vc
Check out the links. It explains much.
What you have to ask yourself is if Jesus was ever accused of sex with a nine year old? Or any other sin for that matter.
Lot had sex with his two daughters. Noah got tinkle drunk. Abraham pimped Sarah to get riches from pharaoh. Hey good job patriarchs.
Aside from that the site's name is christianforums.net. HELLO BIAS.
Reading the subject title I actually thought you were being reasonable for once and admitting that other religions hold their own validity. Besides, you guys all come from Abraham, you should be buddies or something.
Tab,
I never said that the OT prophets were perfect. Jesus is the only One who was.
That is the point here.
And Muhammad is no exception.
So why is it you accept these prophets even with their downfalls and yet you do not accept Mohammed, a prophet. Even the Muslims reguard him as a prophet, they don't make any outrageous messianic claims that I'm aware of.
"Muhammad and the beating of women"
This is where a lot of people misunderstand Islam. Men are never aloud to abuse women, this is strictly forbidden! What is aloud, though, is that a man can, only if his wife does something that is bad, tap her hand opposite the palm. This is to make her feel humiliated for the wrong she did.
Also, do not think that Men are superior in Islam. On the contrary, Women seem to have more property rights. In a divorce women get a certain percentage of the mans property (this is where algebra was created). There is an entire chapter devoted to women in the Qur'an; I strongly suggest you read it before blabbing off on a topic which exceeds your knowledge.
"Muhammad and sex with a 9 year old"
This is a really desperate point to make. I would first off like to mention that this was found in Hadiths, which usually can not be trusted. Since Hadiths are never memorized people usually tamper with them, adding things in and replacing certain text (sort of like the Bible).
I know you will want an explanation, so I will give you one (but I will NOT say that Muhammad, a Prophet of God, did such a thing). Truth be told, all cultures are different, here in America, marriage to a Cousin is out of the Question, but else where in the world it is done all the time. Also, here in America, kissing a sibling on the lips is considered a form of incest, but elsewhere it is a normal thing to do. During the 600's, marriage to young children was accepted and viewed as normal (in the Arabic Culture, I am not sure about else where, I will have to do some research). Just because to you it seems abnormal, does not mean that to others it is also abnormal. Such behavior still happens today, in fact it happened here in the USA, a 42 year old women married a 14 year old boy, so please, don't go ranting about things which you obviously don't understand.
"Muhammad and the murder of Asma bint Marwan"
"Muhammad and the torture and murder of Kinana"
"Muhammad and the murder of Abu Afak"
It is posts like these that make me laugh. You post about something, yet you do not know who the Prophet was! There was a Christian documentation about Prophet Muhammad that aired last year, I forget the title (I will try to find it), that clearly states that Muhammad was not a murderer and did not spread Islam by the sword. Muhammad and the People of Islam had to defend themselves from the Meccans and in doing so ended up defeating them. You really should learn more about Prophet Muhammad and his struggle to build up Islam. Btw, I must mention, that a few of the Christians who made the documentary, actually converted to Islam before airing it.
"Was Muhammad a role model?"
This guy, Gary_Bee that you listen to so closely, does not know a thing about what he is talking about.
How can a Prophet not be a role model? How can a Man who says, "Love thine neighbor, and love thine enemies," not be a role model? How can a Man who says, "When at war, do not harm any innocent civilians, do not harm the Women and Children, and let not one green leaf fall from a tree," not be a role model? How can a Man who with his great force entered Mecca, saw that the people of Mecca where afraid of him, left them alone and did not harm one of his enemies, not be a role model? How can a man who cared for so many orphans not be a role model? How can a man, with so much love in his heart for God and the Prophets of God not be a role model? How can a man who refused others to bow to him, and constantly repeated that he is a man just as all others are and does not need special attention, not be a role model? This list goes on forever.
I for one have two role models that I look up to, Prophet Muhammad and Prophet Jesus. These are two Great men, with Golden hearts that extend to all of mankind; hearts that are filled with love of God the one and only. If only I can be anywhere near these two great benevolent men, both of which I highly look up to, and read a great deal about them.
Mohamed,
See, the thing here is all this info is on the internet, so it MUST be true. [;)]
James.
quote:
Originally posted by James S
Mohamed,
See, the thing here is all this info is on the internet, so it MUST be true. [;)]
James.
Is this an extension to the statement, "It was on TV so it must be true"? HAHA
Nice post Mohamed.
Narrow-path's argument is on very dodgy ground.
In fact you can do the very same exercise with the bible using extracts that make out Jesus to be a very dodgy character indeed. I have one such essay somewhere if you want an example.
Such things prove nothing. Anyway, you have to remember that men like Jesus or Mohamed were very much men of their time, with different values than those of today. A lot of people can't see this as they view these people through a hazy cloud of mystisism.
btw in medieval Europe marriages frequently took place between adult men and 12 (approx) year old girls. The idea is that you can marry them off before they have a chance to ruin their chastity with someone else!
Your using modern moral codes to critisise medieval (or ancient) ones, which doesnt really wash imo.
Finaly, for your damning evidence your using information from these texts, which as we all know has been subject to all manner of changes and mistranslations. How do you know that Jesus or Mohamed REALLY did any of these things, how much do we REALLY know about these men, REALLY?
Douglas
Gandalf,
Prove to me that Jesus did any wrong or that it was ever even mentioned.
Tab,
The accepting og the OT prophets message is the acceptance of JESUS. He is the Messiah. That is who I worship. Not the messengers.
quote:
Originally posted by Narrow Path
The accepting og the OT prophets message is the acceptance of JESUS. He is the Messiah. That is who I worship. Not the messengers.
And the same for moslems, duh. They consider Mohammed as a prophet, they worship god. My question to you is why do you dismiss the evils of the Jewish prophets and yet patronize Mohammed for the same kinds of actions? Religious hypocricy at it's best.
quote:
Originally posted by Tab
And the same for moslems, duh. They consider Mohammed as a prophet, they worship god. My question to you is why do you dismiss the evils of the Jewish prophets and yet patronize Mohammed for the same kinds of actions? Religious hypocricy at it's best.
Because he doesn't care about facts he only cares about being right at any cost. Everything that comes out of his mouth is meant to try and prove that Narrow_path is right and everyone else is wrong. EGO at it's greatest plain and simple.
-Luke
quote:
Originally posted by Narrow Path
Gandalf,
Prove to me that Jesus did any wrong or that it was ever even mentioned.
Tab,
The accepting og the OT prophets message is the acceptance of JESUS. He is the Messiah. That is who I worship. Not the messengers.
Prove to me that he didn't. And while you are at it you might as well go ahead and prove that he is the Messiah. And prove where Jesus wanted to be worshipped as a god and that only by worshipping him that one is "saved". I thought that there was only one God and that you are not suppose to worship anyone but that one God. "Thou shall have on other gods before me."
I promised the title of a Christian Documentary on the Prophet Muhammad, so here it is, "Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet." The following link will take you to their website about Prophet Muhammad!
http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/
The Islamic Prophet Muhammed and his wonderful works!
