freedom that the andaks of the world have in American, Jewish or hindu societies allows them to speak their mind."

Andak I have to agree with Simon that more Muslims need to speak out, question [B]and take action on their own people in more constructive ways. To often Muslims use other peoples of the earth as a painting canvas in which to express their disagreements and "reasons for acting or should I say reacting to what to other societies and religions". And of course many of these reactions are quite extrordinarily aggressive to percieved threats. Personally I have a question in this regard. "Jihadist"(in the term many of us relate these days, not true Jihadist) or fundementalist Muslims that take action, sometimes violently and become categorized as terrorist. Are they not breaking one of G-d's most fundemental Laws of Supreme Justice when they commit suicide and kill others in the process?

You got it! I have listed here and on other boards just some of the tenets of Islam broken by the 9/11 hijackers.

-Suicide
-Killing women and children
-Killing Muslims
-Killing with fire

Add to that what we are told they were doing before.

-Drinking alcohol
-Consorting with prostitutes

What kind of fundamentalists were these?

See Noah's Seven Laws and then later the Ten Commandments. -That is if we believe in the same G-d? Even in the face of claims of defense, such as the defense of claimed innocents in the West Bank or Gaza?

G-d asks us to protect life and cherish life. It is not to be so carelessly wasted. A terrorist that martyrs himself or herself is in essense disrespecting G-d's Holy Commandments, not just one such as murder but also suicide and many others....I don't think they will be visiting Paradise....They never had a chance to repent (formally or informally, even for second) before putting themselves before G-d...Does not compute.

I agree, the only possible excuse for suicide would be in order to save more lives as in a rescue where one might save multiple lives by giving one. I don't see any evidence that this is happening.

Even the soldier in the field, let's say the Israeli or the American for instance, is not in the business of commiting suicide. Suicide is counteractive to their duty(need more soldiers alive) and moral responsiblity as soldiers not counting the individuals moral responsiblity to his or hers beliefs. He seeks to preserve his own life as well as that of his fellow soldier, the people he is defending(nation) and even at his best abilites to the innocents on the enemies side.

History has shown that suicide warfare is rarely effective. But it is hard on the morale of the other side to realize that all combatants will fight to the death.

In this country for instance(U.S.) we no longer tollerate abusers of any religion particularly the religion of Christianity. Are we more evolved? I don't know, but it appears so. If a group like David Coresh or the Aryan Nation decide to take their beliefs a step farther for ANY cause and become violent and disrupt peoples civil and moral rights we(the U.S. people and Government) take immediate and severe action to repremand these "loose-cannons" and create justice.

I would hope so. This should apply to Muslims or any other group that disturbs the peace. But only to those who take part in the disturbance. We still have a free country and free thought and speech are still allowed. If an Irishman is in favor of carbombs, he hasn't broken the law. But when he acts on his beliefs he has. Put him away. Occasionally you won't catch him until it's too late. That's the price of freedom. If you want an end to carbombs completely, you must sacrifice freedoms. I am not in favor of Israel's methods of assassination and bulldozing. For one thing, they don't seem very effective.

More nations, particularly those in the middle east need to go after their Muslim fanatical brothers on their own(with out being forced or lead by other nations ideas) accord and seek jutice by removing these problem people from peaceful society and maybe more importantly, from the religion.

These are valid points from MichaelC my smart Muslim brother Andak. It seems to be the general feeling in many Muslims seems to take a defensive position when "others"(Americans, English, Indian, Japanees etc...) critize any Muslim group or individual no matter their wrongness or possible sin.

We need only look to Saddam Hussein and see this to be true. He is a true and very large sinner in the Laws that I have studied according to Adonai. Yet in still many Muslims in various places of the world tend to jump on his "band-wagon" mostly in defense of a fellow Muslim Brother and a Muslim historical geographical location. Of course some Muslims will not join in and may even condemn him(often they tend not to say anything and more or less turn their heads). What I'm trying to point out is how either dumb, uneducated or aggressive many Muslims can become when "their" geographical people are attacked from outside forces (-other people from different religions or beliefs and mixes.)

Maybe it would be far better if more Muslim nations took collective action in the face of justice against people, groups and tryants that break the Covenants of the L-rd and the doctrines of the Qu'ran even amoungst fellow Muslims? When crimes are commited justice is needed according to G-d. "Courts of Justice are to be Established" as G-d Commands.

I agree, that's why the people of Nigeria and the people of China and the people of North Korea and the people of Columbia and many other places need to demand accountability from their governments.

To see people oppressed in another Muslim nation by such violent means such as Iraq -should not a blind eye turn.

I don't equate my support for inspections and even the threat of military force to turning a blind eye. I realize the term diplomacy is being quickly forgotten, but I would hope we can revive it at some point in the future.

Perhaps the United States, Brittain and Australia would not be in Iraq at this moment if the neighboring Muslim nations to Iraq were not to turn that "blind eye" from what was happening to their fellow Muslim brothers and sisters there?

We could have let Iran take over while we had a chance instead of providing Saddam with his first taste of chemical and biological weapons. Ignoring our history of dealings with Saddam is, I think, turning a blind eye.

I know Christians and Jews in this world today do not tollerate injutice for long, even within our our own borders, nations and own people. G-d works in mysterious ways.

I am watching day after day as we pummel innocent Iraqis and rip them to pieces with our bombs. How antiseptic that we can march our armies around killing thousands of people and still keep our hands clean.

Let me tell you, I'd be the first Jew to step up and call out for jutice in the face of another Jew not following G-d Laws and societies laws. Don't expect me to give him a break even if a Muslim is judging him for his crime.

Good. I hope that I can live up to that same standard.

Maybe think of yourself as the best tool to help your own people through good education an reverance for the Holy Laws and texts. Be willing to take positive action against other Muslims who offend the Law. I'm done rambling now...! :D

No. You said something important. Few here have ever enjoined me to take positive action. It's usually along the lines of going to war against other Muslims or starting a campaign against them. We can't solve all of our problems with guns. There are plenty of positive aspects to life and dwelling on the negative just takes time away from the positive. If we educate our children well and provide a good example through our own actions, the future will take care of itself. If we act as hypocrites, we will give birth to yet another generation of hypocrites.

MichaelC

04-04-2003, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by andak01
You got it! I have listed here and on other boards just some of the tenets of Islam broken by the 9/11 hijackers.

-Suicide
-Killing women and children
-Killing Muslims
-Killing with fire

Add to that what we are told they were doing before.

-Drinking alcohol
-Consorting with prostitutes

What kind of fundamentalists were these?

I agree, the only possible excuse for suicide would be in order to save more lives as in a rescue where one might save multiple lives by giving one. I don't see any evidence that this is happening.

History has shown that suicide warfare is rarely effective. But it is hard on the morale of the other side to realize that all combatants will fight to the death.

I would hope so. This should apply to Muslims or any other group that disturbs the peace. But only to those who take part in the disturbance. We still have a free country and free thought and speech are still allowed. If an Irishman is in favor of carbombs, he hasn't broken the law. But when he acts on his beliefs he has. Put him away. Occasionally you won't catch him until it's too late. That's the price of freedom. If you want an end to carbombs completely, you must sacrifice freedoms. I am not in favor of Israel's methods of assassination and bulldozing. For one thing, they don't seem very effective.

I agree, that's why the people of Nigeria and the people of China and the people of North Korea and the people of Columbia and many other places need to demand accountability from their governments.

I don't equate my support for inspections and even the threat of military force to turning a blind eye. I realize the term diplomacy is being quickly forgotten, but I would hope we can revive it at some point in the future.

We could have let Iran take over while we had a chance instead of providing Saddam with his first taste of chemical and biological weapons. Ignoring our history of dealings with Saddam is, I think, turning a blind eye.

I am watching day after day as we pummel innocent Iraqis and rip them to pieces with our bombs. How antiseptic that we can march our armies around killing thousands of people and still keep our hands clean.

Good. I hope that I can live up to that same standard.

No. You said something important. Few here have ever enjoined me to take positive action. It's usually along the lines of going to war against other Muslims or starting a campaign against them. We can't solve all of our problems with guns. There are plenty of positive aspects to life and dwelling on the negative just takes time away from the positive. If we educate our children well and provide a good example through our own actions, the future will take care of itself. If we act as hypocrites, we will give birth to yet another generation of hypocrites.
For me, one of the saddest claims made by muslims, is that the founder of that religion is considered to be the last prophet. A self serving claim to be sure, and one which precludes any hope for further revelation which could serve to further enlighten those who so desperately need it.

You rail against the concept that anyone, including yourself, should ever do more than come to some Jewish board and pretend that muslims need not take the same message that they bring here, to their own people.

But, as Simon has pointed out over and over, anyone daring to speak the truth to muslims will be killed. Around here, the worst that will happen to you is a dose of disrespect.

It is quite clear that you are not "the one" who possesses the grace or the nerve to go among your fellow religionists and tell them what they need to know. I just hope and pray that there is someone, somewhere who will have the courage to do so, and when he is killed by his fellow muslims, that another will arise to take his place, and when he too is killed, another will arise..........until it begins to take and muslims are no longer compelled to be the very definition of "terrorism".

I know, I know, that is an infuriating statement and you think it entirely unfair and unjust, but as much as you want to refute it, that feeling remains in so very many people and your way of dealing with the issue is useless. It will convince no one.

D.Abraham

04-04-2003, 11:03 PM

Andak,

I like your response. I have few reservations though one being:

You said:

"We could have let Iran take over while we had a chance instead of providing Saddam with his first taste of chemical and biological weapons. Ignoring our history of dealings with Saddam is, I think, turning a blind eye."

Yes, it is true the U.S. government should have payed more attention to the possible side effects of supporting the Iraqi Regime. Lets not forget Iran had U.S. hostages at the time from the embassy. These things are hard to predict. Hopefully we have learned something. But the saying "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" rings true in the case of Iraq. "The hand that feeds the beast or tiger is also the hand that should discipline the beast or put it down."(speaking of course of the government of Iraq and the U.S.) Think of it like pitbull. ..Iraq had it's own choices in deciding it's fate, even in the face of our feeding it "dinner" some time ago. The Kurds were bombed and gased after we had supported the regime and we had know way of deciding how the regime would use those supplied munitions. We turned our eyes in the after effect of the Kurds until more recently. That is sad. But atleast we DO NOT TURN OUR EYE ANYMORE! It can be silly in todays world to compare the motives of the Iraqi regime to that of the motives of the U.S. Government. When a country threatens it's neigbors on five fronts(Iran, Kuwait, Kurds, Saudi Arabia and Israel) does it not tell the story of the freedom of choice the Iraqi regime has had over the years and what they decided to enter for their fate?
It has been well over 150 years since the U.S. has had any conflicts with it's neigbors other than Cuba. And in the case of Cuba we took a defensive posture concerned about our future national security and did not seek to randomly destroy human life or invade to take over Cuba(Plus the USSR had major influence and a role on that situation). Iraq's regime and Saddam had/has a "War-Plan" to someday take over the region and be the leader of the arab world, maybe hoping America would fall by the wayside as the world's only standing "Superpower".

Yes, you can bet the U.S. Government and our citizens DO REGRET our dealings with Saddam and NOW that "Eye" is no longer turned, nor has been in the recent decade. Let's hope we have learned a lesson and furture foreign policy and actions will be more concerning.

You stated:

"I am watching day after day as we pummel innocent Iraqis and rip them to pieces with our bombs. How antiseptic that we can march our armies around killing thousands of people and still keep our hands clean."

Any person that dies in this world due to war is a loss beyond explanation. But we must see that the loss of "human-life" today in Iraq, particularly that of innocents, is or could be far less than future losses of human life of future innocent human beings by turning a blind eye now. That may also not only include many Americans of various faiths and races but many peoples found in or near Iraq now. For example Kuwaiti's, Kurds, Israeli's, Iranians or for that matter Iraqi's. I think our U.S. government and the U.S. people are not willing to wait and see what could happen. Maybe others as well? Are you aware of the truths of Saddams support in the form of large sums of money distributed to the martyrs against Israel and the Zionists? It is true and that alone should be reason for the world to take action on governments that so blatently and brutaly support such "non-Muslims" or Sinners who use the religionas their shield. It does nothing to promote peace, especialy when innocents are so purposely targeted -not by accident!

Atleast the U.S. forces are more concerned about human life(that of the innocent Iraqi's and their own) than that of the Iraqi Regime and terrorist forces. It's about time somebody cares a little?

Shalom, Darin Abraham

andak01

04-05-2003, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by D.Abraham
Yes, it is true the U.S. government should have payed more attention to the possible side effects of supporting the Iraqi Regime. Lets not forget Iran had U.S. hostages at the time from the embassy. These things are hard to predict. Hopefully we have learned something. But the saying "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" rings true in the case of Iraq. "The hand that feeds the beast or tiger is also the hand that should discipline the beast or put it down."(speaking of course of the government of Iraq and the U.S.) Think of it like pitbull. ..Iraq had it's own choices in deciding it's fate, even in the face of our feeding it "dinner" some time ago.

The families of the one million Iranians who lost their lives in the war against Iraq probably have difficulty understanding how much we were afraid for the Iranian revolution to spread to Iraq. Since the Iranian revolution was after all a Shiite revolution and the extent of Shiites is in Iran and Iraq, there is no reason to believe it would have spread further.

The Kurds were bombed and gased after we had supported the regime and we had know way of deciding how the regime would use those supplied munitions.

At least until Saddam began gassing them. Then we knew and we watched while it happened.

We turned our eyes in the after effect of the Kurds until more recently. That is sad.

It's more than sad. It sends a clear message that for all of our talk of humanism, all we care about is oil. The Kurds don't control the oil, Saddam does. The North Koreans don't control oil, Saddam does. The Taliban did control the land under the Unical pipeline, now they are gone. Anyone who gets between us and our oil is history, period.

But atleast we DO NOT TURN OUR EYE ANYMORE! It can be silly in todays world to compare the motives of the Iraqi regime to that of the motives of the U.S. Government.

You're absolutely right, whereas the Saddam regiem is pure evil, the American regiem is merely arrogant and hypocritical. But the people on the ground who lose family members to either are not likely to sing their praises.

When a country threatens it's neigbors on five fronts(Iran, Kuwait, Kurds, Saudi Arabia and Israel) does it not tell the story of the freedom of choice the Iraqi regime has had over the years and what they decided to enter for their fate?

How could they have had such choices if their supply of arms had dried up? Everybody knows who Saddam is, yet we have German architects building bunkers for him and Americans, including Rumsfeld, smiling and shaking his hand.

Iraq's regime and Saddam had/has a "War-Plan" to someday take over the region and be the leader of the arab world, maybe hoping America would fall by the wayside as the world's only standing "Superpower".

What evidence do you have for that one? He would have had to know that after Kuwait, his boundaries were confined.

Yes, you can bet the U.S. Government and our citizens DO REGRET our dealings with Saddam and NOW that "Eye" is no longer turned, nor has been in the recent decade. Let's hope we have learned a lesson and furture foreign policy and actions will be more concerning.

We MUST take into account the desires of the people of Iraq. Imposing any type of government upon them is only going to lead to oppression. If we are insensitive to their needs, we are going to have to remain in occupation forever.

Any person that dies in this world due to war is a loss beyond explanation. But we must see that the loss of "human-life" today in Iraq, particularly that of innocents, is or could be far less than future losses of human life of future innocent human beings by turning a blind eye now. That may also not only include many Americans of various faiths and races but many peoples found in or near Iraq now. For example Kuwaiti's, Kurds, Israeli's, Iranians or for that matter Iraqi's.

If I believed that the threat posed by Iraq was too great to be counteracted by inspections and military buildup around his borders, I would agree with you completely. I didn't and I don't. Though it appears that we are soon going to take Baghdad, the war is hardly over.

I think our U.S. government and the U.S. people are not willing to wait and see what could happen. Maybe others as well? Are you aware of the truths of Saddams support in the form of large sums of money distributed to the martyrs against Israel and the Zionists? It is true and that alone should be reason for the world to take action on governments that so blatently and brutaly support such "non-Muslims" or Sinners who use the religionas their shield. It does nothing to promote peace, especialy when innocents are so purposely targeted -not by accident!

So seize the money and put it to a positive use! Use it to educate Palestinian children to love Israelis. Build schools, publish textbooks! What happened to that money?

At least the U.S. forces are more concerned about human life (that of the innocent Iraqi's and their own) than that of the Iraqi Regime and terrorist forces. It's about time somebody cares a little?

Tell that to the families of the thousand or more Iraqis that have been killed.

http://idaho.indymedia.org/uploads/basramangledgirl.jpg
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20photo%20negatives/2003%20news%20phot%

Tell that to those who have lost their homes.

http://www.ahram.org.eg/Archive/2003/4/3/42486_7M.JPG

Tell that to those who were wounded.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20photo%20negatives/2003%20news%20phot%

It's a pretty tough argument to get those people waving American flags again. We had better be right and we have a debt to those people to prove it and quick. Are we really going to prevent future WMDs and terrorism, or are we going to spend our efforts stealing their oil?

