FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Support Danish





S3nd K3ys
Quote:
On the 30th of September 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed. Mohammedans raised a storm of protest and two artists went into hiding after receiving death threats. Islamic organisations demanded an apology from the Danish government and the incident turned into a world-wide diplomatic issue. The OIC (the Organisation of the Islamic Conference), the Council of Europe and the UN all criticised the government of Denmark for not taking measures against the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen defended the freedom of the press and free speech and stated that any measures, if appropriate, could not be taken by the government but only by a court of law. Meanwhile in Islamic countries Danish flags are burned and Danish products are taken off the shelves. Several countries have withdrawn their ambassadors from Denmark and armed men attacked the office of the EU in the Gaza strip.

Denmark needs our support. Show that you care and put one of these banners on your website.


http://skender.be/supportdenmark/

Help defend Danish's right to free speach!
Devil
i would support them on this subject , i livein a muslim country myself,

but it is really sad to see all this happening around us , trust me , not even 80% of protesters here have acutally seen the cartoon Evil or Very Mad

but they still protest ,cuz they r told to
S3nd K3ys
Devil wrote:
i would support them on this subject , i livein a muslim country myself,

but it is really sad to see all this happening around us , trust me , not even 80% of protesters here have acutally seen the cartoon Evil or Very Mad

but they still protest ,cuz they r told to


That sounds about right. We have the same problem here with people finding any excuse to riot.
GDG
Devil what exact Muslim country do you live in, oh and S3ND K3YS why are Muslims not allowed to speak up and have or get any rights that they wish to? Or is this fear from the non-Muslims because the President of Denmark sure enough showed fear by not speaking with 11 prime minister of the Muslim nations!!!
Devil
GDG wrote:
Devil what exact Muslim country do you live in, oh and S3ND K3YS why are Muslims not allowed to speak up and have or get any rights that they wish to? Or is this fear from the non-Muslims because the President of Denmark sure enough showed fear by not speaking with 11 prime minister of the Muslim nations!!!


i live in the UAE .

i am getting various SMS to show my protest against the danish, they say dont buy danish food , if u see any danish food in the supermarket , get it removed , i mean like everyone has got this message , plus they even managed to get big shopping malls to Remove danish products from thier shops ,

Thank god they dint take the streets , cuz the laws are very strict here ,

but i wonder what it is like in the other muslim nations ,
Tumbleweed
Muslims banning Danish bacon...... Confused
biga57
In indonesia i 've read on the HK standard this morning, they had riots already.

100% sure those involved in the riots hadn't a clue of the content of cartoon. Just rioting because it is fun to do it in the name of religion and against the infidelis........

I fully suppor the Danish Governement in their bald move not apologising on behalf of the cartoonists and stressing their strong commitment to the freedom of speech and expression.

Muslim ( apart an elected few) cannot understand obviously the importance of freedom of speech and expression and what it really means as most of the muslim countries have a tight control on what their people think above that a tight religious control as well....

All above said, I do not endorse the work of the cartoonists. I think it is stupid to make fun of other people's religious beliefs. They must be criticised for their bad taste in picking on religion.
Not that they have to be punished with death but I guess now they are shitting their pants hiding in the dark......
Texas Al
I disagree with S3nd K3ys that "most terrorists are Muslims", at least until he can furnish some hard numbers from an unbiased and reputable source.

I'm also saddened by his continuing inability to distinguish the average guy-on-the-street Muslim from the minority who actually are terrorists, as evidenced by his continued requests that law abiding Muslims explain to him the actions and motivations of terrorists.

But on this issue, I do agree with him and with the European newspapers who finally showed some balls and didn't back down. Imagine that, for once Europe is actually being LESS politically correct than the United States!

These protests and boycotts are clearly a popular reaction by a substantial portion of the Muslim mainstream, not some fringe extremist group. If burning Danish flags is how mainstream Muslims respond to a newspaper cartoon that's no worse than the satire Christians stoically put up with every single day... it makes me think that even though Islam may be a religion of peace, it's definitely not a religion of being able to take a joke. Or a religion of living in a secular, pluralistic, and free civilization.

Prove me wrong, Muslims. Tell me if you think these yahoos boycotting Lego blocks and storming embassies are wrong.
Texas Al
This isn't the first time, either. Remember Salman Rushdie? There too, we didn't back down or give him up to the Quran-thumpers, and they eventually sat the hell down and shut the hell up. The Eurpoean publishers just need to stick to their principles, and they will be vindicated.

This is just growing pains for any religion. The Christians got over themselves (mostly) somewhere around the time of Charles Darwin. The Muslims will have to learn the same lesson as the rest of us.
SunburnedCactus
Frankly the outrage over such a small thing is ridiculous. Think about it, what presents a worse image of Muslims: some cartoons, or videos being released of terrorists beheading foreign aid workers? Perhaps if this anger were properly focused something good might actually come of it.
Devil
SunburnedCactus wrote:
Frankly the outrage over such a small thing is ridiculous. Think about it, what presents a worse image of Muslims: some cartoons, or videos being released of terrorists beheading foreign aid workers? Perhaps if this anger were properly focused something good might actually come of it.


what u said is soo true , even i feel that protesting about something that u dont know or dint see , or just doing it for the heck of it that ur muslim ,

is totally bullshit , if they had made thier protest in a decent manner , or go to court and sue the newspaper , i would have supported them ,

cuz even i beleave that one should not make fun of some one elses religion or beliefs , islam is going through a very difficult time , they are trying to force thier veiws and way of living on the world , i read a article where zarawhi asking bush to convert to muslim , and all his sins will be forgiven , Razz


anyway sticking to the topic , does anyone here have seen the cartoon ?

or can they post it here , or share it with me by pm , i really want to know what it was ,
Texas Al
Here you go.



Was this worth vandalizing an embassy (belonging to a government that does not control the press in anyway)?

PS: What does the script on his turban say?
ainieas
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Help defend Danish's right to free speach!