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=3950 Muhammad and the beating of women
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=4056 Muhammad and sex with a 9 year old
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=4166 Muhammad and the murder of Asma bint Marwan
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=4029 Muhammad and the torture and murder of Kinana
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=3947 Muhammad and the murder of Abu Afak
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=2680 Was Muhammad a role model?
assalamu alkaikum mohamed,
any ways narrowminded should not post things he does on a forum,
check the facts idoit.
Quote from: Narrow PathGandalf,
Prove to me that Jesus did any wrong or that it was ever even mentioned.
I'm not Gandalf, but I can certainly provide the proof that he was accused.
Luke 7:34
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." '
Matt 12:24
But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons." And let's not forget that whole "king of the Jews" thing. Jesus was crucified, which was a punishment generally only reserved for insurrection against Rome and similar treasonous crimes. Of course, whether any of these accusations are legitimate or not is a whole other story.
As for Islam, I agree that the claims that have been presented are things each side can portray in whatever way they see fit. However, I'm more concerned about statements that come from the Q'uran itself. Suffice to say that the modern PC claim that "jihad" is only an internal struggle, or an act of self defense, appears to be blatantly false.
From an essay I wrote on the subject of "Christians and Jews under Muslim Conquest and Rule" last semester:
QuoteIt is commanded of believers to "fight in the way of Allah ... with full force of numbers and weaponry" because "by jihad is Islam established (Surah 2:190)." Muslims are to "fight them until there is no more disbelief and idolatry (Surah 2:193)," and Muhammad himself is commanded to "give tidings of painful torment" to those who disbelieve (Surah 9:3). Elsewhere, Muhammad is commanded to fulfill the terms of his treaty with another group, after which he is instructed to ambush and kill all the unbelievers he finds, until the survivors repent. Surah 47:4 is probably the most extensive and explicit verse in this category; as such I will quote it in its entirety. "So, when you meet (in fight – jihad in Allah's cause) those who disbelieve, smite their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (free them without ransom) or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue carrying out jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam and are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire or at least come under your protection] but if it had been Allah's will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight) in order to test some of you with others. But those who are killed in the way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."
...
Reactions to Pagans and polytheism in general is significantly more harsh, such as in Surah 9:5, where it is recommended that Pagans be killed whenever they are found unless they agree to convert to Islam, provided that the killing does not take place in the "forbidden months."
It must be said that the majority of Muslims today seem to want nothing more than to live in peace with their fellow human beings, and they should be commended for it. However, they are acting AGAINST what is plainly stated in the Q'uran, and how it has historically been interpreted, rather than in accordance with it. After doing the research for this essay, it really wasn't hard for me to see where more militant Muslims get their ideas -- their creed and mandate is essentially spelled out in their holy book, in no uncertain terms.
In light of this, I'd say it's the ethical responsibility of every peaceful Muslim to agree on an interpretation of their religion that condemns this sort of violence, and proclaim it from the rooftops.
What are you trying to prove here Narrow Path? That Jesus is the only way? Or that Islam is wrong?
this is the most pathetic thing that i ever heard.. narrowpath surely has a narrow mind if not anything else.. one can contort any statement to suit himself.. there is no point in suggesting that interpretations such as these have any meaning at all..
narrowpath, if you believe in jesus.. god for you. but you have no right to say that christianity is superior. each religion came up according to the needs of the people at a particular place and time. so each religion is important in its own way. to suggest that christianity is the way is blatant dogmatism and sheer stupidity. i know so many chrisitians who are not satisfied with the ideas of christianity. why? only because one religion and one idea does not suit all.. just like the same shirt cannot be worn by all..
ALLAHU AKBAR!!!!!!!!!!
thank you. blackgen and rest,
Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) was a human so he did make mistakes. But not the ones Narrow path has accused him of. and a common misconception is that muslims worship prophet muhammed, we dont only allah. for those who were not sure
The idea that the Prophet Muhammad(peace and blessings of ALlah be upon him) beat his wives or taught his followers to beat their wives is the most ridiculous idea that any orientalist has ever thought up of.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Among the Muslims the most perfect, as regards his
faith, is the one whose character is excellent, and the best among you are those who treat their wives
well."
Imam Ahmad recorded that `A'ishah said, "The Messenger of Allah never struck a servant of his with his hand, nor did he ever hit a woman. He never hit anything with his hand, except for when he was fighting Jihad in the cause of Allah. And he was never given the option between two things except that the most beloved of the two to him was the easiest of them, as long as it did not involve sin. If it did involve sin, then he stayed farther away from sin than any of the people. He would not avenge himself concerning anything that was done to him, except if the limits of Allah were transgressed. Then, in that case he would avenge for the sake of Allah.''
The Qur'an says: "And live with them(your wives) honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings through it a great deal of good. " [Surah An-Nisaa aayah 19]
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=10685
Muhammad(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
The best among you is he who is the best with his family. Verily, I am the best one among you with my family.
Question #44990: The reason why the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married 'Aa'ishah despite the age difference
Click here to get a printable version
Question :
A Christian colleague of mine asked me why the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married 'Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) when she was nine years old and he was nearly sixty, and was he intimate with her at that age or what? In fact I do not know how to respond to that.
Answer :
Praise be to Allaah.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married 'Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) after he married Sawdah bint Zam'ah (may Allaah be pleased with her). She – 'Aa'ishah – was the only virgin whom he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married. And he consummated the marriage with her when she was nine years old.
Among her virtues was the fact that the Revelation did not descend when he under one cover with any of his wives other than her. She was one of the dearest of all people to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and news of her innocence was revealed from above the seven heavens. She was one of the most knowledgeable of his wives, and one of the most knowledgeable women of the ummah as a whole. The senior companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to refer to her opinion and consult her.
With regard to the story of her marriage, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had grieved over the death of the Mother of the Believers Khadeejah, who had supported him and stood by his side, and he called the year in which she died The Year of Sorrow. Then he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married Sawdah, who was an older woman and was not very beautiful; rather he married her to console her after her husband had died and she stayed among mushrik people. Four years later the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married 'Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her), and he was over fifty. Perhaps the reasons for the marriage were as follows:
1 – He saw a dream about marrying her. It is proven in al-Bukhaari from the hadeeth of 'Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to her: "You were shown to me twice in a dream. I saw that you were wrapped in a piece of silk, and it was said, 'This is your wife.' I uncovered her and saw that it was you. I said, 'If this is from Allaah then it will come to pass.'" (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, no. 3682). As to whether this is a prophetic vision as it appears to be, or a regular dream that may be subject to interpretation, there was a difference of opinion among the scholars, as mentioned by al-Haafiz in Fath al-Baari, 9/181.
2 – The characteristics of intelligence and smartness that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had noticed in 'Aa'ishah even as a small child, so he wanted to marry her so that she would be more able than others to transmit reports of what he did and said. In fact, as stated above, she was a reference point for the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) with regard to their affairs and rulings.
3 – The love of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) for her father Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him), and the persecution that Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) had suffered for the sake of the call of truth, which he bore with patience. He was the strongest of people in faith and the most sincere in certain faith, after the Prophets.
It may be noted that among his wives were those who were young and old, the daughter of his sworn enemy, the daughter of his closest friend. One of them occupied herself with raising orphans, another distinguished herself from others by fasting and praying qiyaam a great deal... They represented all kinds of people, through whom the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was able to set out a way for the Muslims showing how to deal properly with all kinds of people. [See al-Seerah al-Nabawiyyah fi Daw' al-Masaadir al-Asliyyah, p. 711].