D.Abraham

04-05-2003, 10:41 AM

You call democracy oppression? Do you hate democracy? I do not see how that makes sense. Nobody said it was going to be easy to make it happen, but I believe with G-d as my witness, may he strike me down if I'm wrong that the Iraq people will be doing better in the future. Time will tell my friend.
Let's also see what happens in Afganistan. The people there now seem to be doing fine. They are content enought to move on.

I cannot believe you think this war is for oil. Shame on you. Was the war in Afganistan for oil too? It's about time war and oppression end in Afganistan unfortunately we had to deliver it in a forceful way due to threats to us. G-d's Master plan, perhaps...? Look, only with governments backing such weapons development will terrorist ever be able to gain access to such weapons -they'll never be able to do it on their own. It takes a nation to support it. Unfortunately for Iraq their regime is the worst of the bunch and has been the most aggressive of all our foes in recent history and have already messed up things for themselves by breaking laws left and right in the international community. They chose to take offensive action against their neighbors many years ago. Well now the offense is on them -the regime and it's followers. Let's hope this serves a lesson to other nations that think "they'' will pass such weapons along to these evil groups(terrorists). Maybe in essense, this will serve to prevent further loss of life in addtional wars of this kind on both sides? Iraq in itself was a danger besides the immenent terrorst link threat they posed to us and others. I think you will find you are wrong with oi in mind as time moves on and you will either be in total denial of the truth or will change your opinion. We are taking about the new and gaining threat of mass-murder my friend which your fellow brethren "so-called Muslims" faithful to Adonai kill innocents at their discretion and bidding -now that is evil and G-d will be swift in his Judgment and punishement of their souls to be sure! Americans take NO SH-T from threats like that! Do you understand!!!!? G-d rest the souls of the Iraq troops that were forced to fight the war and G-D bless the Iraqi soldier who fought the war on their own belief that they were protecting their homeland and not Saddam and his followers. May they rest amoungst G-d in peace. Shalom! May their families be blessed also. This is a war, let's not forget that.... lets see what kind of journalism comes out of Iraq when the smoke clears....

Praise Adonai, Amen.
D. Abraham

Am Yisrael

04-05-2003, 11:08 AM

As usual another brilliant post by D. Abraham! Mazel Tov! :)

I think you are totally right in your posts. It comes as no surprise that many people do not support the war on Iraq. The main reason is that people cannot trust the US government. They view the government as a regime similar to previous "greedy" regimes that have dominated the 19th and 20th century. They do not see it as a government totally dedicated to "the people". I myself am very sceptical about this war, although I prefer to see myself as pro-war. Every war that has passed had nothing to do with what THIS war is meant to set out to do. This war is a war to try and solve and bring the middle east into the 21st century (thats what is claimed broadly). If this war does live up to this claim... people will be more supportive to the war.

The reason why I myself am sceptical about this claim is because its such a huge task. Fighting is one part of the war.. but changing a whole region for the better... :eek: . Im sceptical because the US (in fact no-one) has ever tryed such a thing. The reason why I support the war is simple... I am either with it or against it.. and I would prefer to put my trust into a nation with a brilliant history for democracy and tolerance to fight the war, and because of this, I am convinced that the Iraq region will be improved for the better.

andak01

04-05-2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by D.Abraham
You call democracy oppression? Do you hate democracy? I do not see how that makes sense. Nobody said it was going to be easy to make it happen, but I believe with G-d as my witness, may he strike me down if I'm wrong that the Iraq people will be doing better in the future. Time will tell my friend.

I really hope you are right. I have no love for Saddam and everyone will be happy to see him go. My point is, that having to enforce freedom on people through military means rather defeats the purpose. If given the vote, these people would, I believe, opt for a Shiite government, not a western capitalist regiem.

Let's also see what happens in Afganistan. The people there now seem to be doing fine. They are content enough to move on.

The second the American military was perceived to be weakening, there were attacks. And pockets of resistance are still being discovered over a year later. On top of that, we still haven't found Bin Laden. Six thousand Afghanis lost their lives over him.

I cannot believe you think this war is for oil. Shame on you. Was the war in Afganistan for oil too?
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12525
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/oil-j03.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm

Yes. Enron brought the Taliban to Houston and tried to convince them to do business with America. The Unocal pipeline project was endangered by them. They were standing in the way of progress.

It's about time war and oppression end in Afganistan...

I wish you were correct, but the human rights record of the Northern Alliance is dismal.

Look, only with governments backing such weapons development will terrorist ever be able to gain access to such weapons -they'll never be able to do it on their own. It takes a nation to support it. Unfortunately for Iraq their regime is the worst of the bunch and has been the most aggressive of all our foes in recent history...

Aren't you forgetting North Korea?

Maybe in essense, this will serve to prevent further loss of life in addtional wars of this kind on both sides? Iraq in itself was a danger besides the immenent terrorst link threat they posed to us and others. I think you will find you are wrong with oi in mind as time moves on and you will either be in total denial of the truth or will change your opinion.

I would change my opinion if America moved its troops out after ousting Saddam and putting in a democratically appointed government. But we just spent some $50 billion on this war. We've got to get it back somehow. How will we proceed? What do our past actions tell you if you had to make a guess?

We are taking about the new and gaining threat of mass-murder my friend which your fellow brethren "so-called Muslims" faithful to Adonai kill innocents at their discretion and bidding -now that is evil and G-d will be swift in his Judgment and punishement of their souls to be sure!

You are correct. G-d always punishes those who disobey. And I do believe that Saddam is being punished for his own arrogance. None of the arrogant will escape punishment.

Americans take NO SH-T from threats like that! Do you understand!!!!? G-d rest the souls of the Iraq troops that were forced to fight the war and G-D bless the Iraqi soldier who fought the war on their own belief that they were protecting their homeland and not Saddam and his followers. May they rest amoungst G-d in peace. Shalom! May their families be blessed also. This is a war, let's not forget that.... lets see what kind of journalism comes out of Iraq when the smoke clears....

Praise Adonai, Amen.
D. Abraham

G-d is great. Ameen. Peace unto you.

Simon

04-05-2003, 12:15 PM

http://www.satribune.com/archives/feb17_23_03/opinion_bertil.htm

This is the story of the Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and the ethnic minorities of Bangladesh -- a story of slow genocide, a story of violence and betrayal by their own government, a testament of hard-line Islamic politicking designed to minority cleansing, a continuing saga that has played out since 1947 to the present day Bangladesh.

Bangladesh has been a fertile ground for bigoted Islamic idealism for a long time. Especially, since 1975 with the assassination of the country's founding father and altering of the constitution, the Islamic Radicalism has been thrust into the political landscape of the country. With enormous financial help from branded terrorists, outlawed regimes, and proponents of Wahabism such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq, Iran and other renegade terrorist networks.

Since then, hundreds of thousands of young girls and women have been abducted and raped, tens of thousands of minority owned homes and businesses have been looted and razed, hundreds of places of worship have been burnt down all across Bangladesh. Women as old as seventy and girls as young seven have not even been spared of their brunt of rape and terror. Abduction of young girls from homes at gunpoint, gang rape, and forced conversions to Islam have been endemic in Bangladesh.

============================================

Comment by Simon: Bear in mind that as barbaric as it may sound, the para in bold constitute actions sanctioned by mohammad and the koran. The concept of Dar-ul-harb is alive and well.

This is exactly what any minority may expect when living in a neighbourhood/precinct/district/city/state/country where muslims become predominant. When present in numerically inferior numbers, one hears those wonderfully precious few peaceful phrases that andak keeps mouthing. The moment the demographics shifts in the favor of the muslim, we kufr can bet our last cent that we will be killed/raped/brutalized in complete accordance with the koran.

andak01

04-05-2003, 12:55 PM

Prove it!!! Show me in the Qur'an where these acts are sanctioned! Or shut up and stop your lying.

Simon

04-05-2003, 01:09 PM

I have done so repeatedly. That you continue to ignore it is your problem, not mine. As for me, I have no intention of shutting up.

Those days where you muslims could threaten/kill/rape hindus are goine. We fight back now. You and your kind may well be advised to realize that the kufr are just not going to turn the other cheek anymore.

andak01

04-05-2003, 01:13 PM

Show me in the Qur'an where gang rape is sanctioned or stop your lying.

Simon

04-05-2003, 01:17 PM

Its in the koran. Jeez, for one who claims to be well - versed in the koran, you certainly know didly squat.

Simon

04-05-2003, 01:19 PM

From my own post in the Israel-India thread:

The one question to which (very cleverly) andak and his fellow muslims have never offered an answer is this:

Why dont the likes of andak go preach this utter nonsense on the streets of Saudia and Pakistan where it is needed the most? Instead of lecturing the kufr about this hypothetical peaceful islam, go tell your fellow muslims the same. It is sorely needed in teh islamic world. Once you koran-inspired turn peaceful, most of the planets religious conflicts will subside.

Again: PREACH WHERE IT IS NEEDED THE MOST. AMONG YOUR MUSLIMS. NOT AMONG THE JEWS OR CHRISTIANS OR HINDUS.

We all know why? In Saudia, the andaks of the world would be beheaded before they could say the first syllable of merciful.

In Pakistan, they are a little more strict in their interpretation of the koran. You will likely encounter a knife to the throat and may well count yourself lucky, if you are not sodomized before that.

andak01

04-05-2003, 01:20 PM

If you want to fight, you'll need to use the truth as a tool. Lying will only allow you temporary victories. Anyone here can search the Qur'an for the support that you claim it gives to these horrendous acts. They won't find it and your jig will be up. Or I suppose they could be lazy and take your word for it. After all, what do Muslims know about the Qur'an?

andak01

04-05-2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Simon
Its in the koran. Jeez, for one who claims to be well - versed in the koran, you certainly know didly squat.

Ok, then you can show me where the Qur'an sanctions gang rape??? I thought so!

Simon

04-05-2003, 01:23 PM

STILL NO ANSWER:

The one question to which (very cleverly) andak and his fellow muslims have never offered an answer is this:

Why dont the likes of andak go preach this utter nonsense on the streets of Saudia and Pakistan where it is needed the most? Instead of lecturing the kufr about this hypothetical peaceful islam, go tell your fellow muslims the same. It is sorely needed in teh islamic world. Once you koran-inspired turn peaceful, most of the planets religious conflicts will subside.

Again: PREACH WHERE IT IS NEEDED THE MOST. AMONG YOUR MUSLIMS. NOT AMONG THE JEWS OR CHRISTIANS OR HINDUS.

We all know why? In Saudia, the andaks of the world would be beheaded before they could say the first syllable of merciful.

In Pakistan, they are a little more strict in their interpretation of the koran. You will likely encounter a knife to the throat and may well count yourself lucky, if you are not sodomized before that.

Simon

04-05-2003, 01:54 PM

Well, i am glad you agree that you dont know squat about the koran.

SANCTION FOR GANG RAPE: Various verses in the koran expressly allow muslims to use for purposes of sex women folk of those vanquished in battle. While such atrocities against women are common, only the religion islam sanctions it.

=============================================

other stuff:

http://www.christiandemocratic.org.au/fed/mr/021030a.asp

â€œThis is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and his messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: They shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall be struck off, or they shall be banished from the land.â€ Koran 105:35

â€œ..and a thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from Allah: Allah is All-mighty, All-wise.â€ Koran 106:44

â€œOh believers, take not the Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. Allah guides not the people of the evildoers.â€ Koran 108:55

â€œFight them , till there is no persecution and religion is Allahâ€™s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do; but if they turn away, know that Allah is your protector â€“ an excellent protector, an excellent helper!

Know that, whatever booty you take, the fifth of it is Allahâ€™s, and the Messengerâ€™s, and the near kinsmanâ€™s, and the orphansâ€™, and for the needy, and the travellerâ€¦â€ Koran 173:40

â€œIt is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter in the landâ€ Koran 177:69

â€œThen when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way..â€ Koran 179:5

â€œThe Christians say, â€˜the Messiah is the Son of God.â€™ That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. Allah assail them! How they are perverted!â€ Koran 182:30

==============================================

OP-ED

http://www.theosuobserver.com/news/322217.html

Also read Islam unveiled, by Robert Spencer

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/js20021129.shtml

==============================================

http://www.webspawner.com/users/islamforf/

THE NATURE OF ISLAM FRIEND OR FOE ?

==============================================

The glorious deeds of andaks fellow muslims in Afghanistan

http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/handcut3.htm

==============================================

Al Sina is a (former?) muslim who discovered the shocking brutality of the koran and has devoted his life to exposing it

http://rationalthinking.humanists.net/wean_from_islam.htm
From Belief to Enlightenment
How to Wean Muslims From Islam

http://rationalthinking.humanists.net/origin_of_faith.htm
Why Rational People Have Irrational Beliefs.

http://rationalthinking.humanists.net/freethinkers_of_islam.htm
Freethinkers of Islam

http://rationalthinking.humanists.net/lies_vs_hate.htm
Lies vs. Hate

http://rationalthinking.humanists.net/gallery.htm

http://rationalthinking.humanists.net/violent_islam.htm

More links at http://rationalthinking.humanists.net/articles.htm

==============================================

The widespread destruction of hindu temples by the followers of mohammad and allah

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/htemples1/

HINDU TEMPLES
WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM

==============================================

Other assorted sites:

http://www.secularislam.org/articles/call.htm

http://nowscape.com/islam/islam.htm

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0302/201.html (violent verses cited here)

Simon

04-05-2003, 01:56 PM

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5676
Rape in Islam: Blaming the Victim

(Andak01) Muslim Disinformation Campaign
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5502

Other articles here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=1240

http://www.nrbookservice.com/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=C6008

http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher092302.asp

andak01

04-05-2003, 03:14 PM

Let's start with this one liar.
http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
http://www.bartleby.com/65/qu/Quran.html
The internal organization of the Qurâ€™an is somewhat ad hoc. Revelations consisted of verses (ayat) grouped into 114 chapters (suras).

THERE IS NOT SURAH 177 LIAR
â€œIt is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter in the landâ€ Koran 177:69

THERE IS NOT A SURAH 182, LIAR
â€œThe Christians say, â€˜the Messiah is the Son of God.â€™ That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. Allah assail them! How they are perverted!â€ Koran 182:30

THERE IS NOT A SURAH 173, IGNORANT LIAR
Know that, whatever booty you take, the fifth of it is Allahâ€™s, and the Messengerâ€™s, and the near kinsmanâ€™s, and the orphansâ€™, and for the needy, and the travellerâ€¦â€ Koran 173:40

THERE IS NOT A SURAH 179, IGNORANT BIGOTTED LIAR
â€œThen when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way..â€ Koran 179:5

andak01

04-05-2003, 03:27 PM

I am sorry to be so blunt, but having to deal with someone who claims I don't know what I'm talking about and then goes on to quote from verses of the Qur'an that don't even exist burns me.

andak01

04-05-2003, 03:31 PM

I'm saving the quote below just so you can't edit out your lies. For those who missed it, there are 114 Surahs in the Qur'an, not 182. You can look it up anywhere.

Originally posted by Simon
[B]Well, i am glad you agree that you dont know squat about the koran.

SANCTION FOR GANG RAPE: Various verses in the koran expressly allow muslims to use for purposes of sex women folk of those vanquished in battle. While such atrocities against women are common, only the religion islam sanctions it.

=============================================

other stuff:

http://www.christiandemocratic.org.au/fed/mr/021030a.asp

â€œThis is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and his messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: They shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall be struck off, or they shall be banished from the land.â€ Koran 105:35

â€œ..and a thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from Allah: Allah is All-mighty, All-wise.â€ Koran 106:44

â€œOh believers, take not the Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. Allah guides not the people of the evildoers.â€ Koran 108:55

â€œFight them , till there is no persecution and religion is Allahâ€™s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do; but if they turn away, know that Allah is your protector â€“ an excellent protector, an excellent helper!

Know that, whatever booty you take, the fifth of it is Allahâ€™s, and the Messengerâ€™s, and the near kinsmanâ€™s, and the orphansâ€™, and for the needy, and the travellerâ€¦â€ Koran 173:40

â€œIt is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter in the landâ€ Koran 177:69

â€œThen when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way..â€ Koran 179:5

â€œThe Christians say, â€˜the Messiah is the Son of God.â€™ That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. Allah assail them! How they are perverted!â€ Koran 182:30

Revkha

04-05-2003, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by andak01
My point is, that having to enforce freedom on people through military means rather defeats the purpose. .

These people live in a repressive regime where opportunity and means to protest much less overthrow is non-existent. The freedom that the people will experience will allow them to explore and make decisions about their government. As a Muslim you must want opportunity and freedom for the Arabs in the Middle East. Enlightenment is an essential element in the world today. How will the Arabs ever find enlightenment in such controlled environments. I hope the regime change in Iraq provides the stimulus for eventual change to more open societies in the Middle East. Look what Israel has accomplished with an open society.
Let's give it a chance to work. It is far too early for regime postmortem review and analysis.