Would you say the same thing if it was the Cross that was descrated?
svecia
If I dont like whats published in a newspaper I dont buy it.
I would not burn down an embassy. And why wait 6 months ?
igor123d
This incident has greatly increased my respect for our right to free speech and our need to defend it. I am proud to support Denmark as well as all other states that guarantee this right to their populace. The true greatness of a state in protecting this right is not in times of peace and tranquility but in times of turmoil when the content is deemed questionable by others. Only them does it become apparent that everyone has the right to his views and may express them freely. This is what makes the free world great.
Soulfire
Freedom of Speech does not imply a right to mock religion. Although I do not agree with the Islamic response to the situation, I am not surprised they are so angry.
Devil
now that i have seen the cartoon , i know why muslim brothers are angry ,

but still the way they choose to protest is stilll not right , they could sue the paper and go to court ,


blaming the whole denmark and whole Europe for one actions , is just foolish ,

It is the same like when they say we all muslims are not terrorists,

now there are so many muslims terrorists, if all of europe and America Stopped any muslims coming in thier country , HOW WOULD THEY FEEL ?

that is another thing that Europe will be more safer then Razz
Texas Al
ainieas wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Help defend Danish's right to free speach!


Would you say the same thing if it was the Cross that was descrated?


A conceptual artist (whatever that means) named Robert Maplethorpe had a photo exhibit that was sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts which featured a photo of a crucifix submerged in a glass of urine, with the photo entitled "piss Christ". Now it's true that the NEA got a lot of flack for that and still hasn't recovered... but nothing was boycotted or destroyed, and Maplethorpe's life was never in danger.

Speaking only for myself, I don't care what Maplethorpe and people like him exhibit. My only complaint is that public money was used to sponsor that crap. But they have freedom of expression no matter how tasteless and offensive I might find it to be. Self-criticism and self-questioning are the lifeblood of a democratic society. Where absolute certainty exists, freedom no longer does.

Just try to imagine what would happen if Maplethorpe was a Saudi and displayed a similarly offensive photograph in an exhibit in Saudi Arabia.
S3nd K3ys
ainieas wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Help defend Danish's right to free speach!


Would you say the same thing if it was the Cross that was descrated?


Of course I would. I would also say the same thing about burning the American Flag. (Or anyone's flag). It really pisses me off, but I won't do anything to stop their freedom of expression, so long as it doesn't spread to burning people, like women and children.

Oh wait, it already has. Rolling Eyes
SunburnedCactus
Extremism as performance art: discuss.
corwin
Free speach is a good thing, but so is respect and understanding as my local newspaper pointed out(live in norway).
Soulfire
Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Poke fun at people elsewhere, religion is too touchy and too close to peoples' hearts, if you're going to mock people... use something else.
maclui
I do not know the exact context of the cartoons so I do not really know if I have to support Denmark but what it is clear is that those muslims do not have a bit of respect and tolerance.

What are the cartoons all about?? some of them seem pointless to me and some other are obvious. Personally some of them are offensive but then I think wait a minute the best cartoons of the muslims are muslims themselves. Look at them acting as is they are being physically attacked. This is a clear example of how reality is more grotesque than the most acid cartoon.

if you have not seen them check out this link:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm
svecia
The swedish online-magazine sd-kuriren http://www.sdkuriren.se/
did publish a muhammad cartoon on their site
The securty police gave some 'advice' to their webhotel ( not to the magazine)
and they shut down the site.
Now they have removed the picture and the site is up again,
This without the autorites exercice any censorship of cause !!!
I did find the picture on this site
http://www.document.no/weblogg/archives/bilder/060202muhammed400.jpg
srdjan
@s3end k3ys

my dear friend, here is the real thing. you say "help them protect their right of free speech", but you are forgetting one thing. The freedom of speech is not in question here.
Our societies say: we want the freedom to think, the freedom to speak, and free media...
But these freedoms are not all the same and equal. Out of all of them, only that of thought is completely free of any material bounds, i think eveybody agrees on that.
The right to speak freely has several different aspects. One of them is "speaking using words", another one"speaking using images", another one is "speaking using guns",...and so on, there are many ways to speak...
This seems to be something everyone is forgetting about. The Christian culture does not make a distinction between these, and this does not make us more liberate or free, but only more primitive!
Out of all these freedoms, the only universally accepted can, and must be the freedom of speech, because only it, is a clear reflection of spirit or thought, as you wish...
But the rest of those ways of communication, mentioned above, are neccessarily materialized, and therefore limited, and cannot be used as means of universally accepted communication.
As I see, you are well aware of what's written in Qur'an. Then you should know too, that Islamic religion forbids portraying of any Messengers of God's, including Jesus Christ, Messiah, and of course Mohhamad...
This reflects the highest level of spiritual awareness! It means steering clear of materializing the people of highest historical , cultural and religious importance!

So, therefore, we are actually impaling a double-barbarism on the Islamic society. One, because every violence is barbaric, and two, by portraying Mohammad, we are impaling spiritually worthless cultural customs on another civilization!

I am really (not) sorry, but I will never support the Danish in this matter, because as I said, this is not about the "freedom of speech"!
This is about the "freedom to mock", the "freedom to insult"...
That we call free speech, and I'm sure that's what you stand up for, so fiercly!
srdjan
[color=green]s3nd k3ys wrote:

Of course I would. I would also say the same thing about burning the American Flag. (Or anyone's flag). It really pisses me off, but I won't do anything to stop their freedom of expression, so long as it doesn't spread to burning people, like women and children.
[/color]


...maybe it doesn't "spread to..." but it sure "calls to..."
TonkPilz
i sayd it before and il say it again i tink the prophet Mohammed picture is tasteles but i also tink Jyllands-Posten have the right to show it

and OFC any offended muslims (or others) have the right to protest and boycott Danish products to showe ther dislike.

But to accuse other countrys, burn flags, threaten ppl, and physicaly hurt ppl are even more tasteless !
shr3dd
These rioting muslims need to stfu. They get pissed about seeing (and even not seeing in some muslims' case) cartoons featuring their "oh so holy" prophet mohammed. Christians (not one myself thank god) have to deal with Kanye West portraying himself as Jesus. If this isn't the biggest mockery of any religion ever I don't know what is. Ask any practicing Christian if they are happy with this low-life scumbag "rapper" dressing up as their saviour. he went as far as stating that if the Bible were written today he'd be a main character.