With regard to the issue of her being young and your being confused about that, you should note that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) grew up in a hot country, the Arabian Peninsula. Usually in hot countries adolescence comes early and people marry early. This is how the people of Arabia were until recently. Moreover, women vary greatly in their development and their physical readiness for marriage.
If you think – may Allaah guide you – that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not marry any virgin other than 'Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her), and that all his other wives had been previously married, this will refute the notion spread by many hostile sources, that the basic motive behind the Prophet's marriages was physical desire and enjoyment of women, because if that was his intention he would have chosen only those who were virgins and beautiful etc.
Such slanders against the Prophet of Mercy (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by kaafirs and others of their ilk, are indicative of their inability to find fault with the law and religion that he brought from Allaah, so they try to find ways to criticize Islam with regard to issues that are not related to sharee'ah.
And Allaah is the Source of strength. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions.
For more information see Zaad al-Ma'aad, 1/106.
Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)
Quote from: PalehorseQuote from: Narrow PathGandalf,
Prove to me that Jesus did any wrong or that it was ever even mentioned.
I'm not Gandalf, but I can certainly provide the proof that he was accused.
Luke 7:34
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." '
Matt 12:24
But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
And let's not forget that whole "king of the Jews" thing. Jesus was crucified, which was a punishment generally only reserved for insurrection against Rome and similar treasonous crimes. Of course, whether any of these accusations are legitimate or not is a whole other story.
As for Islam, I agree that the claims that have been presented are things each side can portray in whatever way they see fit. However, I'm more concerned about statements that come from the Q'uran itself. Suffice to say that the modern PC claim that "jihad" is only an internal struggle, or an act of self defense, appears to be blatantly false.
From an essay I wrote on the subject of "Christians and Jews under Muslim Conquest and Rule" last semester:
QuoteIt is commanded of believers to "fight in the way of Allah ... with full force of numbers and weaponry" because "by jihad is Islam established (Surah 2:190)." Muslims are to "fight them until there is no more disbelief and idolatry (Surah 2:193)," and Muhammad himself is commanded to "give tidings of painful torment" to those who disbelieve (Surah 9:3). Elsewhere, Muhammad is commanded to fulfill the terms of his treaty with another group, after which he is instructed to ambush and kill all the unbelievers he finds, until the survivors repent. Surah 47:4 is probably the most extensive and explicit verse in this category; as such I will quote it in its entirety. "So, when you meet (in fight – jihad in Allah's cause) those who disbelieve, smite their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (free them without ransom) or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue carrying out jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam and are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire or at least come under your protection] but if it had been Allah's will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight) in order to test some of you with others. But those who are killed in the way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."
...
Reactions to Pagans and polytheism in general is significantly more harsh, such as in Surah 9:5, where it is recommended that Pagans be killed whenever they are found unless they agree to convert to Islam, provided that the killing does not take place in the "forbidden months."
It must be said that the majority of Muslims today seem to want nothing more than to live in peace with their fellow human beings, and they should be commended for it. However, they are acting AGAINST what is plainly stated in the Q'uran, and how it has historically been interpreted, rather than in accordance with it. After doing the research for this essay, it really wasn't hard for me to see where more militant Muslims get their ideas -- their creed and mandate is essentially spelled out in their holy book, in no uncertain terms.
In light of this, I'd say it's the ethical responsibility of every peaceful Muslim to agree on an interpretation of their religion that condemns this sort of violence, and proclaim it from the rooftops.
I completely agree with that interpretation, for it is the historical interpretation and is correct. Jihaad is the means in which the banner of monotheism is uplifted and none is worshipped but the Creator.
The Prophet(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fought in order to rid the arabian peninsula from the darkness of idolatry. As for Jews and Christians and the Zoroastrians, he accepted Jizyah(protection tax) from them, in exchange that their lives, wealth, and honour would be protected.
QuoteI completely agree with that interpretation, for it is the historical interpretation and is correct. Jihaad is the means in which the banner of monotheism is uplifted and none is worshipped but the Creator.
So you do agree with the interpretation that says violence is a legitimate way of spreading Islam? Don't you think there's enough violence in the world as it is? What exactly is gained when someone is killed for not converting? Also, if your religion is true, then shouldn't its truth speak for itself without having to convert people against their will, by force?
QuoteThe Prophet(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fought in order to rid the arabian peninsula from the darkness of idolatry.
So you feel that murdering Pagans who won't accept your religion is completely justified? What is it about polytheists that you feel makes them undeserving of life? Why is killing them and sending them to Hell preferable to allowing them to live, thus preserving the possibility that they might convert later?
QuoteAs for Jews and Christians and the Zoroastrians, he accepted Jizyah(protection tax) from them, in exchange that their lives, wealth, and honour would be protected.
In other words, "give me money and I'll allow you to exist." What a deal.
There's a word for that, y'know -- extortion.
QuoteQuote:
I completely agree with that interpretation, for it is the historical interpretation and is correct. Jihaad is the means in which the banner of monotheism is uplifted and none is worshipped but the Creator.
So you do agree with the interpretation that says violence is a legitimate way of spreading Islam? Don't you think there's enough violence in the world as it is? What exactly is gained when someone is killed for not converting? Also, if your religion is true, then shouldn't its truth speak for itself without having to convert people against their will, by force?
"And if Allaah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief. But Allaah is full of bounty to the 'Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists)"
[al-Baqarah 2:251]
Ya i do agree with the interpretation. What is gained from fighting is uplifting the word of la ilaha illa Allah(there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah). Directing one's worship towards the Creator alone is true freedom, for it frees one from servitudes unto any person or any creation. Worship isnt simply asking God for forgiveness once a week, but rather it encompasses our whole life(with obedience, submission, love and reverence), and it is the purpose of our existence:
Allah the Exalted and Most Honored said,
[وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالإِنسَ إِلاَّ لِيَعْبُدُونِ ]
"And I created not the Jinn and mankind except that they should worship Me(alone)."
It is the purpose for which the Messengers were sent: "And verily, We have sent among every community and nation a Messenger (proclaiming): 'Worship Allaah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taaghoot (all false deities, etc. i.e. do not worship Taaghoot besides Allaah).'" (16:36)
Ibnul-Qayyim may Allaah have mercy on him said:
"A Taaghoot is what a slave exceeds his boundary with whether it be one worshipped or followed or obeyed and there are many Taaghoots." [9]
So idolatry according to Islam is all types of worship and submission which are directed unto other than one's Creator, and indeed it is an enslavement that isnt in accordance with man's nature. We know by nature that only Allah(God) deserves worship and that only He deserves to legislate and rule over mankind, since He is the Creator and Sustainer of all that exists. The man-made systems and idealogies of this world contradict this reality and make people submit to other than Him. Fighting jihaad brings people out of the servitude unto people, into the servitude unto the Lord of all people.