Simon

04-05-2003, 04:23 PM

Andak: Forgive me for being so blunt.

Those verses that posted all come with the urls from which i got them.

Those are hardly my quotes.

There were literally hundreds of verses quoted from the koran among the sites i posted.[deleted]

All you can do is claim (just claim, mind you - not prove beyond doubt) that a couple dont exist.

And why should i believe any of your sites . Afterall, deception and denial is quite readily practised in the islamic world,

After all this time, you still refrain from answering every fundamental question I have raised.

By hook or by crook, you justify the acts of muslims. Every act of condemnation is followed by a but...

As i said before, we hindus are learning to hit back and not just in equal measure. But the doctrine of massive retaliation.

As you found out in Gujarat after murdering 59 hindus.

I will be here as long as you are here, justifying islam and the terrorism that spouts from it.

Simon

04-05-2003, 04:27 PM

And by the way, forgive me for being so blunt, i have never edited a post to delete something that i did not believe was true in the first place.

If i do want to change something, except perhaps typos, i will add it later clearly stating so, pardon me for being so blunt.

I did it for you - M

andak01

04-05-2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Simon
Andak: Forgive me for being so blunt.

Those verses that posted all come with the urls from which i got them.

Those are hardly my quotes.

And the ones that I pointed out aren't even from the Qur'an. I will deal with the ones that are separately.

There were literally hundreds of verses quoted from the koran among the sites i posted, you moronic, ADD islamic pig, Pardon me for being blunt.

Yes. Edited, taken out of context, mistranslated, and in the case of the ones I mentioned, INVENTED. How about you do a little research before you tell me what's in the Qur'an?

All you can do is claim (just claim, mind you - not prove beyond doubt) that a couple dont exist.

No. They don't exist and you are a liar.

And why[b] should i believe any of your sites . Afterall, deception and denial is quite readily practised in the islamic world,

You mean like the Columbia Encyclopedia where I got my quote about 114 Surahs?

After all this time, you still refrain from answering every fundamental question I have raised.

Why don't I go to Saudi Arabia? Inshallah I will someday, and there is not one word I have told you that I would hesitate to say to the strictest Wahhabbi.

By hook or by crook, you justify the acts of muslims. Every act of condemnation is followed by a but...

I haven't justified anything. I have simply proven that you don't know how many Surahs there are. That's a pretty big deal for someone who claims to know more about Islam than Muslims.

As i said before, we hindus are learning to hit back and not just in equal measure. But the doctrine of massive retaliation.

As you found out in Gujarat after murdering 59 hindus.

I will be here as long as you are here, justifying islam and the terrorism that spouts from it.

I am at a distinct disadvantage, for I constrict myself to the truth.

andak01

04-05-2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Am Yisrael
The reason why I myself am sceptical about this claim is because its such a huge task. Fighting is one part of the war.. but changing a whole region for the better... :eek: . Im sceptical because the US (in fact no-one) has ever tryed such a thing. The reason why I support the war is simple... I am either with it or against it.. and I would prefer to put my trust into a nation with a brilliant history for democracy and tolerance to fight the war, and because of this, I am convinced that the Iraq region will be improved for the better.

If you are right, I would have to say that you have good reason to back the war. If not, not. I am too sceptical of the motives of my government to back this war. It's still my government and I plan to exercise my democratic right to vote Bush out of office in the next election. But that's it. Despite the rantings of a couple of people on this board, I refuse to see this as a Crusade against Islam, and I look forward to a future of mutual understanding and increased openess. My prayers are for the safety of the Iraqis and for our own troops. I hope that they all do what is best for the most people of the world.

D.Abraham

04-05-2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by andak01
I really hope you are right. I have no love for Saddam and everyone will be happy to see him go. My point is, that having to enforce freedom on people through military means rather defeats the purpose. If given the vote, these people would, I believe, opt for a Shiite government, not a western capitalist regime.

Let's pray that this is what G-d Wills and we wish to see happen and people wish it to be so and take action for it to be so it will come to pass and happen! Let's only pray that when conflict arises and war is commenced that lives lost are minimized and targeted only at those that pose a threat to the otherside.
G-d expects us all to play an active role in His plan and our own lives. Maybe all the Wars will come to fade away into history when the enemies of G-d no longer exist?

Originally posted by andak01
The second the American military was perceived to be weakening, there were attacks. And pockets of resistance are still being discovered over a year later. On top of that, we still haven't found Bin Laden. Six thousand Afghanis lost their lives over him.

-Andak sad and very true, but perhaps it is like the Iraq campaign. Many of those people made a choice too. Bin Laden may have already lost. Even if Saddam has survived and we do not capture him lets be rejoyceful not in his defeat as G-d commands us not to be, but lets rejoice in his abscence and the future for the Iraqi people. The birthplace of civilization and the lands of Babylon have come to pass and could be the catalyst and the crux of positive change in the Middle East no matter how slow the change may be in time. Let's pray it happens mostly without bloodshed. -Or without any bloodshed .

Originally posted by andak01
Yes. Enron brought the Taliban to Houston and tried to convince them to do business with America. The Unocal pipeline project was endangered by them. They were standing in the way of progress.

That is simply explained by "normal" business and the private sector venture -not by the will of the U.S people as a whole nor for that matter the voted on goals of the U.S. government representing us. Though Enron had it's own problems, and atleast justice prevailed and rooted them out. G-d willing. Capitalism just like anything in life will have it's faults and evil doers. We must root them out whenever possible. Let's pray for justice.

Originally posted by andak01
I wish you were correct, but the human rights record of the Northern Alliance is dismal.

Yes, but you see the example should be set. All the Northern Alliance needs to do is look to America who gave them this opportunity for a "good" future and not abuse it's benefits for there own sake. Otherwise they could also become targets in the future if they go the wrong route.

Originally posted by andak01
[QUOTE] Aren't you forgetting North Korea?[/QUOTE ]

No sir. Matter of fact they are brutal and aggressive but the U.S. does not have a viable "excuse" or law binding reason to go in and change things there. That would definitely be a form of imperialism or aggressive and injust tactics on the part of the U.S.. If you thought the U.S looks bad now, wait and see what the world would think of us if we went into N. Korea...Geeze! Maybe they should break some laws in the international forum and could be subject to this kind of action...hummmm(kidding) Let's hope it is aslow peaceful change through attitudes for brighter future for N. Korea. Plus North Korea is not quite as associated to the Middle East and it's terrorist rings -yet. That could change and N. Korea does not seem to be afraid to export and sell things to whom they see fit. But, atleast now there is one less card to blaim in the mix. Now likely only two nations could or would provide such weapons of mass-destruction to terrorists. Our odds of guessing who it is or was and intelligence gathering would be far easier for projecting a retaliatory target. Was it N. Korea or Iran? Maybe slight chance -Pakistan.(not likely though) The only other danger is the "blackmarket" in the former USSR and that would be something in the form of a dirty bomb. Let's pray that doesn't happen ever. Why do countries seek these weapons in todays world? There is no point. The U.S. is responsible with it's arsenal of these powerful weapons of mass destruction plus things within our borders are stable.
We, the U.S., maybe will be the destroyers of these weapons in the future including our own. To be put to rest for good! We will keep our eye on North Korea to be certain. Hopefully the rest of the world including China does as well.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by andak01
I would change my opinion if America moved its troops out after ousting Saddam and putting in a democratically appointed government. But we just spent some $50 billion on this war. We've got to get it back somehow. How will we proceed? What do our past actions tell you if you had to make a guess?

The benefits of doing what we have done and our doing far outweighs the financial losses and gains in the "here and now". I'm sure that by being just and seeking peace the rewards will be tremendous in time, maybe even financially. Yes, I would expect that some independent private U.S. companies to benefit but this will be a gain to the Iraq people as well. As well as other nations. The Iraqi people will have jobs and high postions too. Not to mention, they will likely have ownership and control over their resources and businesses. It's good to have checks-and-balances, let's be sure our leaders follow through with their words, if not we will re-elect em'! Plus, aren't we the U.S used to being indebt? Oh, and we could still sell them Microsoft, if they wanted it?! think of the great example both Afganistan and Iraq would make if their divided factions of people and ethinicites found a way to peace, prosperity, justice and tolerance for their neighbors and themselves????

Originally posted by andak01
You are correct. G-d always punishes those who disobey. And I do believe that Saddam is being punished for his own arrogance. None of the arrogant will escape punishment.

Yes, He surpassed arrogance, he went above G-d. I feel sort of sorry for him now. I hope I'm not being arrogant? :eek: Yikes! ;)

Originally posted by andak01
G-d is great. Amen. Peace unto you.

"We therefore bow in awe and thanksgiving before the One who is Sovereign over all, the Holy One, blessed be He."
-pg. 615 Gates of Prayer, The New Union Prayer Book . Central Conference of American Rabbis 5735 New York 1975

Peace to you Andak too.

P.S. I still haven't figured this qouting thing out, can somebody help me?

MichaelC

04-05-2003, 09:02 PM

andak01

04-06-2003, 12:57 PM

Wow! Surprise! Another one of your quotes proves ficticious! Surah 105 only contains 5 verses.
http://www.ishwar.com/holy_quran/sura105.html

â€œThis is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and his messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: They shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall be struck off, or they shall be banished from the land.â€ Koran 105:35

Let me help you out a little. There is a similar verse. It is surrounded on one side by a validation of something mentioned in the Torah, namely that killing innocent people is one of the gravest of sins. And on the other side by a promise of mercy even for those who wage war against Allah and later repent of it.

Further, the punishments given to those who don't repent at all are options, one of which is exile. Or for those who repent, no punishment at all.

5:32
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

5:33
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

5:34
Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

andak01

04-06-2003, 01:14 PM

Batting 1000! Surah 106 only contains 4 verses, not 44.
http://www.ishwar.com/holy_quran/sura106.html

â€œ..and a thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from Allah: Allah is All-mighty, All-wise.â€ Koran 106:44

Sharia law demands four witnesses to theft. Further, theft for reason of hunger or theft of food is not punished. The thief is not held in prison and subjected to possible rape or murder there. The thief is released following punishment. Whereas we have a high percentage of thieves that are punished as well as a high rate of theft, theft is almost non-existant in Saudi Arabia. I have heard from non-Muslim friends that have travelled there that shops are left unlocked at night. Some people have even dropped money by accident in the street and come back the next day to find it. In Saudi Arabia, one hand is taken if the required witnesses are produced. This is done with anesthesia by a surgeon.

5:38
As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.

5:39
But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

D.Abraham

04-06-2003, 02:22 PM

Dear Simon,

You stated earlier:

"However, the burden of a 150 million murderous and treasonous muslims (the odd exception merely proving the rule) has proved too much for India."

Maybe he is one of these exceptions? Let's not make another enemy in the world ok.? Have a little compassion on Andak, he seems to be trying to find common ground whilest at the same time he is literally learning and reviewing his faiths principles and texts. Maybe this is good? Maybe it is good you are both arguing. But I hope you find some common ground. -G-d willing.

I think it is good to question and to pose ideas that might point out truth or eleviate confusion, misunderstanding and especially Hate.

Maybe Andak will learn something to take to his family and his religious brothers and sisters to give new perspective? As long as we hate one another for whatever reasons, you can be certain there will NEVER be Peace in G-d's sight. Especially between good people.

Maybe, Andak you need to stop calling him names so directly like "liar" even if Simon calls you a name. Be the stronger person and do not follow suit. Just an idea? Point out his mistake if you see it as such or know it as such.....

You guys are funny though..... :D

:) Shalom, D. Abraham

andak01

04-07-2003, 02:00 AM

It isn't a name to call someone who makes up verses of scripture a liar. If he would have presented the same verses with a question and asked if they existed, it would be one thing. But, as you are aware, he presented them as an attack on Islam and upon my own truthfulness and knowledge.

I seriously doubt if you would be so forgiving of similar attacks against your own religion. I have more respect than to test that theory.

Simon

04-07-2003, 06:11 AM

Andak: So far you've proven nothing.

THe acts of your fellow muslims provide the strongest clues about the true nature of islam.

I can get many quotes from many sites on the internet that list the violence that islam contains.

That is no more or no less credible than the garbage that you post.

That you are a apolgist for terrorism, i have no doubt.

I believe you would have found an excuse for Mengele too, given half a chance and justified it on the basis of the koran.

For a person so interested in peace, you seem to completely ignore the source of the hatred and violence.

Which is the ISLAMIC WORLD!

There is no mention by you and no research done by you on the hatred inculcated by the Saudis for generations now. Around the globe preaching hatred for the Jew, christian and the kufr. Of course, what do the saudis know about islam, right?

You ignore the acts of preaching hatred by countries like iran, iraq, pakistan, libya, syria, bangladesh, egypt, jordan, indonesia among many others.

No matter what the West may have done or may do, these terrorists or jehadis would have killed, murdered, raped in the finest tradition of mohammad because that is what is taught to them. And it is taught to be correct than none other than the Saudis or the Pakistanis or the Iranians or the Egyptians.

Instead of doing anything to curb this hatred, you waste precious band-width quoting using garbage from an equally useless book.

If peace is what you are really interested in, then tell it to your fellow muslims. Why did you not challenge the policies of the Saudis for the last 50 yrs when they have gone around preaching islam and hatred not just within their borders but world-wide, spending billions in the last ten yrs alone?

Why do you not organise efforts to battle the madrassahs of Pakistan from whence had poured virtually every terrorist act in the last two decades?

Why not fight the mullahs in Iran? Or the hatred spread by the Egyptian govt and its controlled media?

What have you done to expose the nexus between the pakistani military, its intelligence agencies, the taliban and al-qaeda?

What have you done to denounce them?

By the way, from your post, it seems that you have NOT YET MADE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN TO THE RICHEST WAHHABBI. Why not? Scared? Better get some hand-lotion. You know those Saudis? Never an arse that they did not like?

Simon

04-07-2003, 06:28 AM

Another reason for the general islamic hatred of non-muslims comes from sheer jealousy and envy. I think most of them at some level realize that if not for oil, not one civilized person would even bother talking to them. They have created nothing and achieved nothing. What precious few baubles they have were either natural (oil) or stolen.

The article below (i cant find the URL) was (amazingly enough) written by a paki.

After you read the article, sub Israel for India and Pakistan for any of Israel's islamic neighbours and you will find it reads the same.

What these followers of allah cannot understand is that their philosophy of hatred, at least derived from islam if not directed by islam, will leave them to the dustbins of history.

Sooner or later will come a time, when the oil runs out and out will come the begging bowls (just look at pakistan and egypt who have received billions of $$). Increasing the rest of the world will be disgusted by islam and muslims and i think there will be a rising demand to isolate the civilized world from islam and its murderous followers.

The source is TFT, which i think is "The Friday Times", a pakistani publication.

==============================================
Farrukh Saleem in TFT :

"WHAT IS AMERICAâ€™S INTEREST IN THE SUB-CONTINENT?

Let us first look at India. Mumbai is now home to at least three dozen American companies including Kodak, Heinz, Monsanto, Warner Bros, Federal Express, Bank of America, Bankers Trust, Parke Davis, Intel, JP Morgan, Kellogg, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, American Intâ€™l Group, Exxon-Mobil, Delta and Boston Consulting.

Delhi has AT&T, GE, General Motors, Oracle, Pepsi, Unocal, Xerox, Lockheed, Raytheon, Rockwell, Honeywell, Adobe, AES, Alcoa, American Express, Northrop, McKinsey, Amway, Polaroid and Coca Cola. Bangalore has Caterpillar, Dell, Sun, Texas Instruments, NCR, Hewlett Packard, Motorola, Lucent, IBM, Novell, Ingersoll-Rand, American Data and MetLife. Hyderabad has Microsoft, Cognizant, Chip Engines and Brigade. Chennai has Ford, Caltex, Tenneco, Covansys, Diebold, Citibank, Ernst & Young and Price Waterhouse.

A large majority of US corporate giants are now dependent on Tata Consultancy, Infosys Technologies, Wipro, Satyam Computer Services, HCL Technologies, Patni Computer Systems, Silverline Technologies, Mahindra, Pentasoft, Mascot, Mascom, Mastek, Polaris, L&T and Hexaware (all Indian software giants).

Almost all large US companies now use Indian software giants to do their inventory control, customer service, technical support, insurance claims processing, mortgage processing, document management, bank reconciliation, check processing, credit card processing, inventory management, transport administration, billing services, account payables, payroll services, data analysis or data management. Indian IT companies, in return, earn India a handsome $10 billion a year which is projected to double in the next few years.

Hereâ€™s a list of major US entities that have, over the past decade, become dependent on Tata Consultancy: Alcoa, American Express, AIG, AT&T, Boeing, Citibank, Compaq, IBM, JC Penney, Kellogg, Lucent, Microsoft, Nike, Northwest Airlines, Schlumberger, Dell Computer, Ford Motor, Hewlett Packard, US Dept of Defense, EMC, Merrill Lynch, State of Pennsylvania, Texas Instruments and Unocal.