No mass Christian riots.

Mohammed stepping into the limelight in a couple danish cartoons.

Death to the infidels (every non-muslim).

Not saying every muslim is like this, but right now what I'm seeing is mainstream Islam proving to be a primitive and barbaric culture. I'm hoping that these rioting muslims will stfu and learn how to be civilized, this isnt 1000AD anymore, grow up already.
svecia
Does anyone know what happend to the editors that published the danish cartoons in the Frensh Soir and the magazine in Jordan ( I dont know the name of it ) ?
I've heard that they lost their jobs.
I heard on the news that the danish editor is on vacation.
If the newspaper dont exercice the right to free speech who will ?
TV and radio is busy now with the Olympic games and there noting wrong with that
but I hope they resume the free speach issue when the sport events are finished
that is in about 2 weeks.
lyndonray
i think its totally unconscionable what the editors of those newspapers did allowing those cartoons to be printed. they knew what a uproar it would cause but they still went ahead. I am sorry but there has to be some type of punishment, so that people realise that some topics are sensitive and therefore you need to employ more sense when addressing them. You can't just go around inciting violence and then hiding behind freedom of speech. That's abusing that freedom.

As for the Danish government the RIGHT thing for them to do would be to apologise for the insensitivities of the cartoons originally printed in their newspapers. But they should also defend those same stupid newspaper's right to free speech!
SunburnedCactus
Oh, death to you and your newspapers! Laughing
S3nd K3ys
srdjan wrote:
The freedom of speech is not in question here.


Let me spell it out for you: A paper posts some cartoons. Some Muslims get butt-hurt over it and start burning shit, causing death, and threatening to kill the people responsible.

THAT, my friend, is the supression of FREE SPEACH. Those wacked out Muslims have no reason to burn shit, kill, threaten to kill, insite violence etc. NONE. They're hypocrytical, hyposensitive little babys that need a diaper change.
Devil
the main thing is that muslim leaders have played a role in provoking people to do this , for example where i stay , the first day when this news was out , the state gov banned all danish products , and all over the friday prayers u could hear them screming anti danish anti usa slogans ,

now the average muslim may not have reacted in this way , if the gov across the middle east , including syria and Iran , had not provoked the people ,
TonkPilz
lyndonray wrote:
i think its totally unconscionable what the editors of those newspapers did allowing those cartoons to be printed. they knew what a uproar it would cause but they still went ahead. I am sorry but there has to be some type of punishment, so that people realise that some topics are sensitive and therefore you need to employ more sense when addressing them. You can't just go around inciting violence and then hiding behind freedom of speech. That's abusing that freedom.

As for the Danish government the RIGHT thing for them to do would be to apologise for the insensitivities of the cartoons originally printed in their newspapers. But they should also defend those same stupid newspaper's right to free speech!


why shuld thay be punish'd just coz its sensitive thay shuld be abel to printed any ting thay whant.

and the Danish government have apologised 2 or 3 times and defended free speech
Texas Al
Devil wrote:
now the average muslim may not have reacted in this way , if the gov across the middle east , including syria and Iran , had not provoked the people ,


Sad. I'm glad Americans don't all latch on to the same opinion just because their government feeds it to them... oh, wait a minute. Yes we do. Nevermind.

Smile Sad
lyndonray
TonkPilz wrote:
why shuld thay be punish'd just coz its sensitive thay shuld be abel to printed any ting thay whant.
and the Danish government have apologised 2 or 3 times and defended free speech


Look, a clear messsage needs to be sent. A message that says you can't go around publishing material that is likely, not just to offend, but to downright enrage people simply because you can. These newspapers have a social responsibility and they should be held accountable when they when they don't don't properly live up to that responsibility.

Their actions were irresponsible and they need to be held accountable. Its a complicated world where everyone is on the edge. People hate each other and want to kill each other. The last anybody needs is a newspaper unecesarily adding more fuel to the fire. Why would they do that? What was the ultimate goal of this whole thing? What were they trying to achieve by publishing those cartoons??
Bondings
lyndonray wrote:
Look, a clear messsage needs to be sent. A message that says you can't go around publishing material that is likely, not just to offend, but to downright enrage people simply because you can. These newspapers have a social responsibility and they should be held accountable when they when they don't don't properly live up to that responsibility.

Their actions were irresponsible and they need to be held accountable. Its a complicated world where everyone is on the edge. People hate each other and want to kill each other. The last anybody needs is a newspaper unecesarily adding more fuel to the fire. Why would they do that? What was the ultimate goal of this whole thing? What were they trying to achieve by publishing those cartoons??

Lyndonray, I don't think the newspapers or the cartoons itself are the problem. The original Danish newspaper didn't want to provoke, but just wanted to publish a 'funny' cartoon. They didn't expect any big impact and nothing special happened until some radical muslims tried to take advantage of it several months afterwards. Most muslims protesting never saw the cartoons themselves.

I only saw two cartoons including the one with the "no more virgins". I really don't understand what's so enraging about them. In Europe similar things are regularly made for political, royal and religious persons and entities. They are going much further and are not meant to be taken serious, but as a satire/joke/cartoon.
Lennon
I refuse to support either the tabloid press or the Muslim Terrorists because i think they've both lost their dignity and respect for other's beliefs and value for life. Peaceful Muslim's and broadsheet newspapers please.
S3nd K3ys
They just needed a reason to protest and be violent, obviously. The cartoons were not that offensive. I don't care if you're Muslim, you need to grow up if they offend you. Violence will not solve the problem. Threats of death will not solve the problem. If these (radical) Muslims want respect, they need to earn it.
lyndonray
Bondings wrote:

Lyndonray, I don't think the newspapers or the cartoons itself are the problem. The original Danish newspaper didn't want to provoke, but just wanted to publish a 'funny' cartoon. They didn't expect any big impact and nothing special happened until some radical muslims tried to take advantage of it several months afterwards. Most muslims protesting never saw the cartoons themselves.