Sheikh Munajjid says about some of the tribulations of the unbelieving societies that make jihaad a necessity:
"The fitnah(oppression) of the kuffaar(unbelievers) themselves and their preventing others from hearing and accepting the truth. That is because the kaafir(unbelieving) systems corrupt the innate nature and reason of people, and make them get used to worshipping and submitting to things other than Allaah, getting addicted to alcohol, wallowing in the mire of sexual licence, and losing all characteristics of virtue. Whoever is like that can rarely tell truth from falsehood, good from evil, right from wrong. So jihad is prescribed in order to remove those obstacles that prevent people from hearing and accepting the truth and getting to know it. "
When the Muslims conquer a nation, the individuals of the nation are not forced to accept Islam, but they are forced to accept the rule of the Islamic state.
Sayed Qutb said:
This is something for which Islam deserves to be praised, not condemned. The defeatists should fear Allaah lest they distort this religion and cause it to become weak on the basis of the claim that it is a religion of peace. Yes, it is the religion of peace but in the sense of saving all of mankind from worshipping anything other than Allaah and submitting all of mankind to the rule of Allaah. This is the religion of Allaah, not the ideas of any person or the product of human thought, so that those who promote it should feel ashamed to state its ultimate goal, which is that all religion (worship) should be for Allaah alone. When the ideas that people follow are all produced by human beings and the systems and laws that control their lives are all made up by human beings, then in this case each idea and each system has the right to live safely within its own borders so long as it does not transgress the borders of others, so the various ideas and laws can co-exist and not try to destroy one another. But when there is a divine system and law, and alongside it there are human systems and laws, then the matter is fundamentally different, and the divine law has the right to remove the barriers and free people from enslavement to human beings...
QuoteSo you feel that murdering Pagans who won't accept your religion is completely justified? What is it about polytheists that you feel makes them undeserving of life? Why is killing them and sending them to Hell preferable to allowing them to live, thus preserving the possibility that they might convert later?
Many scholars say that the harsh treatment of the pagans of arabia was something particular to them, since they lived and heard the message of the Prophet(peace be upon him) for over 13 years and had the proofs and evidences established against them. Also, they broke their treaties with the Prophet so it was seen that their were only two choices(Islam or sword) left for them. AS for non-muslims outside of arabia, they were given the choice to stay upon their religion, in exchange that they submitted to the rule of the Islamic state. This in fact brought the rapid expansion of Islam, for warfare made its Word known in every land it came to, nad people learned to know the truth of Islam, without any societal factors to prevent them from accepting it.
AS for what makes me think polytheists are undeserving of life, it is because they contradict the very purpose of their existence, and commit the worst sin against God. They worship something else besides Him, although it is clear that He is the Creator whom everything depends on and deserves all worship.
Quote"And if Allaah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief. But Allaah is full of bounty to the 'Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists)"
So warfare and murder isn't "mischief"? Sounds like Allah has caused a lot more mischief than he's prevented.
QuoteYa i do agree with the interpretation. What is gained from fighting is uplifting the word of la ilaha illa Allah(there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah).
In what way is Allah's name "uplifted" by killing people? How can a conversion really be genuine if it's forced at swordpoint?
Quote
Fighting jihaad brings people out of the servitude unto people, into the servitude unto the Lord of all people.
Doesn't sound that way to me -- all its done is put various people into servitude to Muslims.
Quote"The fitnah(oppression) of the kuffaar(unbelievers) themselves and their preventing others from hearing and accepting the truth. That is because the kaafir(unbelieving) systems corrupt the innate nature and reason of people, and make them get used to worshipping and submitting to things other than Allaah, getting addicted to alcohol, wallowing in the mire of sexual licence, and losing all characteristics of virtue. Whoever is like that can rarely tell truth from falsehood, good from evil, right from wrong. So jihad is prescribed in order to remove those obstacles that prevent people from hearing and accepting the truth and getting to know it. "
So in summary, "we kill people to stop them from violating our moral code."
This is fallacious on two counts.
1. Obviously, very strong arguments can be made that unprovoked killing is, itself, immoral.
2. When you kill someone for being immoral, you've perhaps gotten rid of an immoral person, but you've done nothing to combat (or even address) the causes of immorality. For instance, someone might steal because they have no way to get their needs met legally. You can go and kill all the thieves you like, but until you create a society where people have adequate opportunity to meet their basic needs, some people are going to keep stealing.
Quote
When the Muslims conquer a nation, the individuals of the nation are not forced to accept Islam, but they are forced to accept the rule of the Islamic state.
I hope you understand that the very same rationale was used by the Roman Catholic Church to justify the Crusades. Namely "it's our God-appointed duty to liberate the land and people from the influence of 'heathens' until they see the light."
And you're both wrong for the same reasons. We agree that the same God created us all -- so how could it possibly please Him to see ANY of His kids killing each other for any reason?
QuoteSayed Qutb said:
This is something for which Islam deserves to be praised, not condemned.
Methinks Sayed Qutb seriously needs to rethink his priorities.
QuoteThis is the religion of Allaah, not the ideas of any person or the product of human thought,
Just about every religious person on earth thinks the same -- that their religion came straight from God, and others are manmade -- but that doesn't give them (or you) license to kill for it.
That said, the Quran contains enough misrepresentation of Christian theology (among other things... that's just my area of personal knowledge) and history to easily refute the claim that it's divinely inerrant. I realize Muslims believe that Christians and Jews are the ones whose religions are corrupted, and Islam showed up 500 years after the fact to tell us what "really" happened. But as far as I'm concerned, this is a dubious (and in many cases, near impossible and/or demonstrably false) claim, and a cop-out.
The acknowledgement of Quranical errancy on the part of Muslims would be a good first step toward developing a theology that allowed all Muslims to live at peace with their fellow human beings. But as you've helped to demonstrate, that might never happen, save for some sort of divine miracle.
Quote
AS for what makes me think polytheists are undeserving of life, it is because they contradict the very purpose of their existence, and commit the worst sin against God. They worship something else besides Him, although it is clear that He is the Creator whom everything depends on and deserves all worship
Obviously it's not clear to them, or they'd be monotheists by now. If the worship of one God was really the matter of life and death that you presume it to be, this God would have revealed Himself to every human being on an individual basis in an undeniable way by now. While I do believe that such a time is coming, it obviously has not at this point. Thus, the best thing we can do is to share what truth we do have with each other with compassion and understanding, and learn from what each has to contribute. From this, we'd all stand to benefit, regardless of what religious label we happen to classify ourselves under.
aaahhhh.... there's nothing quite as entertaining as reading some pointless theology arguments.... Its amazing the extent people go to in order to debate hypothetical scenarios... very interesting logic games... but that's all they are imo.
:twisted:
Reaches for flame proof trousers...
Douglas
QuoteQuote:
"And if Allaah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief. But Allaah is full of bounty to the 'Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists)"
So warfare and murder isn't "mischief"? Sounds like Allah has caused a lot more mischief than he's prevented.
"Al-Fitnah is worse than killing." [Surah Al Baqarah 2:191]
'' Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that what Allah said:
[æóÇáúÝöÊúäóÉõ ÃóÔóÏøõ ãöäó ÇáúÞóÊúáö]
(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) "Shirk (polytheism) is worse than killing.''
Quote
In what way is Allah's name "uplifted" by killing people? How can a conversion really be genuine if it's forced at swordpoint?
I already told you: its not "Islam or the sword". If someone doesnt choose to become Muslim, they have the choice to submit to the rule of the Islamic state and keep their own religion. What jihaad does, is make it so that all the obstalces are removed from conveying the message to people, so that the people then have the choice to accept it or reject it.