Hereâ€™s a list of US companies that are now dependent on Wipro: General Motors, Xerox, Sun, Cisco, NCR, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Farmers Insurance, Seagate and Home Depot.

Bill Gates, Microsoftâ€™s chairman, during his recent Indian tour announced that his company would be investing an additional US$400 million to â€œexpand its activities and promote technology development in India.â€ Oracle, the worldâ€™s second largest software company, is planning on doubling its Indian operations. The announced expansion plans will create extra 1,800 jobs. Oracle currently employs a staff of some 2,000 in India.

What are our goals and what is Americaâ€™s interest in Pakistan?

Our armed forces live for Kashmir. So do our religious parties. The defense budget (including pensions) stands at Rs180 billion; nearly 6% of our GDP. All the jihadi organisations put together collect an additional Rs70 billion a year for the same cause. The total is a wholesome 8% of our GDP.

There have only been a handful of countries on the face of the planet that used to spend as high a percentage of their GDP on defense as does Pakistan. The list includes Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Mozambique, Somalia and Yemen. Yugoslavia is no more. Split into Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia and Serbia & Montenegro. The Soviet Union is no more. Split into at least 15 pieces that few even bother to count: Russian Federation, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The conclusion being that almost every country that has been spending a disproportionately large portion of its GDP on defence has either split up, is in a state of civil war or is economically insolvent.

Our military government is now engaged in a dicey double-dance, appeasing the Americans on the international front and using the mullahs on the domestic front. Internal policy is all about derailing democracy and splitting up democratic forces. External policy is nothing but India-centric.

The khakis and the mullahs both have an identical view of national identity and that of national security. Both oppose the establishment of a constitutional democracy and are against the idea of sovereignty belonging to the people of Pakistan. Both are in favour of curbing fundamental freedoms of the citizens of Pakistan. Both use Islam and India to distract the population from real issues. Their common enemy outside of Pakistan is India. Their common enemies within Pakistan are the mainstream, moderate political entities. In 1947, Deobandi lashkars attacked Kashmir. In 1971, Al Badar and Al Shams fought the Mukhti Bahni alongside 22 Baluch, 32 Punjab, 22 FF, 29 Cavalry and platoons of SSG. In the 1990s, the religious parties provided pretexts to the overthrowing of both Nawaz and Benazir. JUI madaris have been and continue to be recruiting grounds for jihad on the Western as well as our Eastern borders.

On March 31, US Secretary of State Colin Powell, in an interview to the New York Times, said that the â€œIndo-Pakistan and the whole subcontinent problemâ€ was part of the â€œbroader agendaâ€ that the US plans to go back to after Iraq.

America now needs India to grow. Top American companies have all set up their back-offices (inventory management, payroll, etc.) in India. India, in return, has accumulated US$70 billion in foreign exchange reserves. Pakistan produces nothing that can help America grow. We possess nothing that could be of value to American companies. The new faÃ§ade we have now erected is just too transparent. Our goals do not overlap Americaâ€™s. Americaâ€™s real interest in Pakistan, as a consequence, is that we do not become a rouge state and that we do not become an agent of instability in the region. No more, no less.

==============================================

andak01

04-07-2003, 01:22 PM

Simon,

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=48767#post48767

Your original contention was that the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad endorsed gang rape among other things. I asked you to prove it. Your response was a list of ficticious quotes. I haven't finished dealing with your previous misquotes.

You say that you have plenty of quotes from the Qur'an that prove everything you are saying. Hint, the Qur'an has 114 Surahs.

Does it matter what the Qur'an says? Yes. Your own original argument from the start of this thread was that the Qur'an contains violent quotes that tell Muslims to go out and kill innocent people. There are no such verses. The 'WORST' thing you can find is an endorsement to 'fight the good fight' when faced with people who actively attack Islam and then only until they cease to attack. The concept of Dar al Harb is nowhere introduced in the Qur'an.

The irony here is that people who claim that Muslims are only out after world hegemony also like to point out the practice of Dimmitude. But these two concepts are mutually exclusive. If we are taught to kill all the infidels, why bother to tax them? Anyone who can be taxed is also under the control of the military, right? But in fact we see instances throughout the world of Muslims and non-Muslims living together for centuries. In fact, Jewish culture achieved some of its highest levels in Moorish Spain. What we should be asking ourselves is why things have gotten worse in the past century.

andak01

04-07-2003, 01:54 PM

D. Abraham,

I would like to refer back to one of your posts where you mention principles of faith. How many of those do Muslims agree on?

G-d exists
Check.

G-d is one and unique
Check.

G-d is incorporeal
We would say not anthropomorphic. God has a body that befits his majesty. We don't really concern ourselves with how it is manifested for it is beyond our conception. That isn't exactly incorporeal, but it borders on it.

G-d is eternal
Absolutely.

Prayer is to be directed to G-d alone and to no other
100% true. Not to do so is to commit a very grave sin known as Shirk.

The words of the prophets are true
Absolutely. Obviously, we include Prophets Jesus (SAW) and Muhammad (SAW) where you do not. Abraham (SAW) and Moses (SAW) are both mentioned more in the Qur'an than Muhammad (SAW).

Moses's prophecies are true, and Moses was the greatest of the prophets
We don't agree he we THE greatest, but certainly very high on the list. I would also go so far as to say Jesus is accorded greater stature than Moses.

The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses
By G_d. This is where we may differ the most. For although we both believe that the Torah was revealed by G_d, Muslims do not believe that the Torah in its present form is equivalent to the original revelations. However, Muslims do study the Torah and the Bible.

There will be no other Torah
Absolutely.

G-d knows the thoughts and deeds of men
Yes. And we know only of Him what is permitted to us. This knowledge is a blessing in itself.

G-d will reward the good and punish the wicked
Absolutely.

The Messiah will come
Absolutely.

The dead will be resurrected
Absolutely.

I don't know if you knew these parallels already or if it comes as a surprise. This forum is the first place I have encountered these tenets. Thanks for sharing that.

Mediocrates

04-07-2003, 04:38 PM

There is a key difference and one which frames the entirety of the relationship.

Islam (& Christianity) is universalist and triumphalist at its foundation. Judaism is not.

Islam & Christianity are based profoundly that they are the final word, the last utterance and only true expression of God. It is a triumphalist belief. And this is what forms at the core the friction between themselves and that which is not them. Either by missionaries or by the sword or the womb, each believes it is their sacred and directed duty to expand to the limits of their world. Judaism and other religions (that I know of...) accept that it is possible to worship in other ways. This is what forms the practice of not proselytizing and of turning away converts. It also is what creates the ethic of honoring the Goy who lives among Jews and is respectful of Jewish belief, above all others.

To be sure though it's not about doubt, it's about tolerance.

D.Abraham

04-07-2003, 11:02 PM

Mediocrates,

G-d Bless, G-d Bless, G-d Bless, Diyanu! Very good, very well chosen words and very well said. Perhaps this is why the two religions give birth from Judaism and it's heritage?

This is what you said, I quote:

-"Islam & Christianity are based profoundly that they are the final word, the last utterance and only true expression of G-d. It is a triumphalist belief. And this is what forms at the core the friction between themselves and that which is not them. Either by missionaries or by the sword or the womb, each believes it is their sacred and directed duty to expand to the limits of their world. Judaism and other religions (that I know of...) accept that it is possible to worship in other ways. This is what forms the practice of not proselytizing and of turning away converts. It also is what creates the ethic of honoring the Goy who lives among Jews and is respectful of Jewish belief, above all others.

To be sure though it's not about doubt, it's about tolerance. "

How true and resounding it is! Amen!!!
Not forcing converts also....Keeping an open mind to the Wills of
G-d. Jews tend to be open arms to converts but also explain their many required tough obligations, even amoungst reformers.
Tolerance,... much fitting into the definitions of a "true democracy" too.

Andak,

Very well cited and noted commonalities that bind our common faiths if practiced in Their goodness.

Your following passage:

"The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses
By G_d. This is where we may differ the most. For although we both believe that the Torah was revealed by G_d, Muslims do not believe that the Torah in its present form is equivalent to the original revelations. However, Muslims do study the Torah and the Bible.

-Though one must realize Moses and the Israelite Hebrews brought fourth from bondage in Egypt were the only mass-holywitnesses to the Holy Almighty Yahaweh in such awesome closeness. Even to much so. It is said the Hebrew people had a very difficult time being so close during the 40 years in the Sinai desert. If it were not for His showing Himself to us as a whole People, protecting us, providing for us, and most importantly giving us and the world to come The Law I wonder where we all would be today? They, as a collective, Witnessed Him and we continue to witness Him today in our passing this heritage on. The Law is so "non-human" in it's wording, so pure and commanding to a person of His Faiths (even perhaps to some outside-believers or agnostics) that one cannot deny it's aweing commands directed at people and not by people. Truly from the One, Adonai to be sure. To deny or except Moses in a non-totality or proximity and relation with G-d is to possibly deny that G-d ever existed or does exist. It was this event that saved Him possibly, - G-d's human acknowledgement and our respect for His Everlasting Existence, Laws, Compassion, Mercy and Power. Without this event, He may have destroyed us all by now through the shame of His Creation on earth and the freedom He gives us(human beings) to choose to live by. Or we may have simply ignored His being into the forseable future....?? It is a complex plan.

Some of the Hebrews such as Abraham and his sons that came before the Prophet Moses and the Hebrew slaves were strong believers in the One, but the Faith in the One was almost lost during the many years of oppression, slavery and abuse in the land of Egypt of Abrahams decendents. It was perhaps this "clinging" to Him in our humility and need that G-d so masterfully planned to choose and use the Hebrews in Egypt to be his Holy People and Holy Wintnesses? Due to G-d's Miracles and His Compassion for the pleading cries and affliction of the Hebrews during that time He did answer and He changed history and the world forever. Humility is the only way to approach G-d. We can all be His holy witnesses, today and in the future. Let's hope and pray. Amen

One other quote from you:
"Moses's prophecies are true, and Moses was the greatest of the prophets
We don't agree he we THE greatest, but certainly very high on the list. I would also go so far as to say Jesus is accorded greater stature than Moses."

I will only trust G-d to tell me who the greater prophet in His plan is.(If ever He tells me... or us) I only accept that which is said to be the word of G-d in the Torah as being deserving the highest of ratings. Honor for the Forefathers and ancestors, -certainly. As men ,(not as G-d's or something deserving as such) Moses is most high by G-d's choosings to be sure. But who is to say if Moses or Abraham or Jesus or Muhammed for that matter is more deserving as the choosen Men of the L-rd? Only Hashem truly knows who is deserving of that mark and can tell us.....or not..... A "top Ten" list isn't needed. Only their remembering and teachings.

Hey, all you believers out there, Passover is coming....The Heritage and passing of our beliefs in the One Eternal is upon us this season. -Jew, Christian, Muslim, Agnostic and other.....Goyim's ;)

Shalom, D. Abraham
P.S. Andak, I'm sure glad you and other Muslims study the Torah..always study harder...we all need to! More importanly -lets practice what we learn....

andak01

04-09-2003, 03:20 AM

The problem with the way some people interpret triumphalism is they see it as a triumphalism of their religion or themselves. Then they fall prey to vanity or arrogance. Religion itself is a servant of the Great One. End the end only He can triumph. We triumph through our own submission, not through military victories.

D.Abraham

04-09-2003, 07:58 AM

Andak,

I don't think you understood his point. What he means by "triumphinalism" is the fact one when one religion of G-d claims to be the final dictate of His Word and the ONLY one to follow. Take for example Christians that claim if you are not a true believer in the Lord Christ as your savior then you may or may not not be saved in the Armeggeddon. Or Muslims who do not recognize the other two religions of G-d as full & corrrect paths to savior, shelter and the right way to G-d's grace.

Let's not foget Andak, the Hebrews and their G-d brought fourth the L-ord into the later Muhammed and Christ's followers midsts. Christ was a Jew himself. To disrespect "His Chosen People" is to fundamentally disregard Who He Is and why He showed Himself to the Hebrews and in so following, the world. Or He may have been forgotten for all future generations.

Jews are humbly proud(or should be) that G-d chose them but it does not mean Jews should be-little or look down upon G-d's "other" peoples of the world and even His other followers. Matter of fact, it is just the opposite. It is more correct for "good-Jews" to be humble in their "being chosen". This also means Jews should be very law abiding due to our firsthand "caretaking" opportunity He priviledged us with. It's much like a court worker, lawyer or judge who has to live up to the laws they proclaim as valid in society and uphold in society. They have to carry the extra burden to be a "good example" to the society and have respect for their positions in society. We are all a part of Him and His will. But it must be recognized, without the events of the Hebrews in history we may not know G-d so well or at all even today..... People of the world, do not oppress the Jews as they had been in Egypt many years ago or perhaps G-d will come back in furious anger? If you truly believe in Him...

Shalom

reason

04-09-2003, 08:41 AM

Islam & Christianity are based profoundly that they are the final word, the last utterance and only true expression of God. It is a triumphalist belief.

This is not true, Islam recognizes that there are other religions of God, mainly Judaism and Christianity. Islam comes to complete Gods message, not to override the previous ones.

andak01

04-09-2003, 08:57 AM

That's why I think non-Muslims get so offended when they read the Qur'an. They look upon it as the words of an arrogant man calling them to terms for their sins. G_d as an all powerful entity can't be arrogant. This is only true because He is all knowing. Therefore, there is no doubt about His (genderless Him) judgement. Jesus railed against the Pharisees, but not against the laws they claimed to uphold. It was their hypocracy that he found so offensive. Likewise, the Qur'an is against hypocracy, not Jewish law. It repeatedly rebukes hypocracy, whether its source is Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other.

In some cases, it is important to note, there are specific references to historic events where the antagonists happened to be Christian or Jewish. Unlike the Bible or the Torah, we know with certainty at least within a 26 year period and sometimes down to the hour and day that a revelation was received. Therefore, it is generally possible to state: "Such and such Surah was revealed prior to the battle of Badr or after the Treaty of Hudaybiyah."

Those people are dead. The Jews and Christians mentioned in those verses are dead. Those who betrayed the early Muslims and tried to snuff them out paid with their lives. Those who did not were given amnesty. The strictest interpretation of the Qur'an relative to these verses is that we are permitted to fight those who fight against us.

Simon

04-10-2003, 09:55 AM

This is not true, Islam recognizes that there are other religions of God, mainly Judaism and Christianity. Islam comes to complete Gods message, not to override the previous ones.

Utter BS. Islam seeks to OVERRIDE the previous religions, NOT COMPLEMENT THEM.

D.Abraham

04-10-2003, 10:40 AM

As it is said, The Messiah's coming will "complete" the message. Amen

"I believe with perfect faith in the Messiah's coming. And even if he be delayed, I will await him." Chapter -Redemption pg. 707 New Union Prayer Book Central Conference of American Rabbis 1975

reason

04-10-2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Simon
Utter BS. Islam seeks to OVERRIDE the previous religions, NOT COMPLEMENT THEM.

Miss Cleo,

[2:285] The messenger has believed in what was sent down to him from his Lord, and so did the believers. They believe in GOD, His angels, His scriptures , and His messengers : "We make no distinction among any of His messengers." They say, "We hear, and we obey. Forgive us, our Lord. To You is the ultimate destiny."

[3:199] Surely, some followers of the previous scriptures do believe in GOD, and in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed to them. They reverence GOD, and they never trade away GOD's revelations for a cheap price. These will receive their recompense from their Lord. GOD is the most efficient in reckoning.

[2:62] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

Simon

04-10-2003, 01:36 PM

From The Friday Times, a Pakistani publication comes the true voice of Allah and Mohammad and the essence of the koran.

http://www.thefridaytimes.com/ (requires subscription)

"Suicide bombing is the best form of Jihad" says the founder of Lashkar-e-Toiba.

ISLAMABAD â€“ Hafiz Saeed, the firebrand chief of Jamaat ud-Daawa (formerly Lashkar-e-Taiba) and a former professor at Lahoreâ€™s University of Engineering Technology, says suicide bombings are the â€œbest form of jihadâ€. He was speaking with TFT shortly before addressing the Defence of the Muslim Ummah Conference here on April 3.

Saeedâ€™s organisation was banned by General Pervez Musharraf on January 12, 2002, after the Lashkar was accused by New Delhi of mounting the December 13, 2001, attack on Indiaâ€™s parliament. Saeed admits Lashkar activists are still engaged in Kashmir but denies the US allegations of cross-border infiltrations. He also spoke about his organisationâ€™s newest jihadi training camps. Following are the excerpts:

@SB TFT: Is violence the only means to achieve your objectives?

@EB @SB SAEED: Jihad is prescribed in the Quran. Muslims are required to take up arms against the oppressor. The powerful western world is terrorising the Muslims. We are being invaded, humiliated, manipulated, and looted. How else can we respond but through jihad?

How about non-violent, peaceful resistance?

It was exactly this sentiment that led to the destruction of the Babri Mosque in India. If the ways of the oppressor are not matched or countered, Islam would be snuffed out. Muslim places of worship will be desecrated and destroyed.