The newspapers are part of the problem. Just because it took a couple of months for the fallout it doesn't mean it was ok to publish them at first. Even if there hadn't been any fallout it still wouldn't have been right for them to publish the cartoons

The other part of the problem is crazy people telling others not to protest peacefully, but to destroy property and threaten to kill others.

Bondings wrote:

I only saw two cartoons including the one with the "no more virgins". I really don't understand what's so enraging about them. In Europe similar things are regularly made for political, royal and religious persons and entities. They are going much further and are not meant to be taken serious, but as a satire/joke/cartoon.


yeah, that's in Europe where political cartoons are part of the culture. We are talking about Islam here, where it is not allowed to draw any image and say it's Mohammed. It is a very sacred thing. So what the hell gives some guy the right not only draw this image but also make it disrepectful. That's what I have a problem with.

I am saying people need to excercise some common sense. If people were more thoughtful and sensitive to other people's beliefs there'd be less stress going around.
Bondings
lyndonray wrote:
yeah, that's in Europe where political cartoons are part of the culture. We are talking about Islam here, where it is not allowed to draw any image and say it's Mohammed. It is a very sacred thing. So what the hell gives some guy the right not only draw this image but also make it disrepectful. That's what I have a problem with.

The cartoons were published in a Danish newspaper, in a European country. They (the ones I saw) were a satire on terrorists. They were not meant to incite hate, discrimination, racism, violence, illegal things, ... Hence they shouldn't be censored. Censorship should only be used in extreme situations and certainly not for these kind of things.

In other circumstances those cartoons would have a beneficial effect. And how can you make a cartoon about Mohammed, if you aren't allowed to draw his image?

One of the most important values in Europe is that everything and everyone should be treated equally. It took a long while to be able to criticize our own religions and make cartoons about it. If it's ok to make cartoons about christianity than it also should be ok to make them about islam. There is no way to make different values and rules for all religions.

Some religions believe that humans reincarnate in animals, like cows. By eating a cow, this doesn't make me disrespectful towards them.
smalls
We can't live our lives trying not to offend people. The bottom line is, no matter what you do, you're probably going to offend someone. If we spent our lives worrying about that, then the world would be far less productive. Would we even have cars, electricity, etc? Remember, some cultures are unaccepting of technology.
Let's worry less about offending others, and more about injuring others. So maybe some people were offended by the cartoons. Does that give them the right to kill others (which has happened)? Which is the greater sin?
svecia
The swedish securty police did put some pressure on a webhost to shut down the
magazine sdkuriren. Their mohammadpicture was not offencive in any way but
rather amusing when the text was censorship which is that debate currently.
This blog has a good descripion and the picture to
http://portmcclellan.typepad.com/michaelbrandonmcclellan/2006/02/sweden_folds.html
lyndonray
Bondings wrote:

The cartoons were published in a Danish newspaper, in a European country. They (the ones I saw) were a satire on terrorists. They were not meant to incite hate, discrimination, racism, violence, illegal things, ... Hence they shouldn't be censored. Censorship should only be used in extreme situations and certainly not for these kind of things.


It would have been alright if they were just making fun of terrorists and had left Mohammed out of it. But including Mohammed in the satire is what I have a problem with.

And also what constitutes an "extreme situation" where censorship is warranted? Would a cartoon of the Pope receiving oral sex from little blonde boy be an example? I think it would. What they did with Mohammed is a similar thing.

Bondings wrote:


In other circumstances those cartoons would have a beneficial effect. And how can you make a cartoon about Mohammed, if you aren't allowed to draw his image?


That's what I am saying. What gives these people the right to draw a cartoon of an important (if not the most) figure in a religion, when drawing his image or anything that comes close to being a facial representation is strickly forbidden. That's just disrespectful. And you are asking for trouble by doing that.

Bondings wrote:


One of the most important values in Europe is that everything and everyone should be treated equally. It took a long while to be able to criticize our own religions and make cartoons about it. If it's ok to make cartoons about christianity than it also should be ok to make them about islam. There is no way to make different values and rules for all religions.


Again that's different because people have been giving us pictures of Jesus with his shiny brown beard for centuries. With Islam its different. You can't have a t-shirt with Mohammed on it. See what I mean?

here is an analogy, the only people who can go around calling eachother niggas are black people, (obviously that's just some of them since most despise that word). But let a white guy try it... well we all know what will likely happen. black people are not ready to allow white people to call them niggas. Maybe they will one day, maybe they won't. Until then, if you are not black don't try it. So similarly if Muslims themselves don't play around with Mohammed, how what gives a non-Muslim the right to.

smalls wrote:

We can't live our lives trying not to offend people.


You're damn-right! There is no way we can make everyone happy. however we shouldn't do things that we know full and well in advance will offend people because then you are just asking for it.
Devil
Cartoon row: Indian killed in UAE


Quote:
DUBAI: An Indian sailor was allegedly beaten to death by his colleagues on board a Norwegian oil tanker in the international waters off the coast of Fujairah in the UAE following an argument over the cartoon.

A fight ensued among the seamen after an argument over the cartoon issue, causing the death of one sailor, a media report said.

Official sources confirmed the death of 31-year-old Sudheer Nonia Jagannathan, hailing from Mumbai, but refused to comment on the issue.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1415870.cms

How many more innocent people will die ?

And yet we See people Defending these muslims radical ,

IT is a Real Shame Evil or Very Mad
mike1reynolds
While I don't think violence is ever justified, and I do think that Islam is violence prone, I also think that the criticism isn't very balanced. What if Muslims or Chinese printed inflammitory cartoons about Jesus or the Pope? While there wouldn't be any riots, you can bet that millions would get seriously bent out of shape.
Bondings
lyndonray wrote:
And also what constitutes an "extreme situation" where censorship is warranted? Would a cartoon of the Pope receiving oral sex from little blonde boy be an example? I think it would. What they did with Mohammed is a similar thing.

With extreme situations, I meant racist things or similar ones, like nazist pictures inciting to kill jews. Or in this case a cartoon inciting to hate/kill/steal from muslims.