I'll give you an example of how Allahs name is uplifted through fighting disbelievers. Democracy in itself is a form of polytheism and disbelief. This is because one of Allaah's names is "Al-Hakam"(the Legislator or Lawgiver):
"The Hukm (judgment) is for none but Allâh. He has commanded that you worship none but Him" [al-Qur'aan 12:40]
Democracy gives this attribute of legislation and law-giving to men, thus uplifting the whims of men over what Allaah has revealed. It puts the god-ship and attribute of ultimate wisdom to people instead of Allaah, thus the nature of it causes widespread disbelief. Fighting against such a nation is legislated so that the word of disbelief becomes the lowest and the word of Allaah becomes the highest.
It seems to me that Pale horse thinks of a very stereo-typical image when he reads the word Jihad. By Jihaad it is meant defense of the Muslims, their rights and their lands. So of course fighting for Allah (SWT) is uplifting the banner of Islam, because if someone goes against our rights or invades us we do not deny it being justified to killing the afore mentioned parties.
And Iam not refering to terrorist attacks such as the tragic events of 9/11.
Regarding Jizyah:
Tell me "Pale Horse", do you pay the tax? I think you do. If you didn't, what would the government do to you.
Also, if lands which are under Muslim control and in which non-Muslims live, are invaded, the non-Muslims are protected and are in no way forced to fight to fight or join the army.
Any questions? Please post them.
To my Muslim Brothers:
"And say to the Jaahils "Assalamualaikum"
QuoteIt seems to me that Pale horse thinks of a very stereo-typical image when he reads the word Jihad. By Jihaad it is meant defense of the Muslims, their rights and their lands. So of course fighting for Allah (SWT) is uplifting the banner of Islam, because if someone goes against our rights or invades us we do not deny it being justified to killing the afore mentioned parties.
No. When I started my research on this last semester, I did so with the expressed intent to figure out what the definition of the word was from an unbiased perspective, which I did by letting the sources (mainly the Quran and Muslim authors) speak for themselves. As Fazlur Rahman put it: "The most unacceptable on historical grounds, however, is the stand of those modern Muslim apologists who have tried to explain the jihad of the early community in purely defensive terms." (source (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226702812/qid=1104237962/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/103-7034069-0172602?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)) For the Quran quotes I found that explicitly commanded physical aggression for the purpose of spreading Islam, refer back to my previous post. I also consulted some historical sources to see what the earliest period of Muslim history was like, as I figured that would give a good sense of the original interpretation. Needless to say it didn't take more than a brief glimpse at how the early Muslim communities jihad-ed their way across the Middle East, all the way into western Europe and North Africa to prove that these people weren't exactly acting in self defense.
But if quotes from the Quran, Muslim authors and history books aren't enough, then you might also want to take it up with Islamis4u, as he's been saying the same thing.
Quote
Regarding Jizyah:
Tell me "Pale Horse", do you pay the tax? I think you do. If you didn't, what would the government do to you.
I pay the same state and federal taxes everyone else in the country does. I don't have to pay a special tax that discriminates against me on the basis of my religion (a case could be made that it does based on my being a Californian, but let's not get into THAT. :P).
Quote
Also, if lands which are under Muslim control and in which non-Muslims live, are invaded, the non-Muslims are protected and are in no way forced to fight to fight or join the army.
Is that an official part of Muslim law, or just something that happens in some Muslim countries, or...?
Anyway, that's a nice perk, but it doesn't exactly make up for the way non-Muslims have historically been treated in Muslim societies. Another excert from my essay:
QuoteSo then, what was it like to live as a member of a foreign religion in a Muslim dominated land? Historical source documents from early in Muslim history do not paint a pretty picture. The Pact of Umar, which is assumed to date around 720 CE, details many of the restrictions placed on Jews and Christians living under Muslim rule. Jews and Christians, or "dhimmis" as they were called, were obligated to rise from their seats when a Muslim wished to sit. They were not allowed to preach their religion, and were prohibited from trying to prevent anyone of their own religion from converting to Islam. They had to refrain from raising their voices when following their dead in funeral processions. They were also prohibited from riding on horses or mules but only donkeys, and were not permitted to use saddles. Christians were not permitted to build new churches, or maintain existing ones. The wooden clapper used by Christians to call their members to prayer was banned, as was chanting, carrying a bible or a cross in processions. Christians were required to wear special clothing, such as a particular style of girdle, so they could be readily identified. A Muslim woman could not marry a Christian man; however a Christian woman could marry a Muslim man. Children of a mixed marriage were always considered Muslim. A Muslim could own a dhimmi slave, but never the opposite.
I can think of two particular instances in both German and American history where certain groups of people were forced to wear "special clothing" so they could be identified... or had to get up when someone of the dominant group wanted to sit, along with many other discriminatory practices and restrictions of freedom. These eras are widely regretted and looked upon with disgust today, and rightfully so. How is this any different?
"... These eras are widely regretted and looked upon with disgust today, and rightfully so. How is this any different?"
Palehorse:
Religion isn't my thing, but I just wanted to say that I think the above quote of yours is one of the most sensible things that has been said within this forum for a while.
Yours,
Frank
QuoteQuote:
Also, if lands which are under Muslim control and in which non-Muslims live, are invaded, the non-Muslims are protected and are in no way forced to fight to fight or join the army.
Is that an official part of Muslim law, or just something that happens in some Muslim countries, or...?
yeah it is part of the shareeah. non-muslims are not required to go into the Muslim army. If they do choose to join the Muslim army, the jizyah is uplifted from them as was practiced by the Caliph Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him).
Quote from: Islamis4uQuoteQuote:
I completely agree with that interpretation, for it is the historical interpretation and is correct. Jihaad is the means in which the banner of monotheism is uplifted and none is worshipped but the Creator.
So you do agree with the interpretation that says violence is a legitimate way of spreading Islam? Don't you think there's enough violence in the world as it is? What exactly is gained when someone is killed for not converting? Also, if your religion is true, then shouldn't its truth speak for itself without having to convert people against their will, by force?
"And if Allaah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief. But Allaah is full of bounty to the 'Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists)"
[al-Baqarah 2:251]
Ya i do agree with the interpretation. What is gained from fighting is uplifting the word of la ilaha illa Allah(there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah). Directing one's worship towards the Creator alone is true freedom, for it frees one from servitudes unto any person or any creation. Worship isnt simply asking God for forgiveness once a week, but rather it encompasses our whole life(with obedience, submission, love and reverence), and it is the purpose of our existence:
I only wanted to write after you declared that it is all right to kill people if they are what you call "pagan":
So than Aryan religions say that you should NOT BOW DOWN TO ANY GOD. Those who do are slaves, Dasyu who should be killed. Aryans believed that humans were all God's incarnations .. so ARYANS WERE FORBIDDEN TO BOW DOWN TO ANYONE OR ANYTHING
except the God within themselves. 1)Now if Aryans now say, people who bow down to ANY God are unworthy of living in Aryan territory...what would you say? Our books tell us to slay who bow down like slaves to God...so should we to FREE MANKIND from your enslavement to Allah?