Do you believe that Pakistan could be the next US target?

Pakistan will not be next. Saudi Arabia and then Iran, possibly Syria will come first. Pakistan is a nuclear power, is very close to China, and is a nation of jihadis. This should avert disaster for some time.
What do you think of Pakistanâ€™s leaders?

They are taking instructions from foreign powers and have made a mockery of state sovereignty. These people canâ€™t defend Pakistan. We, the common people, will have to shoulder this great responsibility. We will take to the streets and show the world that Pakistan is no pushover.

What or who is the greatest threat to world peace today?

We must fight against the evil trio: America, Israel and India. The Israeli-Indian defence pact is clearly aimed at taking care of Pakistan. America will not attack Pakistan directly. It will use India to do its dirty work. America has also declared the legitimate freedom struggle in Kashmir a reign of terror. The need for jihad against India is paramount.

India claims some 37,000 people have died in Kashmir since 1989, Pakistan claims 80,000. Is it not perhaps time to put down our weapons and talk, as General Musharraf is proposing?

The solution is not to bow before India and beg for dialogue. India has never been sincere in resolving the Kashmir issue through talks. Our policy in Kashmir is studied and measured. They only understand the language of jihad. We have no choice but to respond by killing Hindus as they are killing Muslims.
Are militants crossing into Indian-administered Kashmir from the Pakistani side?

Not at all! This is totally wrong. There is no infiltration across the line of control. The freedom struggle is indigenous. Jamaat ud-Daawa is present in Azad Jammu and Kashmir only as a social welfare organisation to provide aid and comfort.

The Muslim world has been criticized for not doing anything for Iraq. How could they?

The resources of a Muslim state are not the personal property of its rulers but belong to the greater Muslim nation. Ideally, the government of Pakistan should mobilize troops and fight against the invaders. But this will not happen. [B]Pakistan could even ferry missiles and nuclear bombs to Saddam Hussein so he could use them to protect Iraq. The least Pakistan can do is to warn the American government of consequences not only to the US but also to Israel and India.

The Iraqi foreign minister says some 6,000 people from across the Muslim world are coming to Iraq to act as suicide bombers. Doesnâ€™t this unnecessarily endanger the lives of civilians?

Suicide missions are in accordance with Islam. In fact, a suicide attack is the best form of jihad.

Do you have support within the government?

Muslim world agrees that jihad is the only way to respond to aggression given todayâ€™s international scenario. At the moment I would say all members of parliament agree with and support jihad as a means of liberation.

Your call for jihad doesnâ€™t upset the government?

We are not afraid of the rulers . We only fear Allah and follow His word.

Your organisation is considered close to the intelligence community. It is claimed that by virtue of this connection you escaped a longer prison term. Former ISI chief Hameed Gul is also here. Would you say such claims hold water?

No. And Hameed Gul is a good man and we are grateful that he has come to speak.

reason

04-10-2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Simon
From The Friday Times, a Pakistani publication comes the true voice of Allah and Mohammad and the essence of the koran.

http://www.thefridaytimes.com/ (requires subscription)

"Suicide bombing is the best form of Jihad" says the founder of Lashkar-e-Toiba.

ISLAMABAD â€“ Hafiz Saeed, the firebrand chief of Jamaat ud-Daawa (formerly Lashkar-e-Taiba) and a former professor at Lahoreâ€™s University of Engineering Technology, says suicide bombings are the â€œbest form of jihadâ€. He was speaking with TFT shortly before addressing the Defence of the Muslim Ummah Conference here on April 3.

Saeedâ€™s organisation was banned by General Pervez Musharraf on January 12, 2002, after the Lashkar was accused by New Delhi of mounting the December 13, 2001, attack on Indiaâ€™s parliament. Saeed admits Lashkar activists are still engaged in Kashmir but denies the US allegations of cross-border infiltrations. He also spoke about his organisationâ€™s newest jihadi training camps. Following are the excerpts:

@SB TFT: Is violence the only means to achieve your objectives?

@EB @SB SAEED: Jihad is prescribed in the Quran. Muslims are required to take up arms against the oppressor. The powerful western world is terrorising the Muslims. We are being invaded, humiliated, manipulated, and looted. How else can we respond but through jihad?

How about non-violent, peaceful resistance?

It was exactly this sentiment that led to the destruction of the Babri Mosque in India. If the ways of the oppressor are not matched or countered, Islam would be snuffed out. Muslim places of worship will be desecrated and destroyed.

Do you believe that Pakistan could be the next US target?

Pakistan will not be next. Saudi Arabia and then Iran, possibly Syria will come first. Pakistan is a nuclear power, is very close to China, and is a nation of jihadis. This should avert disaster for some time.
What do you think of Pakistanâ€™s leaders?

They are taking instructions from foreign powers and have made a mockery of state sovereignty. These people canâ€™t defend Pakistan. We, the common people, will have to shoulder this great responsibility. We will take to the streets and show the world that Pakistan is no pushover.

What or who is the greatest threat to world peace today?

[b] We must fight against the evil trio: America, Israel and India. The Israeli-Indian defence pact is clearly aimed at taking care of Pakistan. America will not attack Pakistan directly. It will use India to do its dirty work. America has also declared the legitimate freedom struggle in Kashmir a reign of terror. The need for jihad against India is paramount.

India claims some 37,000 people have died in Kashmir since 1989, Pakistan claims 80,000. Is it not perhaps time to put down our weapons and talk, as General Musharraf is proposing?

The solution is not to bow before India and beg for dialogue. India has never been sincere in resolving the Kashmir issue through talks. Our policy in Kashmir is studied and measured. They only understand the language of jihad. We have no choice but to respond by killing Hindus as they are killing Muslims.
Are militants crossing into Indian-administered Kashmir from the Pakistani side?

Not at all! This is totally wrong. There is no infiltration across the line of control. The freedom struggle is indigenous. Jamaat ud-Daawa is present in Azad Jammu and Kashmir only as a social welfare organisation to provide aid and comfort.

The Muslim world has been criticized for not doing anything for Iraq. How could they?

The resources of a Muslim state are not the personal property of its rulers but belong to the greater Muslim nation. Ideally, the government of Pakistan should mobilize troops and fight against the invaders. But this will not happen. Pakistan could even ferry missiles and nuclear bombs to Saddam Hussein so he could use them to protect Iraq. The least Pakistan can do is to warn the American government of consequences not only to the US but also to Israel and India.

The Iraqi foreign minister says some 6,000 people from across the Muslim world are coming to Iraq to act as suicide bombers. Doesnâ€™t this unnecessarily endanger the lives of civilians?

Suicide missions are in accordance with Islam. In fact, a suicide attack is the best form of jihad.

Do you have support within the government?

Muslim world agrees that jihad is the only way to respond to aggression given todayâ€™s international scenario. At the moment I would say all members of parliament agree with and support jihad as a means of liberation.

Your call for jihad doesnâ€™t upset the government?

We are not afraid of the rulers . We only fear Allah and follow His word.

Your organisation is considered close to the intelligence community. It is claimed that by virtue of this connection you escaped a longer prison term. Former ISI chief Hameed Gul is also here. Would you say such claims hold water?

No. And Hameed Gul is a good man and we are grateful that he has come to speak.

Amla Oil? or is that curry Simon?

andak01

04-10-2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by reason
Miss Cleo,

[2:285] The messenger has believed in what was sent down to him from his Lord, and so did the believers. They believe in GOD, His angels, His scriptures , and His messengers : "We make no distinction among any of His messengers." They say, "We hear, and we obey. Forgive us, our Lord. To You is the ultimate destiny."

[3:199] Surely, some followers of the previous scriptures do believe in GOD, and in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed to them. They reverence GOD, and they never trade away GOD's revelations for a cheap price. These will receive their recompense from their Lord. GOD is the most efficient in reckoning.

[2:62] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

I've already tried the truth on Simon. It would seem he is immune. Any verse that would contradict his hateful and fictitious view of Islam will certainly be ignored.

Simon

04-10-2003, 04:10 PM

Amla Oil? or is that curry Simon?

Islamic logic at its best.

Dont have an answer, lie.

If lying gets too risky, post something utterly nonsensical.

Actually, it increasingly looks like the koran itself was written by some idiot like reason. Absolutely contradictory and inane content, if you can call it that.

Simon

04-10-2003, 04:17 PM

I've already tried the truth on Simon. It would seem he is immune. Any verse that would contradict his hateful and fictitious view of Islam will certainly be ignored.

Have you ever thought that the truth as you see it through a hateful and malevolent book may not be the worldview of others?

Muslims such as yourself have every incentive to find and interpret the koran in the most lenient manner possible so that no action of vile individuals such as mohammad can be faulted. To depict the koran in the best possible light, even to the extent of condoning gang-rape, murder, the administration of unspeakable horror and torture on innocent and defenceless individuals.

On the other hand, people like me take the contrasting view. It is my thesis that islam is an inherently virulent, violent, hateful, malevolent, sadistic, and retrograde religion. So is mohammad and so are muslims. The odd muslim that still carries a peaceful message only proves that even the koran cannot corrupt and destroy the sanity of every one of its adherents.

It is in my best interests to prove my thesis that islam is an inherently violent religion by concentrating on the most hateful passages in the koran, of which there are plenty.

So, the version of the truth depends on the starting premise and efforts of individuals with a bias (either pro or con) to fit that premise.

You are incapable of honest discourse. And reason is a whopping moron, in the finest tradition of a recent graduate of the Binori madrassah in Pakistan.

Simon

04-10-2003, 04:27 PM

For the Jewish members of the forum only:

The Simon (my id) comes from a name that has inspired me for a long time.

Kindly note that in assuming the first name of a great man, i am not laying any pretense that i have even one millionth of that mans' humanity, brilliance and dedication.

Simon Wiesanthal

andak01

04-10-2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Simon
Have you ever thought that the truth as you see it through a hateful and malevolent book may not be the worldview of others?

Should I answer yes and admit to the hateful and malevolent part or no and have you accuse me of not thinking? :)

Better I quote the Qur'an again:

2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion."

2:136 Say ye: "We believe in God, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to God in submission."

Muslims such as yourself have every incentive to find and interpret the koran in the most lenient manner possible so that no action of vile individuals such as mohammad can be faulted. To depict the koran in the best possible light, even to the extent of condoning gang-rape, murder, the administration of unspeakable horror and torture on innocent and defenceless individuals.

Of course, now why don't you show me where gang-rape is condoned in the Qur'an.

On the other hand, people like me take the contrasting view. It is my thesis that islam is an inherently virulent, violent, hateful, malevolent, sadistic, and retrograde religion. So is mohammad and so are muslims. The odd muslim that still carries a peaceful message only proves that even the koran cannot corrupt and destroy the sanity of every one of its adherents.

I could take such a stance on any religion. But to make sweeping judgements about people based on their religion is wrong. To make judgements at all is wrong. I use my free will to prohibit myself from evil or to tell someone else that which I believe to be good. That's it. That's the message of Islam. You can believe anything you want. Unless you take up arms against me, I won't harm a hair on your head. If you do take up arms against me, I will stop as soon as you yourself cease or offer peace.

It is in my best interests to prove my thesis that islam is an inherently violent religion by concentrating on the most hateful passages in the koran, of which there are plenty.

I'm not quite clear where that profits you.

You are incapable of honest discourse. And reason is a whopping moron, in the finest tradition of a recent graduate of the Binori madrassah in Pakistan.

If I were to misquote the Vedas or ascribe meanings to them that they don't have, you would, I think be as upset as I am. I'm not about attacking other people's religion, and I'm not going to start now just because you think I should.

golani

03-26-2005, 01:02 AM

KettleWhistle

03-26-2005, 01:40 AM

It was common for men to marry girls this young in the ancient world. Since it was a norm, it is really unfair to accuse someone from that time period of pedophilia. Also, it rarely happened that men would have sexual relations with these girls until they become old enough for it, i.e. start to menstruate regularly.

golani

03-26-2005, 04:59 AM

andak01

03-26-2005, 06:12 AM

I have discussed this issue ad nauseum on this forum.

First, this wasn't an issue to even the worst enemies of the Prophet at the time. Nobody wrote much about it until the nineteenth century. So it wasn't a scandal, either among the Muslims or among their enemies at the time. Second, it was a political marriage and those were common among the young in Europe and elsewhere throughout history.

http://www.montaguemillennium.com/familyresearch/h_1409_alice.htm

Young Richard Neville, aged 6, and his sister Cecily, who could have been at most 13, were married to the children of Richard earl of Warwick, Henry and Anne de Beauchamp, aged 8 and 9, as a result of which 15 years later, the younger Richard became earl of Warwick.' (Lander).

Some sources claim Alice Montacute was born 3 May 1415, which would have made her 9 when she was married.

Third, biographical accounts conflict in that they ascribe events to Aisha's life that could not have happened if she married at such a young age. Forth, our pedophilia laws are in place to protect children from exploitation or abuse. There is no evidence whatsoever that Aisha was either exploited or abused. She spent the rest of her life memorizing and reciting the words of her husband- not a likely turn of events for a victim of abuse. Fifth, pedophilia is a compulsion which displays itself over and over. Certainly, the Prophet had the ability to choose other very young brides if he had wished. Instead, he married an older woman and at least one divorced woman.

savvy

03-27-2005, 09:40 AM

andak01

03-27-2005, 08:15 PM

While Christianity awaits the second coming of Christ. Islam awaits the coming of an Islamic Messiah, called Al- Madhi, who will bring the whole world under Islam and break the cross- Christians and kill the pig- Jews.
Most Muslims eagerly await this. The Quran even says the Anti-Christ will be a Jew. You guys seriously need to read the Islamic teachings on the end times in the Quran. Just take a Quran and read it.

Hey, in our version, you end up bowing to the same God. In the Christian version, you bow before Jesus. And in anyone's version there won't be any second guessing at the point God manifests before humanity. And I don't know of any religion where people get points on the Day of Judgement for their knowledge of end day prophecies.

Mediocrates

03-27-2005, 08:20 PM

Worrying about eschatology worries me.

Sumud

03-28-2005, 03:53 PM

It is in my best interests to prove my thesis that islam is an inherently violent religion by concentrating on the most hateful passages in the koran, of which there are plenty......
So, the version of the truth depends on the starting premise and efforts of individuals with a bias (either pro or con) to fit that premise.

Andak, there seems to be precious little reason to waste your time on someone who openly admits that their only purpose is to seek to justify their own prejudice (as per Simon above).

I admire you for trying, but maybe there are more constructive ways to utilize your energies?

golani

03-28-2005, 09:36 PM

Andak, there seems to be precious little reason to waste your time on someone who openly admits that their only purpose is to seek to justify their own prejudice (as per Simon above).

I admire you for trying, but maybe there are more constructive ways to utilize your energies?

Simon's thesis are unfortunately well backed up by medina's surat(eg N0 5)

I am looking forward to the day President Bush will put saudi arabia in the axis of devil (us too dependant on their oil,prohibit the s.u.v and other guzzlzer cars)
Official brand of islam there is whahabism and one could wonder how military forces members immerged in whahabism since childhood could fight "radical militants "whose background and purposes are the same...

Sumud

03-29-2005, 03:28 AM

Simon's thesis are unfortunately well backed up by medina's surat(eg N0 5)

I am looking forward to the day President Bush will put saudi arabia in the axis of devil (us too dependant on their oil,prohibit the s.u.v and other guzzlzer cars)
Official brand of islam there is whahabism and one could wonder how military forces members immerged in whahabism since childhood could fight "radical militants "whose background and purposes are the same...
There's a whole range of sections of the Qur'an that are purposefuly misrepresented by individuals. I guess it's because bigotry has such a bad name these days that people feel that they must have some kind of proof that excuses it. Simon's just one example, albeit a particularly strident one.

golani

03-29-2005, 09:38 PM

There's a whole range of sections of the Qur'an that are purposefuly misrepresented by individuals. I guess it's because bigotry has such a bad name these days that people feel that they must have some kind of proof that excuses it. Simon's just one example, albeit a particularly strident one.

I stick by it

From dhimmi watch
Dubai: Teachers object to book showing Jewish children

Why? Because the book was called "Friends Forever," and thus seemed to suggest that Muslims should become friends to Jews. From the Khaleej Times, with thanks to Teri:

DUBAI â€” Education authorities here have promised to review a book taught in an international private school that features a photograph of two Jewish children sporting plaited hair and yarmulke.

Dr Obaid Butti Al Mohiri, the Director of Curriculums Centre at the Ministry of Education, said he would order the withdrawal of the book for primary Class I of the Dubai International School if the complaints raised were found genuine.

Several teachers of the school telephoned Khaleej Times, complaining against the picture, captioned â€˜We play together; we stick togetherâ€™, featured in the book Friends Forever. The teachers said that of all the pictures in the book, the students reacted sharply to only this picture.

"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk." â€” Qur'an 5:51
[QUOTE=Sumud]There's a whole range of sections of the Qur'an that are purposefuly misrepresented by individuals

Not individuals,entire populations...

andak01

03-30-2005, 04:06 AM

Let's take a look at the Bible (kinder, gentler testament, since fundamentalists claim they've forsworn the other one except for certain bits "the New Covenant", etc.).