The pope cartoon should be up to the newspaper as it depends on what audiences it is used for. Oral sex cartoons shouldn't be displayed to very young people, in my opinion. But next to an article about the abuse of children by priests, this might be a nice cartoon, yes. Actually, I bet a similar cartoon was already published somewhere. Wink
Devil
Bondings wrote:
lyndonray wrote:
And also what constitutes an "extreme situation" where censorship is warranted? Would a cartoon of the Pope receiving oral sex from little blonde boy be an example? I think it would. What they did with Mohammed is a similar thing.

With extreme situations, I meant racist things or similar ones, like nazist pictures inciting to kill jews. Or in this case a cartoon inciting to hate/kill/steal from muslims.

The pope cartoon should be up to the newspaper as it depends on what audiences it is used for. Oral sex cartoons shouldn't be displayed to very young people, in my opinion. But next to an article about the abuse of children by priests, this might be a nice cartoon, yes. Actually, I bet a similar cartoon was already published somewhere. Wink


they wont understand the power of media , which plays important role in our society . they bring the bad in front of people , in this case i think the cartoons were meant for terrorists , but u cant blame muslims who protested , cuz half of them never went to school Razz so they wont understand
Bondings
mike1reynolds wrote:
While I don't think violence is ever justified, and I do think that Islam is violence prone, I also think that the criticism isn't very balanced. What if Muslims or Chinese printed inflammitory cartoons about Jesus or the Pope? While there wouldn't be any riots, you can bet that millions would get seriously bent out of shape.

There are already a lot of cartoons about Jesus and the Pope, mostly made by Europeans/American people themselves.













S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:





maclui
These cartoons are kind of funny. A strong criticism and that has happened since long ago and non of us is rioting or burning down frihost for publishing them. Goob cartoons
sciondestiny
OK guys the reason Muslims are protesting is because you hae touched something very dear to us. Firstly I want to say that I do not support the riots that people are doing in the Muslim countries these days. I mean I am very disgusted and mad at them but I would not go as far as throwing rocks at an embassy, or destroying buildings or even setting things on fire.

I also do not go against peaceful protests where you just walk and show how many people do not support this. Rather it would be wiser to either talk with the people on the issue or educate people on who Prophet Muhammad (SAW) really was.

He was an illiterate person, since being literate in those days was very hard to accomplish seeing as many people were not literate themselves thus not that many teachers. He started to preach about Islam when he was about 40 years old and was instructed to teach it to only his family and closest of friends. After a while he was instructed by God (SWT) to preach it to everyone in the city, but as usual and as we see today The Muslims started getting persecuted. But when the unbelievers or idol worshippers tried to hurt Prophet Muhammad, his followers or the Muslims protected him because of one thing. they respected him a lot and because he was the only living person who could bring them the Qur'an. He lived his life as a slave of God, worshipping and preaching and praying to Allah (SWT) to forgive everyone on the planet, and to make the unbelievers believe once again.

Muslims hate it when he is made fun of because what he did was not only for himself, or the Muslims only but it was for all of humanity. People when told to respect someone great such as Bill Gates, or President Bush obey. But when told to respect someone who is a spiritual leader, such as bhudda, or Jesus or even Prophet Muhammad you guys shun them away. For once respect not only others but also your God!
S3nd K3ys
sciondestiny wrote:
but I would go as far as throwing rocks at an embassy, or destroying buildings or even setting things on fire.


There's no use for your kind of (sick) mentality that you would destroy property and possibly cause death or injury from the crap you burn.


Quote:
Muslims hate it when he is made fun of


Then quit acting like babies when someone says something you don't like.


Quote:
People when told to respect someone great such as Bill Gates, or President Bush obey.


Bullshit. Plain and simlpe bullshit. There's more fun made of Bush AND Gates than would have ever been made of Muhammad if the Muslims wouldn't have made such a big deal out of it.

Notice how now you're seeing so much more publicity about this? You know why? It's because you're burning shit down, causing people do die, destroying property, and we think you're pathetic for doing it. If you want people to stop making fun of you, then quit giving us such good reasons to do so.
Devil
@bondings

i think there is one person from brazil who is making a cartoon on pope john paul , cant wait to see it



@sciondestiny

Boss i can only tell u one thing , if there is anyone who hates ur religion or hates muslims , then the muslims are at fault themselves ,

the people who live in england stage protest and glorify the people who bombed innocent people just months ago in london , they also carry slogans as kill all europeans ,

i mean WTF they (muslim protestors) live in that country , a country which provides them food ,shelter and security , and they are trying to destroy it ?

What is more damaging to islam , a third grade cartoon , or terrorisms ,

IF ur a True muslim , then raise ur voice against terrorisms,

do we see the same protests for terrorists , who take the name of allah and kill innocent people ?
S3nd K3ys
Devil wrote:

@sciondestiny

IF ur a True muslim , then raise ur voice against terrorisms,

do we see the same protests for terrorists , who take the name of allah and kill innocent people ?


How can he be a true Muslim, (provided Muslims truly are peaceful, which I believe the majority are), when he would openly admit that he would destroy buildings over some ef'n cartoons?

Rolling Eyes
mike1reynolds
Bondings wrote:
There are already a lot of cartoons about Jesus and the Pope, mostly made by Europeans/American people themselves.


OK, well obviously I have to concede the point about the Pope, but the point about Jesus still stands. Even South Park, which remorselessly roasts everyone, treats Jesus (relatively speaking) with a lot of deference, and that is the only cartoon I've ever seen depicting Jesus.
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
Firstly I want to say that I do not support the riots that people are doing in the Muslim countries these days. I mean I am very disgusted and mad at them but I would go as far as throwing rocks at an embassy, or destroying buildings or even setting things on fire.


Is this a typo? If you yourself would "throw rocks at an embassy, or destroy buildings or even setting things on fire" then what is it that you are disgusted with about the Muslim rioters?
S3nd K3ys
mike1reynolds wrote:
sciondestiny wrote:
Firstly I want to say that I do not support the riots that people are doing in the Muslim countries these days. I mean I am very disgusted and mad at them but I would go as far as throwing rocks at an embassy, or destroying buildings or even setting things on fire.