2)Also, not every human is born from Adam. Your books the Quran and Bible come from a very fine lineage of a Man named Adam who was kicked out of heaven. Abraham also lied about his wife Sarah being his sister. Do you think you have the highest truth? In other words,
if these men could LIE TO GOD HIMSELF...what makes you think they can't lie to you?
3) Mohammad was the ONLY "sage" who used to get siezures while recieving revelations...he also might've died crazy, in Islamic history books, Ayesha says that Mohammad goes at night asking forgiveness from corpses seeming afraid of something.
IF the founder of your own religion was not deemed mentally sound, could the practice of this religion lead to mental imbalance and even madness?4) your religion only says I get to go to heaven, and MOHAMMAD WAS THE LAST PROPHET of ALLAH...does this mean that Muslims can't go higher than Mohammad and if by chance someone did, would you kill such a man?
"O people ! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, but verily, he is the Apostle of God and the last in the line of Prophets. And God is Aware of everything." (Surah Al Ahzab: 40)
5) You say that only SEMITIC "apostles" are fit for worship, i.e. Christ and Mohammad. But make no mention of Aryan, Greek and Chinese sages. Is this RACIST? Why should non-Semites worship Mohammad who claimed that Semites were superior? Why should non-Semites take the word of people who were kicked out of heaven?
Im afraid you are wasting your breath with this one, although you bring up some good points...
some people are so concerned about arguing between the branches of what from an outsiders viewpoint are merely different branches of the same religion, ie middle-eastern religion (ie judaism, christianity and islam) that they are completely unaware of everything outside of it, including a whole kalaidascope of of other faiths and religions.
Actually in my view islam is the idea of monotheism taken to its logical conclusion and therefore is possibly the most logical of the three branches of this faith system.. it is therefore also the most dangerous as it takes the implications of the one creator god to its logical and insane conclusion.. that the 'rule of god' is above the 'rule of man', therefor god in opposed to democracy... this is implied in the previous two expresions of this faith system but reaches its full fruition in islam.
For this reason muslims see islam as the most perfect faith and superior than the previous expressions and in this they are correct in a sense as it is the faith that takes the previous strands and works them out to their logical conclusions... however this doesnt mean it is any more correct... in fact it is even more highly dangerous.
Christianity has been tempred by humanistic ideas over the years and secular ethics have taken the edge out of it since the 18th century enlightenment; Orthodox Judaism is as dangerous as Islam in my opinion but again, this group are in the minority and most jews are of the liberal persuasion, again being tempered by secular ethics and humanism...
The only truly fundamentalist faith out there which is still openly oppossed to democracy and therefore human freedom is islam...
For this reason islam must learn to temper itself so that it can fit in with a democtatic model, otherwise it threatens the rest of human democracy..
don't get me wrong, our curent version of democracy isnt perfect either but it is the *least worst system* and the best we have.
I don't want to sound like a george bush character here (and i dont like him as he's a bit too much of a christian fundamentalist for my likeing) but after careful thought I think I would most certainly prefer to live under 'the rule of man' than the 'rule of god' esp. since the 'rule of god' is still the rule of man but warped out of all recognition.
Douglas
QuoteI only wanted to write after you declared that it is all right to kill people if they are what you call "pagan":
So than Aryan religions say that you should NOT BOW DOWN TO ANY GOD. Those who do are slaves, Dasyu who should be killed. Aryans believed that humans were all God's incarnations .. so ARYANS WERE FORBIDDEN TO BOW DOWN TO ANYONE OR ANYTHING except the God within themselves.
1)Now if Aryans now say, people who bow down to ANY God are unworthy of living in Aryan territory...what would you say? Our books tell us to slay who bow down like slaves to God...so should we to FREE MANKIND from your enslavement to Allah?
Thats retarded. Thats the most disgusting filthy belief ive ever heard of. What you dont understand is that people arent free, they all are always enslaved to something. Since people have intentions and actions, and people have desires and will, they will always be enslaved unto something whether it be their desires, satan, power, money, God, or an idol that they worship besides Him. What this Aryan belief is saying, is that the One who created you does not have the right to be worshipped, but rather one should worship himself. Look at the arrogance, attributing perfection to oneself when you ARENT perfect. You DO NOT have knowledge of the unseen, you CAN NOT understnad the higher realities, and most certainly have no proof that the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe is within oneself. Thats ridiculous.
Rather, God is SEPARATE from His creation, He sustains everything, and He has knowledge of everything. Worshipping your Creator is the logical conclusion, since everything is sustained by Him and everything depends on Him and He is free from any imperfection, and to Him belongs the most perfect attributes.
Such a belief of the Aryans is worse than any pagan belief, since it puts the attribute of Lordship from the Creator, to oneself. The pagan arabs believed that there was one God who created the universe, yet they worshipped others to bring them closer to God. Yet such a belief of the aryans is more like athiesm, a sick 'I am God' belief that only brings people into further darkness.
Quote2)Also, not every human is born from Adam. Your books the Quran and Bible come from a very fine lineage of a Man named Adam who was kicked out of heaven. Abraham also lied about his wife Sarah being his sister. Do you think you have the highest truth? In other words, if these men could LIE TO GOD HIMSELF...what makes you think they can't lie to you?
Abraham(peace be upon him) doesnt ever lie to God. In fact, it is you polytheists who invent lies upon God. You attribute to God whatever you feel like and conjecture about his nature at the guide of your whims. God's nature and attributes are far beyond the intellect of man to understand. You're claims about God 'being inside oneself' are baseless with no proof. The claims about 'God being everything and everything being God' is even more ridiculous. How could the Creator be His creation and the creation be the Creator? How could the One who created the universe simultaneously be the universe that was created? And if you say that God didn't create anything but rather is simply 'manifested' into his creation, then you are no better than an athiest who doesnt believe in God.
Quote3) Mohammad was the ONLY "sage" who used to get siezures while recieving revelations...he also might've died crazy, in Islamic history books, Ayesha says that Mohammad goes at night asking forgiveness from corpses seeming afraid of something.
IF the founder of your own religion was not deemed mentally sound, could the practice of this religion lead to mental imbalance and even madness?
He didnt get seizures. He went to khadija when he received his
first revelation because he was completely afraid at what he saw(the Angel Jibril). I dont know what youre talking about that he isnt deemed 'mentally sound'. Its only logical that if a person saw an Angel telling him he was going to be a Messenger, that he would be frightened and confused.
Quote4) your religion only says I get to go to heaven, and MOHAMMAD WAS THE LAST PROPHET of ALLAH...does this mean that Muslims can't go higher than Mohammad and if by chance someone did, would you kill such a man?