John 2 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

1:9
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

1:10
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

1:11
For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

John 1 5:12
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

John 1 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

5:19
And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

5:20
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

John 1 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

John 1 4:2
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Sumud

03-30-2005, 02:41 PM

I stick by it

From dhimmi watch
Dubai: Teachers object to book showing Jewish children
[/COLOR]
"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk." â€” Qur'an 5:51
[QUOTE=Sumud]There's a whole range of sections of the Qur'an that are purposefuly misrepresented by individuals

Not individuals,entire populations...
Golani, it seems that you and Simon go to the same classes.

This is one of the most commonly misrepresented passages.
This is how it reads with the original Arabic word,
"Oh you who believe,do not take the Jews and the Christians for awliya...."

There are those who want to believe that the proper translation of awliya is "friends". But, like any word, it has multiple meanings, others being "protector" and "guardian".

These kind of errors stem from a profound ignorance of how the Qur'an is interpreted. The Qur'an is only properly understood in conjunction with the hadith and the Qur'anic commentaries, which provide context and further explanations of the Qur'an by noted Islamic scholars. Interpretations such as the one you provided, ignore (wilfully?) both of these important elements.

The commentaries make it clear that the term guardian or protector is the correct translation, especially when you consider that both Jews and Christians are considered ahl al-kitab or 'people of the book', in the Qur'an.

MGB8

03-30-2005, 02:47 PM

Mediocrates

03-30-2005, 02:56 PM

Yes and Ezekiel didn't see an actual flaming wheel in the sky either. It was probably more like a wheel-like object. In either case, context is useful for interpretation but useless for deconstruction. Everyone knows that. It helps to look at reality if reality is what you're trying to talk about. And the reality is that dhimmitude existed and in most cases was quite harsh. Meaning harsh in the way that the very apologists for it would resist it.

MGB8

03-30-2005, 03:07 PM

Just to add to the above post, and question Sumud's authoritativeness, a post I recieved from an old friend:

"Take not Jews & Christians for friends" means exactly what it says it means.

I asked on a Muslim board and had it explained to me... and they made no bones about it.

The explanation to me reinforced with quotes from the Tafseer of Ibn-Kathir (also spelled Katheer)

Tafseers explain the Koran

The Verse in question
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14082

also see the interesting...
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13500

and http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13538

and look at Ibn Kathir's explanations From ALL of Koran's book 5 'al-Maidah' as well as the others.

There is NO more respected text than Ibn Kathir.. andak has used it on OTHER things.. but not on this and never will.
as Kathir tells it like it is.
Ibn Kathir is THE MOST RESPECTED Tafsir... PERIOD

all of al-Ma'idah/Sura 5, is pretty incriminating/intolerant

Sumud

03-30-2005, 03:08 PM

That is one interpretation. Another one, which you can find on Islamic sites and chat rooms, keeps the translation as "friends."

It doesn't matter what YOU think it means. It matter what the people with the guns and money think it means. It matters what the preachers on Islamic/Muslim TV and radio or just in the local mosques say it means.

That is how some extremists like to interpret it for their own reasons. They contradict Islamic tradition by doing so.

You might think that the irony of siding with the extremists on these matters would be clear. Apparantly not.

Sumud

03-30-2005, 03:25 PM

Just to add to the above post, and question Sumud's authoritativeness, a post I recieved from an old friend:

Not quite.

Another famous Qur'anic commentator was al-Tabari, who was one of the earliest and so much closer to the time of events relating to 5:51. His commentaries support the interpretation I presented.

MGB8

03-30-2005, 06:59 PM

Link?

Nor does it refute the central point. It doesn't matter what one person or two or a thousand believe, as long as a good number believe to the contrary - and then TERRORISM, VIOLENCE, MURDER.

golani

03-30-2005, 10:32 PM

Not quite.

Another famous Qur'anic commentator was al-Tabari, who was one of the earliest and so much closer to the time of events relating to 5:51. His commentaries support the interpretation I presented.

Sumud,you are speaking out of good faith and I do respect you for this

However,You have to be aware that most muslim states are not as nuanced as you and their interpretation is straightforward...
I read a cheap and very widespread pocketbook version of kuran in french and it reads
"do not take jews and christians as friends"
Sorry but the facts are there
In my eyes, kuran medina suraths are comparable to" mein kampf"
I am not sure if it is that trivial that mein kampf is a best seller in some muslim countries
I do respect people like you and Ishrad Manji to awake "ishtihad" among muslim crowds but you have much work to do

Salam,

golani
Ps Watch your backside because you are be in danger when meeting with fellow "brothers" whose opinions might be less open minded than yours

andak01

03-31-2005, 04:29 AM

Does anyone read my posts anymore? My purpose in quoting the Bible was not to knock Christianity, but merely to point out that it contains not some, but all of the elements of intolerance that you are accusing Islam of having. Why, after centuries of Christian oppression, would you turn around and say that Islam is somehow unique in that sense (other than by way of dishonest propaganda)?

John 2 1:10
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

Not only don't take them as friends, don't even allow them the hospitality of your home, which by the way is more extreme than anything Muslims are allowed to do according to Sunnah. We are required to provide for anyone that comes knocking for up to three days.

The point I'm making, is that after centuries of British kings, all of whom were heading the Anglican church and Martin Luther, author of "The Lies of the Jews" and Nazis hurling Lutheran slogans, and the Bible, which speaks of the "Synogogue of Satin"- in the context of that, Islam is more behind the times than in any way a unique danger. After all, fifty years ago in America, black people were being treated worse than dhimmis. Pointing that out on a daily basis wouldn't have helped. It required something more empowering than hatred to defeat that sort of behavior (lynchings, Jim Crow and descrimination at every level). And mind you, we must all be vigilant continually, because hatred and intolerance are never completely defeated. But neither is hatred defeated through violence or another flavor of intolerance.

Zlatorog

03-31-2005, 05:24 AM

Well I've been to one of your Holy cities and I don't remember what's it holy for. I don't think that Mr. Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda (http://66.221.39.106/articles/20041020001/img/1.jpg) would care either. I see the problems in your religion the way they are described on Ifimes website.

Static

03-31-2005, 06:21 AM

That is how some extremists like to interpret it for their own reasons. They contradict Islamic tradition by doing so.

You might think that the irony of siding with the extremists on these matters would be clear. Apparantly not.

You are indeed right, the Quran is meant to be interpreted along with hadith. If some people, which I need to point out are a very small fraction of Muslims, interpret it to mean things it clearly is not intended to mean, that is not the religions fault, but the fault lies with the moral degenerates who would intentionally interpret it to have meanings simply to inspire hatred among a given few.

I know many, many Arab Muslims, and none of them have any problem taking Jews and Christians as friends. They have many friends that aren't Muslim, so obviously the majority don't interpret this passage in this way.

savvy

03-31-2005, 07:10 AM

John 2 1:10
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

Not only don't take them as friends, don't even allow them the hospitality of your home, which by the way is more extreme than anything Muslims are allowed to do according to Sunnah. We are required to provide for anyone that comes knocking for up to three days.

Key Point : Christianity believes in Love the Sinner, but not sin, meaning you love the murderer, the adulterer etc, but not their deeds.

LOVE YOUR ENEMIES,
BLESS those who curse you,
DO GOOD to those you hate you, and
PRAY for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you
THAT YOU MAY BE THE CHILDREN OF YOUR FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN(Matthew 5:44-45).

golani

03-31-2005, 07:41 AM

Static

03-31-2005, 07:49 AM

Almost all religions can be misinterpreted in ways that will justify humanities darkest acts. They interpret the religion as advocating their actions.

The sad truth is not that any of the major religions actually promote these actions, but that people want to commit such atrocities and fall back on some kind of divine justification.

Sumud

03-31-2005, 02:09 PM

Sumud,you are speaking out of good faith and I do respect you for this

However,You have to be aware that most muslim states are not as nuanced as you and their interpretation is straightforward...
I read a cheap and very widespread pocketbook version of kuran in french and it reads
"do not take jews and christians as friends"
Sorry but the facts are there
...
I do respect people like you and Ishrad Manji to awake "ishtihad" among muslim crowds but you have much work to do

Salam,

golani
Ps Watch your backside because you are be in danger when meeting with fellow "brothers" whose opinions might be less open minded than yours
You're not telling me anything I don't know. Thats's the whole point of the 'fundamentalists' - they actively promote these interpretations in defiance of Islamic tradition. Thats's why some refer to them as the 'literal reformists' thoughh I prefer the term 'puratanical reformists'.

This is a problem that has been growing for over a hundred years. What seems to be a common factor is an over reliance on jurisprudence. Islam was meant to be about the 'middle way' and balance, but this balance has been lost in some quarters.

There are meant to be 3 main pillars - islam, iman and ishan.
The last, in particular, seems to have become neglected.

I'd be interested to know what Andak thinks about this.

Sumud

03-31-2005, 02:17 PM

Static

03-31-2005, 04:46 PM

There are meant to be 3 main pillars

What do you mean by this?

andak01

03-31-2005, 09:43 PM

Yes.

Your point is a good one, but the lack of uniqueness of the problem doesn't do a great deal to address it. That said though, the crazy 'guns and Jesus' crowd aren't generally considered to cast any shadow over Christianity as a whole.

From one aspect it does. It holds out a bit of hope knowing that intolerance comes and goes. Jews and Muslims and Christians have lived together without strife in the past, and they can again in the future. Look at the Hutus and the Tutsis in Rwanda. It's hard to imagine how vicious hatred like that could ever be quelled, but it happened. The Almohads, who once exemplified the worst sort of intolerance, were based in Morocco, a nation which today is very open and friendly to the West. Conversely, Indonesia, which was once moderate has turned towards extremism. Things change for better or for worse. But, looking upon Muslims as poor devils who can never succeed unless we convert to secularism or Christianity is the same intolerance which we are accused of.

golani

03-31-2005, 11:06 PM

savvy

04-01-2005, 10:58 AM

But, looking upon Muslims as poor devils who can never succeed unless we convert to secularism or Christianity is the same intolerance which we are accused of.

Nobody's asking you to convert to anything. The thing is the kind of Islamic anti-semitism prevalant in the Arab/ Muslim world, and in Europe today, is bent on creating another Jewish holocaust or a world war in the making.
I have met people, from those countries who say they hate jews, even though they haven't met a single live jew.

MGB8

04-01-2005, 11:22 AM

Static

04-01-2005, 12:35 PM

Nobody's asking you to convert to anything. The thing is the kind of Islamic anti-semitism prevalant in the Arab/ Muslim world, and in Europe today, is bent on creating another Jewish holocaust or a world war in the making.
I have met people, from those countries who say they hate jews, even though they haven't met a single live jew.

Way to make broad, sweeping overgeneralizations! *applauds*

Perhaps you have met a whole new species of Arab where they actually advocate a second holocaust and hate Jews without ever having seen one? Care to post some statistics, like perhaps some transactions between yourself and these imaginary Muslims? Of course, I'm talking about the "other than Bin Laden and extremists that subscribe to such views" crowd. :rolleyes:

andak01

04-02-2005, 04:25 AM

We've gotten away from the basic premise of this thread, which is as follows:

While all religions have language and examples in their texts that promote violence, Islam is relatively more vulnerable towards violent interpretation due to (1) more often occuring violent language,

That's only when you stick to the New Covenant stuff in the New Testament. There, you only get stuff like:

Matthew 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

Acts 3:23
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

John 1 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

John 1 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

John 1 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Revelation 6:10
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

6:11
And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Matther 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Would unforgivable sin, such as not buying into the Trinity and worshipping Jesus doom someone to Hell?

Now, if you would prefer, I could crack open the Old Testament, but it seems that enough violence and intolerance is already being called for here.

(2) more specific incitements to violence,

Against whom? People who are actively attacking Muslims? Don't you have the same right and even duty to defend yourselves when someone attacks you? Let me ask you this. The Battle of the Trench is one of the most famous battles in early Islam, wherein the Muslims constructed a trench prior to the battle. What form of warfare do you associate with trenches, defensive or offensive? Find me a single verse in the Quran that justifies violence against:

- Someone who has surrendered
- Someone who has asked for mercy
- Someone who is in retreat (even if they attacked first)
- Someone who abides by treaties they have with Muslims

You can't, because such verses don't exist. And if you read the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament, you will find.

Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and , with the edge of the sword.

6:24 And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

7:24 And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.

7:25 And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.

(3) a tradition that enourages literalism to a greater degree than the traditions of Christianity and Judaism, in particular,

Only far outside of the traditions set forth by Orthodoxy. Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Christians (Copts, Eastern Orthodox and many Roman Catholics) still embrace literalism.

(4) the violent examples set by the founders of Islam, including Mohammed, his followers, and his immediate successors.

You have an example where Mohammed killed 12,000 men, women and children in a single day? Sorry, that was Joshua.

8:24 And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword.

8:25 And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai.

8:26 For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.

That was Ai, and there was Jericho and Gibeon and Azekah, and Makkedah.

golani

04-02-2005, 11:35 AM

That's only when you stick to the New Covenant stuff in the New Testament. There, you only get stuff like:

Matthew 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

Acts 3:23
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

John 1 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

John 1 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

John 1 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Revelation 6:10
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

6:11
And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Matther 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Would unforgivable sin, such as not buying into the Trinity and worshipping Jesus doom someone to Hell?

Now, if you would prefer, I could crack open the Old Testament, but it seems that enough violence and intolerance is already being called for here.

Against whom? People who are actively attacking Muslims? Don't you have the same right and even duty to defend yourselves when someone attacks you? Let me ask you this. The Battle of the Trench is one of the most famous battles in early Islam, wherein the Muslims constructed a trench prior to the battle. What form of warfare do you associate with trenches, defensive or offensive? Find me a single verse in the Quran that justifies violence against:

- Someone who has surrendered
- Someone who has asked for mercy
- Someone who is in retreat (even if they attacked first)
- Someone who abides by treaties they have with Muslims

You can't, because such verses don't exist. And if you read the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament, you will find.

Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and , with the edge of the sword.

6:24 And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

7:24 And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.

7:25 And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.

Only far outside of the traditions set forth by Orthodoxy. Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Christians (Copts, Eastern Orthodox and many Roman Catholics) still embrace literalism.

You have an example where Mohammed killed 12,000 men, women and children in a single day? Sorry, that was Joshua.

8:24 And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword.

8:25 And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai.

8:26 For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.

That was Ai, and there was Jericho and Gibeon and Azekah, and Makkedah.

Stop moaning,I never heard a christian priest or a rabbi basing his speech on these sermons you mentionned (all the people mentioned have disapeared anyway)

On the other hand,I am quite able to watch arab programs on my satellite dish an while if I do not understand the language that well,looking at the pictures and hearing terms like djihad or yahoud are quite sufficent...

Besides,no arabs or muslims are harassed in europe
I wish I could say the same about jews

Plain truth,andak,europeans on the whole,are beginning to get fed up with muslims and islam

They welcomed droves of migrants fleeing poverty and dictatorship funded on the same religious and ecomical system they are stubornly trying to set up in europe
In medecine,when a healthy organ is invaded by cancerous cells,the process is called metastasis...

Ps the peace lovers have dared physically attack the dean of my former university in Brussels because the poor man chose to lecture on" free speech an absence of dogmas"
The same islamist peace lovers yelled him "down with the masons"
This same university (free university of brussels) whose dounding principles lie on free masonry
Resultats:many student fleeing the university to catholic competitor (ucl)!!!

Static

04-02-2005, 11:45 AM

Sop moaning,I never heard a christian priest or a rabbi basing his speech on these sermons you mentionned

Just because you've never heard them, it doesn't mean that they haven't been disseminated to thousands.

On the other hand,I am quite able to watch arab programs on my satellite dish an while if I do not understand the language that well,looking at the pictures and hearing terms like djihad or yahoud are quite sufficent...

Jihad and yahoudi are far from the incriminating words you believe them to be.

golani

04-02-2005, 12:06 PM

[QUOTE=Static]Just because you've never heard them, it doesn't mean that they haven't been disseminated to thousands.

You are crazy!!!!! :mad:

savvy

04-02-2005, 03:45 PM

Matthew 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

Acts 3:23
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

John 1 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

John 1 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

John 1 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Revelation 6:10
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

6:11
And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Matther 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Andak, next time read the whole thing, cause you'r completely out of context. The thing is rabbi's and priest's don't read this stuff and then call for a Jihad.
The Nation of Islam for example, is one of the most anti-semitic and anti-american muslim organiztions in America.

Static

04-02-2005, 04:51 PM

The thing is rabbi's and priest's don't read this stuff and then call for a Jihad.

Imams call for jihad? You do realize that a VERY small percentage of Muslims actually subscribe to jihad being a "holy war" in the sense that Bin Laden calls for it, right? Specifically, in Arabic "jihad" translates to "a struggle to lead a Muslim life." This can be interpreted in many ways, and only extremists such as Bin Laden and his following of degenerates interpret it as providing justification for the killing of innocents, which is NOT sanctioned by Islam. In fact, it's specifically condemned in the Koran.