Is this a typo?


Ahh, you may be right. I hope so.
Bondings
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bondings wrote:
There are already a lot of cartoons about Jesus and the Pope, mostly made by Europeans/American people themselves.


OK, well obviously I have to concede the point about the Pope, but the point about Jesus still stands. Even South Park, which remorselessly roasts everyone, treats Jesus (relatively speaking) with a lot of deference, and that is the only cartoon I've ever seen depicting Jesus.

It's just harder to search for "jesus cartoons" than for "pope cartoons" because there are a lot of news stories containing the first keyphrase. And yes, there are much less cartoons about Jesus I guess. But because you ask for it ...


Translation from German: The small Jesus at Genezareth lake: "Mom, I want to go into the water too".





mike1reynolds
Bondings wrote:

Translation from German: The small Jesus at Genezareth lake: "Mom, I want to go into the water too".


While this one is stupid and puerile, it isn't very inflammitory. Depicting Jesus as a super-human toddler is not an insult.

Bondings wrote:



This is neither about Jesus nor inflammitory. Its rather cute, suitable for children.

Bondings wrote:



While this one is pretty offensive it doesn't look the slightest bit like the common depiction of Jesus. It looks like the depiction of a Jewish commoner in a biblical movie. And while it reflects Jesus' circumstances, the Romans crucified thousands of Jews.

Despite this I could almost give you credit for this one, except that it is clearly an attempt just to be stupid and not a social commentary.

Bondings wrote:


This one isn't inflammitory, I think, I don't really get it.
S3nd K3ys
Cant find it now, but there's a good one of Jesus carrying a missle/bomb or something, cradling it like a baby.
Bondings
I have to agree that there aren't many cartoons about Jesus. However, there are lots of them about god.

S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:
I have to agree that there aren't many cartoons about Jesus. However, there are lots of them about god.



LoL!

I forgot about that one. That's ancient! Haven't seen it in like 3 or 4 years.
ocalhoun
I didn't know that God is left handed...
S3nd K3ys
He might not be. I'm not, but I use the mouse in my left hand. But then again, my "smite" key is on the right side of my keyboard.
Jack_Hammer
No such thing as free speech, though if you vote for your facist party at least you know what your getting...
Billy Hill
Anybody else notice the difference in reaction when Jesus is mocked in a cartoon vs when Muhammad is mocked in a cartoon?

Someone needs to relax and quit being so uptight.
mike1reynolds
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Cant find it now, but there's a good one of Jesus carrying a missle/bomb or something, cradling it like a baby.


So what was the social commentary of the cartoon? It's not quite clear due to lack of context. Was it a reference to right-wing conservative Christian war-mongering?

Here is what I'd like to see as a similar test of Christian fortitude against an honest opinion:

A depiction of the scene where Jesus calls a Canaanite woman a dog and says he only came for Jews, in Matthew 15:24-26. Christians familiar with these verses would say, oh he was only testing the woman's faith, that wasn't a racist comment. So in the middle of the cartoon would be a reference to this point of view, and then the bottom half of the cartoon would be a hypothetical of the same test in the present where Jesus calls a black person a filthy ****** and says that he only came for white people.

I think it is a perfectly valid criticism, not surprisingly since I came up with it, but I'll bet that if such a cartoon were printed in newspapers across the country that it would create a firestorm.
SunburnedCactus
I think anyone who doesn't believe there are "blasphemous" cartoons of Jesus should check out http://loljesus.com/

It's hilarious though. Laughing
mike1reynolds
SunburnedCactus wrote:
I think anyone who doesn't believe there are "blasphemous" cartoons of Jesus should check out http://loljesus.com/

It's hilarious though. Laughing


The difference is circulation. loljesus.com doesn't quite have the circulation of the New York Times or Washington Post.
Soulfire
*Sighs*

People annoy the Hell out of me.

(Edited post)
horseatingweeds
mike1reynolds wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Cant find it now, but there's a good one of Jesus carrying a missle/bomb or something, cradling it like a baby.


So what was the social commentary of the cartoon? It's not quite clear due to lack of context. Was it a reference to right-wing conservative Christian war-mongering?

Here is what I'd like to see as a similar test of Christian fortitude against an honest opinion:

A depiction of the scene where Jesus calls a Canaanite woman a dog and says he only came for Jews, in Matthew 15:24-26. Christians familiar with these verses would say, oh he was only testing the woman's faith, that wasn't a racist comment. So in the middle of the cartoon would be a reference to this point of view, and then the bottom half of the cartoon would be a hypothetical of the same test in the present where Jesus calls a black person a filthy ****** and says that he only came for white people.

I think it is a perfectly valid criticism, not surprisingly since I came up with it, but I'll bet that if such a cartoon were printed in newspapers across the country that it would create a firestorm.


I don’t think that would work well. Anyone who would be offended by a Jesus cartoon probably has read more than just little snippets of the bible and would not have such an odd interpretation, especially any one knowing and history of the region.

I have read all of Mathew and it is obvious that Jesus was using a euphemism, comparing the Jews (people believing in God) to children and Canaanites (there being no Canaanite region at the time the term was one used be the Jews to describe some group of nonbelievers in God, or one true God….) to the pet dog. The woman speaking to him was not a Jew. She asked him to heal her daughter. This was blatantly strange because she was not a Jew i.e. had no reason to believe in the prophecies of Jesus and so on.

Jesus, apparently curious or maybe wanting to make a point said, I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel and then asked her, using the euphemism, why would he through his children’s bread to their dogs. She answers with the fact that the dog would get the children’s crumbs. Jesus then commends her on her wisdom and heals her child.

I would just assume the author of such a cartoon was intending only to offend and was unable to come up with anything offensive.

These Mohamed cartoons are very offensive because of the current terrorist trouble. The reason there are Muslims going stupid over it is because they are uneducated and ruled by people that use their religion to insight such behavior for their own means. It has less to do with Islam and more to do with politics.
horseatingweeds
Soulfire wrote:
It's a shame people dislike religion so much they have to resort to making websites such as loljesus.com.