"O people ! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, but verily, he is the Apostle of God and the last in the line of Prophets. And God is Aware of everything." (Surah Al Ahzab: 40)
Thats what you dont seem to understand. You deem every Prophet and Messenger simply to be a philosopher and a spiritual seeker who acheived some level of 'high spirituality'. You deem them to be people who possess some knowledge of the Unseen and powers that other people
do not possess. In Islam we dont see them that way, but rather their miracles, revelations, information of the unseen, were all by Allaah's permission and will, and it was none of their personal ability:
Say (O Muhammad ): "I possess no power of benefit or hurt to myself except as Allah wills. If I had the knowledge of the Ghaib (unseen), I should have secured for myself an abundance of wealth, and no evil should have touched me. I am but a warner, and a bringer of glad tidings unto people who believe." [Surah Al-A'raf Ayah [188]]
"And to Allah belongs the Ghaib (unseen) of the heavens and the earth, and to Him return all affairs (for decision). So worship Him (O Muhammad ) and put your trust in Him. And your Lord is not unaware of what you (people) do." " [Surah Hud Ayah [123]
"It is He Who sends down manifest Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) to His slave (Muhammad ) that He may bring you out from darkness into light. And verily, Allah is to you full of kindness, Most Merciful. " [Surah Hadid Ayah [9]
So we dont see Muhammad(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as being so spiritually superior that he received revelations and miracles at his own dismissal and power, but rather this was all at GOD's dismissal and power. This is the same belief we hold about th eother Prophets and Messengers such as Jesus(peace be upon him).
Quote5) You say that only SEMITIC "apostles" are fit for worship, i.e. Christ and Mohammad. But make no mention of Aryan, Greek and Chinese sages. Is this RACIST? Why should non-Semites worship Mohammad who claimed that Semites were superior? Why should non-Semites take the word of people who were kicked out of heaven?
Part of the Islamic aqeedah(belief) is that there were Prophets and Messengers sent to every nation and community throughout mankind:
"And verily, We have sent among every Ummah(nation) a Messenger(proclaiming): Worship Allah, and avoid the Taghut (all false dieties)." [16:36]
And for every Ummah (a community or a nation), there is a Messenger; when their Messenger comes, the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged. (Qur'ân 10:47)
Some of these Messengers were mentioned in the Qur'an and some werent:
And, indeed We have sent Messengers before you (O Muhammad(P)); of some of them We have related to you their story and of some We have not related to you their story, and it was not given to any Messenger that he should bring a sign except by the Leave of Allah. So, when comes the Commandment of Allah, the matter will be decided with truth, and the followers of falsehood will then be lost. (Qur'ân 40:78)
When Abu Dharr asked the Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) about the number of Prophets and Messengers, the Messenger said:
"One hundred and twenty thousand of Prophets, among them three hundred and thirteen Messengers."
So every nation had Messengers and Prophets, yet mainly only the semetic ones were mentioned in the Quran. The issue is, that they all carried the same message: monotheism. Whether Buddha and his likes were prophets or messengers, it is possible, yet their history may have been distorted over the years.
WE dont worship Muhammad(peace be upon him) or any messenger, and we dont expect anyone to worship Muhammad. He himself said:
"Do not exaggerate about me as the Christians exaggerated about Jesus. I am simply a servant(of God) and Messenger."
And most asuredly we dont consider semetic peoples superior to non-semetic peoples. the Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) himself said:
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action."
We worship God and no other. And we worship Him with what He has legislated, not what human beings invent.
This is the meaning of the shahadah, the testimony of faith:
"There is nothing worthy of worship except Allaah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah"
Thats retarded. Thats the most disgusting filthy belief ive ever heard of
hehe that's actually the BEST line i have heard on this forum ALL YEAR!!!
WELL DONE!!!
Douglas
Zeus (coolness be upon him) rocks!
I'll point out some glaring errors imo in the Abrahamic religons (islam, christianity, judaism):
1) They believe that one path is for all. The religion should be flexible to accomadate different types of people.. people with varying beliefs and faiths. This is essential because all people are not same. I might like a certain food,, while you might not. There is no point on arguing that the food you eat is better or the food that I is better. GOD should be within the reach of everybody. It is insanely wrong to say that an atheist should suffer and not have a chance at GOD realization. For such a person, his path must be such that it does not contradict with his faith system (in this example, that he does not believe in GOD). As he progresses along his path, he himself should be able to realize the existence of GOD and the unity of nature. Religion should be accesible to people. There is no point in forcing the same ideas on every person. This is the single most important reason that Christians feel confused by their faith. Customization is the thing.
2) These religions are derived from a single source of authority... some prophet of GOD. Although I have no problem with this, I have often found this leading to problems. In fact the start of this thread was exactly due to such a problem. If somebody cast aspersions on the character of the Prophet, the religion is then on shaky ground. So in that sense, the single source of authority is bad.
3) These religions were preached at a particular time for a particular region. To assert that those very same ideas should today be followed without change is imo blatantly ridiculous.
Ohh.. and so I want to say that there is no point in arguing that any religion is superior or inferior. If you want to believe in it, go ahead. But don't ridicule the beliefs of others. My post was not intended to ridicule the Abrahamic religions but merely to point out some reasons why people might not want to follow these and such people are well within their rights to switch to a faith system that suits them better to achieve the ultimate purpose of life.
QuoteThats retarded. Thats the most disgusting filthy belief ive ever heard of
hehe that's actually the BEST line i have heard on this forum ALL YEAR!!!
WELL DONE!!!
Douglas
I remember you from a few years ago. My old name was DjMidgetman
Quote1) They believe that one path is for all. The religion should be flexible to accomadate different types of people.. people with varying beliefs and faiths. This is essential because all people are not same. I might like a certain food,, while you might not. There is no point on arguing that the food you eat is better or the food that I is better. GOD should be within the reach of everybody. It is insanely wrong to say that an atheist should suffer and not have a chance at GOD realization. For such a person, his path must be such that it does not contradict with his faith system (in this example, that he does not believe in GOD). As he progresses along his path, he himself should be able to realize the existence of GOD and the unity of nature. Religion should be accesible to people. There is no point in forcing the same ideas on every person. This is the single most important reason that Christians feel confused by their faith. Customization is the thing.
The issue here isn't personal tastes or preferences, its about what is truth and what is falsehood. When you understand that the universe is built upon Truth, a set of physical laws, and that it was created for a specific purpose, you also have to bear witness to the falsehood of what contradicts that.
Islam is a very universal religion. If you look at the Prophet's teachings, his way of life, and the religion he came with, you'll see that it is universal and can apply for all times and peoples. This is why you'll see people from every race, background, culture, etc. clinging to Islam and following the traditions of the Prophet, because they are complete and preserved. The western scholars themselves admit that we know more about the Prophet Muhammad's life than any other Prophet or even historical figure. I suggest you read some of the seerah(history) books of his life, or you could goto www.islamqa.com and see the rulings for prayer, fasting, charity, laws, etc. all in accordance with the Qur'an and the authentic sunnah(example of the Prophet). They may help you have a better understanding of the universality of Islam's rulings, since it breaks all cultural, national, or racial barriers, and sees these as meaningless.
"O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you in the sight of Allah is that (believer) who is most deeply conscious of Him. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware."[Surah Hujurat ayah 13]
There are many paths to "God" or "Realisation". No-one, but no-one has the right to claim that there is ONLY one way. To top it off no one has the right to claim that any forms of violence, force and coercion is a proper way to spread a faith. If "peace" is something that will weaken a religion-then that religion itself is in the wrong. I don't care that I don't have deep understandings of Islamic law and culture. I don't have a deep understanding of many psychopaths either, I don't have an understanding of many people who can rationalise acts of pure evil.
But I can feel that they are wrong in what they do-even though in their hearts they've been twisted to believe they are right.