There are two types of jihad:

1. Akbar (the word itself translates to "bigger than" in Arabic) - To struggle against the self.
2. Asghar (translates to "smaller") - The struggle against infidels.

Violence in the Koran is explicitly advocated against infidels that are trying to prevent a Muslim from leading a Muslim life, and that is it. But like every religion, it is certainly open to interpretation, and certain wicked individuals have interpreted it in a way that most Muslims think is ludicrous.

The Nation of Islam for example, is one of the most anti-semitic and anti-american muslim organiztions in America.

That's kind of funny, because Arabs are semitic. But like the *self-hating Jew* (*rolls her eyes*), maybe they're *self-hating Arabs?*

MGB8

04-02-2005, 05:10 PM

More than that, Andak's quotes do not call on people to kill, which many quotes in Islam do "strike their heads", etc. And again, you have the comparison of Jesus, that of "he who hasn't sinned throw the first stone", the martyr who DID NOT kill, the man whose "condemnation" consisted of throwing people out of a building....versus Mohammed and his wars.

Please. Lets have some intellectual honesty, Andak.

Ariksan

04-02-2005, 05:23 PM

Arabs are semitic

Arabs are not "semitic". There is no ethnicity called "semitÃ®c". There is a language group called semitic which includes Arabic and Hebrew. "Anti-semitic" is a word that describes anti-jewish sentiments. The word has its roots in Germany as far as I know.

If I call you a bitch, would you be offended?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You probably would be offended. But why? After all bitch is just a word for a cute little female dog? Well, the word is not used that way in most cases, isn't it? The real meaning of a word is always what it stands for and how it is perceived by those who use the word.

Static

04-02-2005, 06:13 PM

Point A: Oh, I'm well aware of the fact that semitic refers to a language group. I don't recall insinuating otherwise, although I can see how you would infer that I was because I immediately went to the example of "self-hating Jew and Arab."

Point B: It's all in intent, my dear. Also, we would have to take into consideration just how close we were. If you were someone whose opinion I actually cared about, of course I would be bothered. But we're just strangers whose only means of communication is an electronic medium, hence, whether or not you think I'm a female dog is pretty inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

andak01

04-03-2005, 07:23 AM

I grant you that it has been around sixty years since Lutheran ministers in Nazi Germany were calling for the extinction of the Jews and since the Catholic monasteries were shuttling war criminals out of Europe. I grant that it has been centuries since the Pope rounded up the masses for a slash and burn tour to the Middle East. But that happened. And anyone who wants to claim that the Protestant Reformation caused the Church to be intolerant should go back to that time and be Jewish or Catholic or God forbid, a Muslim living in Europe.

Mind you, Pope Urban's rousing anti-Muslim rhetoric followed centuries of relative calm. And Al Hakim (the founder of the Druse religion) burned the Churches after centuries of Muslim rule, not because he was Muslim (he was a heretic).

What is happening today has happened before both with Muslims and with Christians and (from the Bible quotes above) the Jews as well. What, after all was Joshua involved in, if not a holy war?

What we should study is rather what caused intolerant behavior to decline in the past. How did Jews and Christians smooth over differences after the Spanish Inquisition or the Holocaust for example? How did Christians and Muslims learn to live side by side for centuries following the Crusades?

MGB8

04-03-2005, 12:40 PM

It is fair to point out that Christianity has been used to justify murder. It is fair to point out Judaism, for example, mandated the ethnic cleansing of the Canaanites from Canaan. However, early Christians were not violent, only when Rome adopted Christianity, and changed it to some degree, did that trend really begin. And over time, Christianity has returned closer to its beginnings. Islams beginnings, however, were marked by agression. Meanwhile, the basic issues of the specificity of language, what the language calls upon the faithful to actually DO, and the examples of each religion highlite remain the same, and pose to the maintenance of a tolerant and non-aggressive Islam. That is not to say that such a version cannot come about, or has not come about, only that it will be more difficult, and more difficult to maintain when originalists measure it to the original meanings and examples.

savvy

04-03-2005, 03:13 PM

Toga

04-03-2005, 04:03 PM

Well Luther did say anti-semitic stuff and he was the founder of the protestant reformation and he never liked Islam either. (no offense to any protestants or anything)
The Pope apologized for the crimes Christianity committed against the jews and muslims. How many Muslim clerics do we find apologizing for anything.

Yeah...typical excuse. First slaughter the innocent people. Than apologise for the mass killings. Much good it does.

Also, despite the centuries of problems and current conflict between the Jews and their neighbors the Muslims have never been as vile toward the Jews as the European Christians.

Aviva

04-04-2005, 04:35 PM

Toga

04-04-2005, 05:16 PM

There's something I was wondering about Islam - the patriarchs of the Torah are accepted as prophets by Muslims, right?

Therefore, if Islam accepts Moses as a prophet, does it not accept the Torah's description of his life, ie: as well as receiving the Torah on Sinai, he lead the Israelites from Egypt to the Land that was promised to them by G-d.

If it accepted this, then surely there would be no religious grounds for Muslims to not agree that according to scripture, G-d gave the Promised Land to Moses and his people and so there could be no reason to argue about who is the rightful heirs of Israel/Palestine/Canaan according to the Bible.

So what does the Koran say about Moses? Does anyone know?

Good thinking! Let me start off by telling you that I am illiterate about Islam. So, I don't know what is written in the Koran about it. However, there were a number of Muslim scholars who openly pointed out that the land belonged to Jews. Unfortunately, it did not resonate throughout the Arab world.

Hopefully, somebody who is more knowledgeable than me can answer your excellent question.

Static

04-04-2005, 06:01 PM

There's something I was wondering about Islam - the patriarchs of the Torah are accepted as prophets by Muslims, right?

Therefore, if Islam accepts Moses as a prophet, does it not accept the Torah's description of his life, ie: as well as receiving the Torah on Sinai, he lead the Israelites from Egypt to the Land that was promised to them by G-d.

If it accepted this, then surely there would be no religious grounds for Muslims to not agree that according to scripture, G-d gave the Promised Land to Moses and his people and so there could be no reason to argue about who is the rightful heirs of Israel/Palestine/Canaan according to the Bible.

So what does the Koran say about Moses? Does anyone know?

Honestly, I'm not 100% sure what the Koran says specifically about this issue, but I am aware of the fact that Islam does indeed recognize Moses as a prophet.

It is quite possible that they do not subscribe to his supposed proclomation that the land belongs to the Israelites. In fact, as far as I know, according to the Koran, God isn't too fond of the Jews in general.

gandolf2005

04-04-2005, 06:50 PM

Hi, I found this a pretty good read. :cool:

The perpetuated history of the Middle East intertwined with great religions of the world have made the region one of the most abused vicinities of human civilization on Earth.

Islam as the dominant religion of the region has ruled the mind and lives of the inhabitants for more than a millennium. It is Islam, which has shaped and determined the sociopolitical structure of the Middle Eastern countries. To understand the mind and thought of a group of people and ultimately their role as the citizens of this world, one should look at the utmost structural religious belief in which the direct word of God is the only absolute truth of human life.

Is Islam a threat to the world?

To answer this question, one should first answer the question whether or not Islam is a threat to the region by itself. In a greater attempt, one should answer the question what the role of organized religions have been in human civilizations.

Islam as a powerful social force ascended the pre-Islamic primitive Arab tribes into an egotistical civilization by late 600s and early 700s AD. The emergence of Islam as an empire from the so-called lizard-eaters of the Arabian Desert was indeed a miracle.

No wonder no one could believe that only a man like Muhammad could do it on his own except having an unmitigated divine force behind him. This phenomenon sounds logical when a group of unprofessional army can defeat the super powers of the time, the Sassanids and Bezantines. Perhaps, Osama Bin Laden with his al Qaeda followers truly believed that they could do the same thing with todayâ€™s superpower, the almighty U.S.A., as Muhammad did to Sassanids and Bezantines 1,400 years ago.

Nonetheless, the Islamic social reform in the heart of Arabia followed by many other nations in the region brought equality and prosperity for the majority of the believers who were the slaves of the former empirical systems. A sociological approach would help one to answer the question why Islam as an ideology gave rise to a worldwide belief and a dominant dogma for the region.

Marxist interpretation of social evolution can be applied to what happened in Arabia in mid 600s. Islamic social reform was one gigantic step towards social harmony and justice. It was Islam, which made people understand humanity as a source of change for a better life. This could be accepted by the uncivilized mass of the time if Muhammad could dress up his social reform with a divine outfit. The social equation of formulating the end of human history under an ideology is not something new that was invented by Karl Marx. The great religions have already predicted the end of the history of mankind but in a divine utopian manner in which humanity can rest in heaven for an eternal life.

This phenomenon has been reflected in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Islam was announced as the final religion, which God revealed himself to humanity as the last offer for an eternal salvation of mankind. This religious ideology gives a static nature to Islam and to most religions in general.

God as the absolute truth and Islam as the only factual ideology leave no room for any further changes and reforms. This is what is called social stasis, the true character of an organized religion. There is no doubt that Islam did contribute to the good of humanity 1400 years ago. It is clear enough that Islam was beneficial to humanity in Arabia when women were personal properties with no human rights. It is easy to understand how Islam brought light to the dark ages of Arabia where the baby girls were buried alive. And no doubt that Islam transformed Arabia from a place of desert dwellers into the center of a new civilization expanded from Spain to China. However, this was centuries ago when the corruption of the civilized powers of the time and social orders had left no other options except a new social reform.

The majority of the people in the Middle East welcomed Islam 14 centuries ago simply to escape the social repression and the corrupted systems of the time. It would be a big mistake if one believes that what Islam did centuries ago can save humanity now in the 21st Century. As a fact, the inevitable dynamic nature of human societies goes against any social or ideological stasis. A good example is the dark ages of Europe where it was believed that the Trinity was the cure for all plagues. We should not forget that the birth of science, which brought space exploration, information age, and human welfare, could not happen if the Renaissance had not occurred.

Having a mass nostalgia for the great past is not unique to Islam and the Middle East. Human history is full of it. The annual pilgrimage of Mongolians around the Genghis Khanâ€™s tomb signifies the nostalgia of a nation for their great past. But, is another Genghis Khan a solution to the poverty and misery of Mongolians in 21st century? Will an Islamic theocracy bring economic prosperity and peace to the Middle East? Did Iranian theocracy deliver economic achievement and social freedom after 24 years of Islamic rule? Is this life only a bridge to eternal life where one has to scarify everything to please God to be granted with an eternal life? And if this is the case, then why bother with exploring the space and universe when prayer is the only solution to gain an everlasting life in heaven. Why bother with inventing new medicines for a better health and a longer life when this life is merely a bridge to heaven? Why bother with extending the bridge when the bridge is full of misery? Why bother to live longer when one can shortcut to heaven by becoming martyr? These are the facts, which Islam seeks as an ideology. One can conclude, easily, that Islam as an obstinate religion with no flexibility in its 1400-year old doctrine is indeed a threat to our modern civilization and humanity in general.
http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/islamthreat.htm (http://)

andak01

04-04-2005, 08:33 PM

There's something I was wondering about Islam - the patriarchs of the Torah are accepted as prophets by Muslims, right?

Absolutely, we wish peace and blessings upon them (SAW) everytime we utter the names of Noah (Nuh), Isaac (Ishaq), Joseph (Yusef), Moses (Musa), Abraham (Ibrahim) and other prophets. Unlike the Jews, we also accept Jesus (Issa) as a prophet. There is a Surah devoted to Mary (Maryam).

Therefore, if Islam accepts Moses as a prophet, does it not accept the Torah's description of his life, ie: as well as receiving the Torah on Sinai, he lead the Israelites from Egypt to the Land that was promised to them by G-d.

Moses (SAW) is mentioned by name 135 times in the Quran, Muhammad (SAW) only 4 times. The story of the pharoah is recounted, but the emphasis is on Moses' relation with God, not so much the details of the plagues.

If it accepted this, then surely there would be no religious grounds for Muslims to not agree that according to scripture, G-d gave the Promised Land to Moses and his people and so there could be no reason to argue about who is the rightful heirs of Israel/Palestine/Canaan according to the Bible.

So what does the Koran say about Moses? Does anyone know?

That's a question that deserves a thread of its own. But, to make a long story short, the Quran divides the world into three groups: believers, non-believers and hypocrites. Jews and Christians and any monotheists can be counted among the believers. These are the "People of the Book". Polytheists are given a bad name in the Quran, and the core message of Islam is that of monotheism before anything else. That's why you won't see a statue of Muhammad, and why many Muslims consider even reverence and devotion to saints as little more than heresy.

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.

But far the largest group are the hypocrites. All believers are subject to acts of hypocrisy and to hypocritical thought. And it is this I believe that is the cutting edge of the ethical life. We Muslims certainly don't look upon all Jews as hypocrites, otherwise we wouldn't so honor the Prophets. But even a devout Jew should acknowledge that there are hypocrites among the Jews, such as the avowed atheists who call themselves Jewish. Do they hold to the covenant? Have they merited the benefits of the covenant? By the same token, the Muslim ranks are overflowing with hypocrites. And even if we weren't, each individual on the day of Judgement is evaluated by his or her own acts, not those of a group.

Sumud

04-11-2005, 02:03 AM

Sumud

04-11-2005, 02:06 AM

[QUOTE=andak01]From one aspect it does. It holds out a bit of hope knowing that intolerance comes and goes. Jews and Muslims and Christians have lived together without strife in the past

I cast some doubts about these assertions...
When the Sephardim were dispersed from Spain by the Christian conquerers where did they go? It wasn't Europe was it?

Most went to the Ottoman Muslim lands of North Africa and the middle east, because they could live much more safely under Muslim rule than Christian.

Mediocrates

04-11-2005, 05:41 AM

It's hardly a unique 'structural problem' within Islam.

Christians would account for a far greater bloodshed than any other grouping. Wether you look at the crusades or colonisation of the new world, the primacy of Christian belief was a principle factor in excusing the slaughter of native peoples. And what was the underlying cause of Euorpean antipathy towards Jewish people? It certainly wasn't Islam.

Any objective view of history would see a proponderance of blood letting in the civilised Christian 'west'. And yes, it was often informed by Christian belief.

I put this in the 'some beauty contest!' category.

Mediocrates

04-11-2005, 05:44 AM

[QUOTE=golani]
When the Sephardim were dispersed from Spain by the Christian conquerers where did they go? It wasn't Europe was it?

Most went to the Ottoman Muslim lands of North Africa and the middle east, because they could live much more safely under Muslim rule than Christian.

Those are relative statements and generally ascribed to particular places at particular times. After all our own Rambam had to flee Segovia when the Moorish counter-Reconquesta took off and Muslims began a savage oppression of all non Muslims.

MGB8

04-11-2005, 06:15 AM

Mediocrates

04-11-2005, 06:29 AM

But those are just convenient ideograms aren' they? We in the west have a sort of openended officially blessed world view where anything short of uncritical acceptance and tolerance of any philosophy, politics, cause, belief system is anathema. And this is precisely the opposite of what official Catholicism has to say on the subject. In fact the last Pope had this to say about Islam:

But perhaps John Paul IIâ€™s most systematic treatment of Islam is found in his chapter on â€œMuhammadâ€ in his 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope.14 (http://hnn.us/articles/11269.html#_ftn14) There his holinessâ€™ openness to Islam was tempered by a more traditional Christian view. For example, he said that â€œwhoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran [sic], clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelationâ€¦.In Islam all the richness of Godâ€™s self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside.â€15 (http://hnn.us/articles/11269.html#_ftn15) And this: â€œIslam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad.â€16 (http://hnn.us/articles/11269.html#_ftn16) He also mentioned that â€œfundamentalist attitudesâ€¦make reciprocal contacts very difficult,â€ because for Islamic fundamentalists â€œreligious freedom comes to mean freedom to impose on all citizens â€˜true religion.â€™â€17 (http://hnn.us/articles/11269.html#_ftn17) However, the pope did conclude that chapter by reiterating â€œall the same, the Church remains always open to dialogue and cooperation.â€18 (http://hnn.us/articles/11269.html#_ftn18)

http://hnn.us/articles/11269.html

golani

04-11-2005, 09:11 AM

[QUOTE=Sumud]It's hardly a unique 'structural problem' within Islam.

Christians would account for a far greater bloodshed than any other grouping.

????????

Read bat yeor and muslim invasion of india...
I you want a bloody count,I think murders and rapes by muslim mogols ,by themselves ,outclass all western equivalents altogether....

An I will not take into account the million of europeans(huge figure at that time)
who were slaves working for different rulers of north africa and turkey...

Ps according to some reports,already 300.000 deaths in darfour thanks to the peace lovers death cult...

Mediocrates

04-11-2005, 09:40 AM

Or whatever - two triumphalist faiths that barely suffer to tolerate The Other, The Foreign. And each seemingly can craft fairly good reasons to their own faithful, explaining it away.