It's disgusting really. Why do people get their panties in a bunch whenever we say the word "God." Is it because they are aware of their eternal damnation?

Oh well, in the end, I'll be in heaven, and unfortunately I will be watching people (like those who run loljesus.com) burn in hell. It's a sad thought, but if they aren't willing to open their hearts and minds, they're doomed.


Soulfire, for crying out loud.

“You did not choose me but I chose you” sound familiar

I don’t think a true believer in the Lord would gloat about being in “heaven” and watching people in “hell”. This is the kind of thing that makes Christians look like bible swinging nut jobs.

I don’t remember Jesus or any of the apostles preaching “ohhhh you just wait till we’re all kikin back in heaven whatchin everyone that has hurt our feelings burrnnn burn burn.”

“Forgive them father for they know not what they do” that’s another fancy one.
Soulfire
horseatingweeds wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
It's a shame people dislike religion so much they have to resort to making websites such as loljesus.com.

It's disgusting really. Why do people get their panties in a bunch whenever we say the word "God." Is it because they are aware of their eternal damnation?

Oh well, in the end, I'll be in heaven, and unfortunately I will be watching people (like those who run loljesus.com) burn in hell. It's a sad thought, but if they aren't willing to open their hearts and minds, they're doomed.


Soulfire, for crying out loud.

“You did not choose me but I chose you” sound familiar

I don’t think a true believer in the Lord would gloat about being in “heaven” and watching people in “hell”. This is the kind of thing that makes Christians look like bible swinging nut jobs.

I don’t remember Jesus or any of the apostles preaching “ohhhh you just wait till we’re all kikin back in heaven whatchin everyone that has hurt our feelings burrnnn burn burn.”

“Forgive them father for they know not what they do” that’s another fancy one.


Gloating about it? I said unfortunately and that it was a sad thing, but it's the truth. If you do not accept Christ as the Lord and Savior, Son of the Living God... then you are doomed, that is my belief. I will not put it in the corner and cover it up just because it might offend someone, because I am not ashamed to profess my faith.

Nut job? No. I didn't even mention the Bible, perhaps you should read my post again.

It's not as if I said "Haha, you'll be burning in Hell and I'll be watching you." I don't want anyone to burn in hell, but like I said earlier, if you reject Jesus and God, you're going there.

So please do not twist my words and try to flame me with them, thanks.
srdjan
loljesus is one of the most disguisting things i've ever seen.
it actually tells us what i have said earlier, that we ARE really a primitive society...

@s3ndk3ys:

i would actually like to hear some real argument from you and all the others who just keep sayin..."yeah, well they need to grow up.." ..."and stop being babies.."..."sum'one should change their diapers..." and such!
that's no real argument!

stop typing and start reading!

once again: The fact that we do not find cartoons about Jesus, Messiah, Mohammad, Pope, etc offensive, does NOT make us more liberate, free, better, or whatever else you are trying to make us look! I think the point here is, that we are so mature (grown up, unlike those crazy Muslims), that we think it's ok to mock some of the most important people in human history!
Well, I'll tell you something, that's nothing but pure vandalism, barbarism, and ignorance.

stop typing and start reading!

and i don't support violence on the Muslim side either, but the newspaper knew what they're playing with, and they still did it.
hell, even i know a true Muslim nature, and i have only a couple of real Muslim friends...i mean the religious ones...the others don't give a ******...
i even know how sensitive they are about these issues, and how they stand up for what they belive in.

so, a newspaper company, whose job is to KNOW, and be informed, must not have done such a thing!
and the real ignorance comes not from the reactions afterwards (of the newspaper), but from the fact that they assumed they can treat another religion, in the same mocking, humiliating way they treat their own. Their own!

you stop typing and read this and tell me i'm wrong. i can't wait for it! Smile

p.s. i appologize for kinda stealing and using someone's sig...won't do it anymore..Wink
mike1reynolds
horseatingweeds wrote:
I have read all of Mathew and it is obvious that Jesus was using a euphemism...
That is an interesting term for a racist slur.

horseatingweeds wrote:
...comparing the Jews (people believing in God) to children and Canaanites (there being no Canaanite region at the time the term was one used be the Jews to describe some group of nonbelievers in God, or one true God….) to the pet dog. The woman speaking to him was not a Jew.
Obviously. The insult couldn't be a racist remark if she were of the same race.

horseatingweeds wrote:
She asked him to heal her daughter. This was blatantly strange because she was not a Jew i.e. had no reason to believe in the prophecies of Jesus and so on.
Jesus is quite courteous to the Roman captain who makes a similar request in Matthew 8:5. The Roman captain had no more reason to believe.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Jesus, apparently curious or maybe wanting to make a point said, I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel...
Jesus was just curious? The woman is chasing after them wailing for his help with her stricken young daughter and he ignores her completely. The disciples say, "Tell her to leave. She is bothering us with all her begging." (NLV) So Jesus says to her that he only came for the Jews. She runs up to him and kneels at his feet "worshiping" him and says, "O Lord, Son of David, have pity on me!" This is when he makes the racist slur.

So why then is Jesus so much more courteous to the Roman captain who is asking for help with his adult servant than to this woman asking for help with her young daughter?

horseatingweeds wrote:
I don’t think that would work well. Anyone who would be offended by a Jesus cartoon probably has read more than just little snippets of the bible and would not have such an odd interpretation, especially any one knowing and history of the region.
The supposition being that I am not familiar with the history of the region. Wishful thinking. Quite to the contrary, virtually no Christians, other than Jews For Jesus, seem to have the slightest understanding of the cultural context of Judaism. Have you ever been to Temple? When translated from Hebrew with a proper understanding of Jewish mysticism the new testament is dramatically richer and more profound for people with a deep understanding of spirituality, although the average person without any spiritual education in comparative religion would not truly be able to understand.