If any religion was the ONLY true religion, then not a single human alive would be able to deny it, as it would be self evident without the intervention of violence or other methods. The trouble with language and semantics is that we are able to justify ANY position with all kinds of clever quotes, and arguements.
To kill in self defence (of yourself and your loved ones) as you would be killed otherwise is argueably the only real reason to fight that cannot be condemned. To kill for religious belief-i.e. to force the take up of that belief is ONE of mankinds greatest evils (in my own opinion). There are other things as bad but this stands out to me at this time.
Nothing, but nothing will persuade me to believe in anothers dogma ever. And conversion by force of arms or economics is NOT real, it's insincere and "Allah" would know the difference.
"May YOUR God(s)/Goddess(es) walk with you, guide you and protect you"
The issue here isn't personal tastes or preferences, its about what is truth and what is falsehood
It is the above line which highlights the whole problem about 'one path' religions. Why should I believe you or the Quoran or the Bible or any other text when it lists what is 'true' and what is 'falsehood'?
Islam is not the 'religion of proofs' neither is any other religion.. they are all perfectly logical on their own grounds but that is because each religion makes up its own rules so they are all very logical within themselves.. islam is very logical too, but you have to remember none of these religions are logical *outside* of their own self-built rules.
This is what theology is all about, arguing which set of rules is more logical for any given hypothetical (divine) scenario, and modifiyng that scenario if required. Thats why i don't really have much time for theologans, since they are very good at arguing which hypothetical scenario is the most logical, which is all well and good but at the end of the day it isnt any more than that.. a hypothetical scenario... logic games are all very clever and interesting (some of them are works of genius!) but this doesnt mean that the person who came up with the idea actually has any more idea of the *reality* of the 'divine world' than me or anyone else... its all theoretical logic games, fine for the campus but thats about it.
Your *proofs* are provided due to the fact that if you start of with a basic premise, you can then bring in all kinds of non-related evidence and facts and mould them in to justify your beliefs.. all the 'evidence' you come up with can also be used by someone else for their own quite different ends.
You may be frustrated that you can't convince people, like me, but at the end of the day you'r just going to have to accept it, and don't ever try to say that 'convincing' people by force is ever sanctioned because it isnt.
Quote from: Islamis4uQuoteI only wanted to write after you declared that it is all right to kill people if they are what you call "pagan":
So than Aryan religions say that you should NOT BOW DOWN TO ANY GOD. Those who do are slaves, Dasyu who should be killed. Aryans believed that humans were all God's incarnations .. so ARYANS WERE FORBIDDEN TO BOW DOWN TO ANYONE OR ANYTHING except the God within themselves.
1)Now if Aryans now say, people who bow down to ANY God are unworthy of living in Aryan territory...what would you say? Our books tell us to slay who bow down like slaves to God...so should we to FREE MANKIND from your enslavement to Allah?
Thats retarded. Thats the most disgusting filthy belief ive ever heard of. What you dont understand is that people arent free, they all are always enslaved to something. Since people have intentions and actions, and people have desires and will, they will always be enslaved unto something whether it be their desires, satan, power, money, God, or an idol that they worship besides Him. What this Aryan belief is saying, is that the One who created you does not have the right to be worshipped, but rather one should worship himself.
Since you don't seem to have an intellect, I will only talk to you in terms of religion and religous notions. It seems only Semites were kicked out of heaven for listening to Satan, and perhaps it seems the Bible and Koran are nothing more than the continuation of that proud tradition of Adam. Aryan Dharma is about freeing oneself FROM ALL BONDS - INCLUDING GOD. it is about self perfection not slavery to anyone or anything.
You talk about man being arrogant? God in Arya Dharma is deemed nothing more than an arrogant Magician who thinks he created the universe and demands worship. The Universe is nothing more than an illusion...a nice hologram according to the Aryans and modern science is closer to proving this theory as the correct one.
You see, your books are false, because just about everyone else has their own revelations saying they WERE NOT KICKED OUT OF HEAVEN. So Semites and their "forked tongued" friend, "Satan" , jealous of the fact that the rest of us were actually stayed in Eden 8) ... thought "WHY NOT BRING non_SEMITES TO HELL along with us?"...let us give them false revelations - THAT WAY NOONE WILL MAKE IT TO HEAVEN!
And no, we are not sons of Adam, Aryans are sons of "Manu Vaivasvan", the "shining glorious mind", they were born from the "smart one". Adam means "earth"...i.e. those who are "thick" in more ways than one. Which again goes to show you that your religion is ONLY MADE FOR SEMITES.
Your religion is not universal in any sense, since Mohammad declared only semites to be the greatest sages...but I think semites are according to your own scriptures, prisoners on earth, to be kept away from heaven and God's sight.
Semites are "People of the Book" a good excuse to not use your own brain.
Aryans (who are always at peace :P )are "People of the Mind"...people who not only read books, but use their brains.
And God the self told the Aryans, "
You knumbskull use your mind and don't listen to the semites for verily they don't have one --- for all their thinking can be put into one small book" :D
Kalratri,
This Aryan Dharma, Aryan Gods and Theology you talk about sound very interesting!
Some of it sounds Heathen proper and some sounds Buddhist (both of which interest me). Where can I find out more about the stuff you are talking about? From a historical perspective first, and from a religious perspective second.
I have a copy of the Upanisads, which I am currently reading (boy, its a dry read) is that related to what you are speaking of?
Quote from: karnautrahl
If any religion was the ONLY true religion, then not a single human alive would be able to deny it, as it would be self evident without the intervention of violence or other methods.
That is akin to saying, well why do we need science since the truth ought to be evident to EVERYONE without science having to prove it.
Any particular religion must prove itself by it's own practice...i.e. there ought to be similar results...which means that if Islam is truly correct, then we should all get spasms and seizures and cry before corpses for forgiveness just like Mohammad after it's full practice since Mohammad was Islam's greatest practitioner and last prophet.
Quote from: fuji257Kalratri,
This Aryan Dharma, Aryan Gods and Theology you talk about sound very interesting!
Some of it sounds Heathen proper and some sounds Buddhist (both of which interest me). Where can I find out more about the stuff you are talking about? From a historical perspective first, and from a religious perspective second.
I have a copy of the Upanisads, which I am currently reading (boy, its a dry read) is that related to what you are speaking of?
Well since Aryans consider themselves to be Super heroes, Aryans knew that the world's "one true religion" must verily be read as comic books:
http://www.amarchitrakatha.com
And God, the Aryan self, thought "hey, comics are fun to read, thank you Aryans you truly are the chosen ones!" :lol:
QuoteThere are many paths to "God" or "Realisation". No-one, but no-one has the right to claim that there is ONLY one way.
Sure they do.
You simply have the right to accept or disregard what they say as you see fit.
Free speech is a wonderful thing, no?
Quote from: blackgenOhh.. and so I want to say that there is no point in arguing that any religion is superior or inferior. If you want to believe in it, go ahead. But don't ridicule the beliefs of others.
I agree. It seems no-one was ridiculing anybody until "Narrow Path" or should I say "Narrow Mind" started ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him to try and make the Prophet Isaa (Jesus) peace be upon him look like the only Prophet.
What can I say? If you feel that you have to make false claims at other people/things to make yourself feel better or make a point (whatever it might be) then you are a very twisted person indeed.