So?

Static

04-11-2005, 12:12 PM

Its not a unique problem. Just a somewhat more difficult obstacle for Islam to surpass.

When someone asks "What would Jesus do?", a crusade or any form of killing is just not on the list. Now, when someone asks, "What would Mohammed do..." well... you get the picture.

A literalist interpretation of any of the holy books may lead to some horrific results, especially by todays standards of decency and morality. But this is (1) more true/ a greater problem for Islam ('strike their heads', etc.) and (2) its seems to be occuring more often.

It's all in the interpretation with any religion. As I've already stated once on this thread, there are a couple different interpretations for jihad in itself. The fact of the matter is that people have committed utter atrocities in the name of religion for as long as we can remember.

But it's important to keep in mind that .001% of Muslims subscribe to the horrific interpretations of scum like Bin Laden, with the overwhelming majority preferring to live their lives in peace and allow others to live as they wish as long as they don't impose their beliefs on them.

We are all of the same species, and it's ridiculous to insinuate that a certain kind of people are more susceptible to certain beliefs or behaviors.

MGB8

04-11-2005, 12:30 PM

Two problems with your post:

(1) Its a significantly larger percentage than .001 that subscribe to the beliefs, and maybe the .001 is people willing to act completely on those beliefs. The Wahabi sect, the preachers on PA media, what I read from Arab papers either on their english sites or translated through MEMRI... these beliefs are common throughout the Ummah.

(2) I NEVER said "a certain kind of people." It has NOTHING to do with race or ethnicity. It has EVERYTHING to do with the EXAMPLE of Muhammed, and with the TEXT of the Qu'ran and Surrah and Haadiths. Even then, text and example do not, in of themselves, lead to commiting any actions. Individuals FAITH in the Text and Examples, however, may lead them to do so. Moreover, when you have more clear and more violent examples and text, you will likely see more violent consequences and more violent actions based on those texts and examples. That's it.

It is not a question of race. It is a question of relative violence in a religion, and Islam has more, relatively, particularly towards other religions, than do Judaism or Christianity or certainly Buddhism. Now, compared to Shinto, or, say, the old Nordic religion or Aztec religion...

Its relative to one another. And, of course, its always an issue of what people choose to do with the texts.. But, on average, more violent text, more violent examples... lead to more violent people.

Static

04-11-2005, 12:53 PM

Two problems with your post:

(1) Its a significantly larger percentage than .001 that subscribe to the beliefs, and maybe the .001 is people willing to act completely on those beliefs. The Wahabi sect, the preachers on PA media, what I read from Arab papers either on their english sites or translated through MEMRI... these beliefs are common throughout the Ummah.

The Wahabi sect and PA authority media aside, which I do need to point out are two groups that are far from compromising all Muslims in the world, you seem to insinuate that Muslim preachers advocate hate. While it may be true that some do, the amount that do is in the minority.

Perhaps my .001% is an exageration, but I wouldn't say that the number is significantly larger than that, not by a long shot. Perhaps you have tangible evidence to indicate otherwise?

(2) I NEVER said "a certain kind of people." It has NOTHING to do with race or ethnicity. It has EVERYTHING to do with the EXAMPLE of Muhammed, and with the TEXT of the Qu'ran and Surrah and Haadiths. Even then, text and example do not, in of themselves, lead to commiting any actions. Individuals FAITH in the Text and Examples, however, may lead them to do so. Moreover, when you have more clear and more violent examples and text, you will likely see more violent consequences and more violent actions based on those texts and examples. That's it.

It is not a question of race. It is a question of relative violence in a religion, and Islam has more, relatively, particularly towards other religions, than do Judaism or Christianity or certainly Buddhism. Now, compared to Shinto, or, say, the old Nordic religion or Aztec religion...

Its relative to one another. And, of course, its always an issue of what people choose to do with the texts.. But, on average, more violent text, more violent examples... lead to more violent people.

Are you implying that Mohammed advocated hatred and intolerance?

golani

04-11-2005, 01:21 PM

It's all in the interpretation with any religion. As I've already stated once on this thread, there are a couple different interpretations for jihad in itself. The fact of the matter is that people have committed utter atrocities in the name of religion for as long as we can remember.

But it's important to keep in mind that .001% of Muslims subscribe to the horrific interpretations of scum like Bin Laden, with the overwhelming majority preferring to live their lives in peace and allow others to live as they wish as long as they don't impose their beliefs on them.

We are all of the same species, and it's ridiculous to insinuate that a certain kind of people are more susceptible to certain beliefs or behaviors.

Why are .001 perc of muslims able to terrorize 99.999 perc of the others??
I am baffled,should not it be the other way around???

MGB8

04-11-2005, 02:14 PM

Static

04-11-2005, 02:58 PM

http://www.israelforum.com/board/archive/index.php/t-1854.html

That is a start as to discussion of what the Muslim masses believe. Salafi's and Wahabi's are the best funded schools of Islam. They are the fastest growing.

Meanwhile, the bottom line is that Mohammed WAS a conqueror. "Tolerance" misses the point, he set an example of violence and, frankly, subjugation. Ditto the Caliphates. You could argue, well, the Macabees were violent. True, but they (1) aren't as primary as Mohammed to Islam, and (2) while they re-took biblical Israel, they did not go out to convert, and they did not go and conquer Assyria in return.

Jewish violence in the religious aspect, as exemplars, has never been about anything outside of capturing, recapturing or maintaining Israel itself. Islam, OTOH, was fundamentally expansionist. Imperialist!

You can try to evade the reality if you want. I think that is foolish. Its like the Japanese pretending they weren't imperialist during WWII, etc. Now look at the Japanese - or look at the Germans ... only by acknowledging their past can they move forward and be a peaceful part of the community of nations.

"Fastest growing" and "best funded schools in Islam" does not equate with your assertion that "Its a significantly larger percentage than .001 that subscribe to the beliefs."

There are millions upon millions of Muslims in the world, and you've failed to back up your claim. I suppose that you'll have to clarify exactly what you mean by "the beliefs."

You can argue what you wish about Mohammed, and I have no vested interest in defending the man because I am not Muslim, and thus, don't feel I have any reason to. I'm only bothered by what I perceive to be the vilification of Islam on these message boards, as I thoroughly disagree with you in placing the blame with Islam itself.

Knowing many Muslims myself, and having studied up a bit on the tenets of the religion, I think it's only fair to conclude that as with any religion, it's all in the interpretation. Mohammed indeed preached and exemplified religious tolerance, and degenerates such as Bin Laden have twisted the religion into something it was never intended to be.

Achihud

04-11-2005, 03:09 PM

Why are .001 perc of muslims able to terrorize 99.999 perc of the others??
I am baffled,should not it be the other way around???

I second that, why do we see nowhere mass demonstrations against al-Qaida in the muslim world except for Turkey? In my opinion it's because basically they all believe the same. Only there's no believe that terrorists can win. From the moment that changes they all will turn like 180 degrees. Mohammed and his followers were that kind of conquerors, bloodshed is their sign of divine appointment. It is also the cause of schism between shiite and sunite. From bad one can only get to worse, not better or good. One difference is that fundamentalists and extremists abandon Mohammed when he or better (the we-spirit of the Qor'aan) asks patience. (Hoed 122-123) Zawahiri and Bin Laden are really helping the West. No moderate muslim can convince an extremist to be patient for Mohammed remains for both the only example and as time passes an extremist only gets more impatient and a moderate moslim gets only more frustrated which is the foundation of becoming extreme. This is to the benefit of the West who in their present confusion deserve nothing more than the continue of torture of the Islam. How on earth will they ever wake up from the vast sleep Christ has warned theme from? If they are not wide awake they will be awakened the hard way.

Static

04-11-2005, 03:15 PM

Overgeneralizations are bad.

I hate to break it to the lot of you, but the world really isn't so simple. Things aren't black or white. Here in the REAL world, things are a bit more ambiguous.

Sumud

04-12-2005, 01:58 AM

Two problems with your post:

(2) I NEVER said "a certain kind of people." It has NOTHING to do with race or ethnicity. It has EVERYTHING to do with the EXAMPLE of Muhammed, and with the TEXT of the Qu'ran and Surrah and Haadiths. Even then, text and example do not, in of themselves, lead to commiting any actions. Individuals FAITH in the Text and Examples, however, may lead them to do so. Moreover, when you have more clear and more violent examples and text, you will likely see more violent consequences and more violent actions based on those texts and examples. That's it.

It is not a question of race. It is a question of relative violence in a religion, and Islam has more, relatively, particularly towards other religions, than do Judaism or Christianity or certainly Buddhism. Now, compared to Shinto, or, say, the old Nordic religion or Aztec religion...

Its relative to one another. And, of course, its always an issue of what people choose to do with the texts.. But, on average, more violent text, more violent examples... lead to more violent people.

The usual preferred misrepresentations.

Any reference to military jihad in the Qur'an, was specificaly limited by the injunction that one "must not trangress the limits", which the hadith set out as not killing women, children or the elderly, or those who do not fight.

And as someone ponted out earlier, the greatest jihad was set down as the struggle for one own's soul - this was supposed to be a Muslims greatest concern.

The modern extremists side with MGB8Â´s position. Do you like the company you keep MGB8?

allah akbaar

04-12-2005, 02:17 AM

allah akbaar

04-12-2005, 02:31 AM

The diffrent is only the language..but we are the same in every things ..1st we dont hate USA or ISrael .we hate the people who control them and say bad thing about islam . islam is the religon of peace and what u people see and hear about people like Bin Laden or Saddam is not related to islam ..its related to these sick people who used islam to achive thier goles..
we only want to live in peace with the whole world.
thanx

allah akbaar

04-12-2005, 02:57 AM

What i want to say about prophet mohamad is that he was a peace man with a massege from god to worship god only ...if he was what u people say he will not live in small house ..he will live in a castle..he will not eat one day and one day will not ..prophet Mohm..said that people with diffrent religon can live with us in peace and have our rights in every things .

andak01

04-12-2005, 04:02 AM

I second that, why do we see nowhere mass demonstrations against al-Qaida in the muslim world except for Turkey?

And Morocco and Jordan and Indonesia and America. When Bin Laden makes a speech, it's broadcast 20,000 times per day. But when 60 - 100,000 Moroccans march down the streets of Casablanca, carrying banners "Say no to terrorism", it's a back page story. And you must have forgotten all the candlelight vigils carried out in almost every Muslim country at the time of 9/11. I've already posted photos and links to these events until I'm exhausted, and we still get people who have never heard of them. I might add, through no fault of your own. These events are buried in the news, not celebrated as they should be. If Muslims demonstrating against terrorism were celebrated instead of ignored, perhaps there would be more of it.

MGB8

04-12-2005, 06:20 AM

There are CERTAINLY good examples from the prophet and good language in Islam.

Nowhere have I said that Islam is NECESSARILY violent or imperialist.

It is simply a matter of pointing out that Islam is a religion with relatively more directions towards violence and violent examples that are praised than the other Abrahamic religions. As such, those people who want to either (1) use it to promote violence, or (2) are have no direction as to Islam and so open themselves up to literalist interpretations are, RELATIVELY, more prone to religiously justified violence under Islam.

This is not "extremist." This is plain old fact. That doesn't mean Islam is "bad" or anything of the sort. It does mean that Muslims must be EXTRA vigilant against violent fanatics, Salafi's and Wahabis and other Jihadi's, who interpret the "limitations" to themselves be limited, who talk about 72 virgins for killing women and children and the elderly, who dance at the twin tower attack and other attacks, who murder Iraqi's in cold blood, etc. etc. etc.

Please, if you cannot look at your own religion in the mirror, honestly, then what chance does Islam really have?

MGB8

04-12-2005, 06:22 AM

ps. Bin Laden's speeches are broadcast mostly by ARAB and MUSLIM stations. Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya...etc. etc.

Do not pretend that the problem doesn't exist. That doesn't solve anything.

KSO

04-12-2005, 06:41 AM

ps. Bin Laden's speeches are broadcast mostly by ARAB and MUSLIM stations. Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya...etc. etc.

Do not pretend that the problem doesn't exist. That doesn't solve anything.

Bin Laden's speeches are broadcast by all main Media sources because for better or worse he is an important figure in world affairs today.

Static

04-12-2005, 09:23 AM

It is simply a matter of pointing out that Islam is a religion with relatively more directions towards violence and violent examples that are praised than the other Abrahamic religions. As such, those people who want to either (1) use it to promote violence, or (2) are have no direction as to Islam and so open themselves up to literalist interpretations are, RELATIVELY, more prone to religiously justified violence under Islam.

This is not "extremist." This is plain old fact. That doesn't mean Islam is "bad" or anything of the sort. It does mean that Muslims must be EXTRA vigilant against violent fanatics, Salafi's and Wahabis and other Jihadi's, who interpret the "limitations" to themselves be limited, who talk about 72 virgins for killing women and children and the elderly, who dance at the twin tower attack and other attacks, who murder Iraqi's in cold blood, etc. etc. etc.

Please, if you cannot look at your own religion in the mirror, honestly, then what chance does Islam really have?

First of all, Islam is not my religion. I don't subscribe to any religion.

Second, their interpretations are quite far from "literalist." Absolutely nowhere in the Koran is the killing of women and children promised to be rewarded by 72 virgins.

And that is the point I've been trying to make, that seems to be eluding you and many others on these forums. The Koran doesn't even imply these kinds of interpretations, and in fact, condemns them explicitly with the passage that states "To kill one person is the equivelant to killing all of human kind."

Islam and Human Rights

1. The Qur'an and Sunnah encourage Muslims to respect the life and property of all mankind.
2. In an Islamic State these rights are considered sacred, whether a person is Muslim or not.
3. Islam protects honor, forbids insulting others, and/or making fun of them.
4.Islam rejects certain individuals or nations being favored because of their wealth, power, and/or race.
5. All Muslims believe that Allah created all humans free and equal, only to be distinguished from each other on the basis of God-consciousness or piety and never on the basis of race, color or ethnicity.

Some of the Prophet Muhammad's Teachings (Sunnah)

1. He prohibited Muslim soldiers from killing women, children and the elderly, or cut a palm tree, and he advised them, "â€¦ do not betray, do not be excessive, do not kill a newborn child."
2. "Whoever has killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise, though its fragrance is found for a span of forty years."
3. "The first cases to be adjudicated between people on the Day of Judgment will be those of bloodshed." Killing is the second major sin in Islam.

MGB8

04-12-2005, 09:42 AM

Static,

You've missed MY point. Which is to say, OF COURSE Islam has "good" passages.

However, the examples of the Prophet's wars and battles, and those of his successors, couple by certain language in the Qu'ran and especially the Surrah's, which have been detailed on this board and elsewhere, give "literalists" who think that in the end of days the trees will shout "Oh muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him" or other such comandments to "strike of their heads," "terrorize your enemy," etc. give them religious justification for violence, and in fact push them in that direction.

I don't have the time to go over each of these examples. Its been done before, on this forum. Possibly at the beginning of this thread, and certainly in others, as well. It is a simple point - a religion with relatively more violent examples and violent language will be MORE PRONE to violence, and thus this causes a difficulty, a "problem" with Islam, in co-existing peacefully with other religions.

MGB8

04-12-2005, 09:44 AM

Bin Laden's speeches are broadcast by all main Media sources because for better or worse he is an important figure in world affairs today.

I was talking mainly in terms of number of repititions. While they get play in the US (especially, given 9/11), its not the same as the Arab stations.

Achihud

04-12-2005, 01:38 PM

And Morocco and Jordan and Indonesia and America. (...) If Muslims demonstrating against terrorism were celebrated instead of ignored, perhaps there would be more of it.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I believe there are and for the sake of peace, I'm in total agreement.
But, I wander how muslims can take part in a forum that allows no anti-USA or anti-IsraÃ«l sentiments? If I read the Qor'aan and want to become a muslim, the first thing I read related to the present day situation is this; (translated by me) O, thou who believe, don't take jews and christians to your fellow man. They are allies among themselves...(history has shown nothing than the opposite; catholic conversion, catholic and protestant and orthodox repression, holocaust etc.) And who regards one of them to be his friend is infact becoming one of them. Allah does not lead people who are in transgression. (Al-Maidah 52)

Further; It's possible that Allah shall bring about love between you and them with whom you are in hostility, for Allah is almighty, forgiving and merciful.
vers 9 subject 'those who did'nt fight' follows and then; Allah forbids friendship with those who have fought over religious matters (promised land?) and have driven you out of your homes (palestinian refugees??) and those who have helped them (allies of the West???). Whom so ever offer them their affection, they are the evil ones. (Al-Momtahanah 8-10)
According to this passages, muslims who consider IsraÃ«l and USA not as their enemy cannot be true muslims.

Now don't get me wrong, the purpose of bringing this up is only to stress out that if I was a moderate muslim, how could I read this in another way than extremists and fundamentalists do? It seems to me that 'islam is peace' only counts when islam is on the winning side.