As an example of the pervasive profound historical ignorance of Christians, most think of the Bible as a single book, rather than recognizing the profoundly diverse anthology that it actually is. That, to me, is like thinking that Jesus spoke English. And how many Christians know that the gospel of John was very nearly declared heretical by the council of Nicea, winning passage only by a narrow margin? How many Christians know that the councils of Nicea were blood baths, where 90% of the material on Jesus was obliterated and the adherents of those band traditions were put to death? The few that do know this site the worst examples (sure, some fraction of it was fruitcake stuff and deserved to be destroyed) and know nothing about the real political forces behind the conflict. During the first Nicean council the Arian-Athanasian controversy over whether to adopt the doctrine of the trinity resulted in more Christians being murdered by their fellow Christians than had been put to death during all of the previous 250 years of Roman persecution combined.

As to the quality of the important works that were destroyed, the gospel of Thomas, for example, is widely recognized by theologians as the source of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and there is nothing crazy or heretical about it. Most of the works about Jesus that were destroyed, were destroyed for political reasons, not spiritual reasons. The new testament is an anthology compiled by Roman politicians for their own political gain; the books that were included or excluded were done so for political reasons, not spiritual reasons.

(BTW, I'm not Jewish, but I've debated theology with a lot of Jews and even the neocons who think the world is 6,000 years old tend to have more spiritual understanding than most Christians.)
mike1reynolds
Soulfire wrote:
Gloating about it? I said unfortunately and that it was a sad thing, but it's the truth... It's not as if I said "Haha, you'll be burning in Hell and I'll be watching you." I don't want anyone to burn in hell, but like I said earlier, if you reject Jesus and God, you're going there.
Laughter is hardly a requirement for condescension and gloating. If you really think that God will damn someone for following their honest beliefs then maybe you aren't going where you think you are. Your point of view, while not physically violent, is no more enlightened than the Muslim fanaticism that is the topic of this thread. They act the way they do because they think exactly the way that you do.

Soulfire wrote:
If you do not accept Christ as the Lord and Savior, Son of the Living God... then you are doomed, that is my belief. I will not put it in the corner and cover it up just because it might offend someone,
Horseatingweeds is not offended, he is a Christian who is embarrassed by the guilt by association that your facile judgment and condemnation casts on him, since you superficially share the same religion.

'Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord. They will say, "We preached in your name, and in your name we forced out demons and worked many miracles." But I will tell them, "I will have nothing to do with you! Get out of my sight, you evil people!"'
Matthew 7:21-23

This flatly contradicts what you claim. Giving lip service to God is of no help to you what-so-ever. Do you really think that your judgment and condemnation is obedience to God? Quite to the contrary, "Judge not least ye be judged." It is the very thoughts that you think make you Christian that will bar you from Heaven. An atheist who is moral and does good works is obedient to God. Obedience to God is not an intellectual concept, it is a kind of behavior and concern for others. Heaven is not a clubhouse where the proper pass phrase will get you in. You proclaim that you are saved, as if simply by saying it, it makes it so. You do not earn salvation by parroting the right phrases, that is an insult to your religion. Thus Horseatingweeds's reaction. You earn salvation by the way that you treat others. Condemnation for not believing the way that you do is precisely the sort of thoughtless intolerant behavior that will bar your path to Heaven.
sciondestiny
[quote="S3nd K3ys"]
sciondestiny wrote:
but I would go as far as throwing rocks at an embassy, or destroying buildings or even setting things on fire.


There's no use for your kind of (sick) mentality that you would destroy property and possibly cause death or injury from the crap you burn.


Um K lol sorry about that it was a typo on my side. I was actually in a rush so I did not have enough time to check everything. What I meant to say was:

"But I would not go as far as throwing rocks at an embassy, or destroying buildings or even setting things on fire."

Once again I am really sorry if I made anyone mad, or like scared because I seriously did not mean that. It was a typo on my behalf I will fix the earlier post, once again sorry!

Also S3ND K3YS we would not be doing all of this if the Americans and British and a bit of French were not making us do it. I am actually researching something, I saw it on the news that is EURO news, and I wanted to show you guys this. Maybe you will beleive and maybe not that is up to you.
sciondestiny
Devil wrote:
@bondings

i think there is one person from brazil who is making a cartoon on pope john paul , cant wait to see it



@sciondestiny

Boss i can only tell u one thing , if there is anyone who hates ur religion or hates muslims , then the muslims are at fault themselves ,

the people who live in england stage protest and glorify the people who bombed innocent people just months ago in london , they also carry slogans as kill all europeans ,

i mean WTF they (muslim protestors) live in that country , a country which provides them food ,shelter and security , and they are trying to destroy it ?

What is more damaging to islam , a third grade cartoon , or terrorisms ,

IF ur a True muslim , then raise ur voice against terrorisms,

do we see the same protests for terrorists , who take the name of allah and kill innocent people ?


DEVIL I want to say somethign to that post. The problem these days is that everyone sees what the Eastern Muslims are doing - which in this case would be destroying, burning, killing, and many other things only God knows of!.

I live in Canda and maybe only once in like a quick second thing did the news bring up what Muslims are doing here! Just recently we had a protest in downtown Toronto, and the Muslims went on a peaceful protest! We did not throw bombs, kill anyone, or even destroy anything. All we did was show how many of us condemn those pictures to the government! I would also like to say this but sadly Eastern Muslim countries are beginning to become more and more like Western countries. Denying their faith and losing their true Islamic faith! I am also sad and surprised to see that Muslims in the West are better Muslims and believrs than those rasied in a Muslim country.

Muslims in the East hardly condemned the terrorist attacks and some even said continue which I desagree with. If they hate being attakced then why say hit Ammerica, or Britain those are countries inhabtated by people too! If you do a bit of research and I will try to do so, you will see that many organizations and Masjids (Muslims Churches) have condemend them here in the west. We have even sent replies to the governments saying hwo we disapprove of such attacks and if it was based on people who say they are Muslim then we ask for pardon. If you ask me in general, Muslims in the West and the East are like two different sects totally yet they say they are on the same faith.

Quote:

Devil wrote:

@sciondestiny

IF ur a True muslim , then raise ur voice against terrorisms,

do we see the same protests for terrorists , who take the name of allah and kill innocent people ?


How can he be a true Muslim, (provided Muslims truly are peaceful, which I believe the majority are), when he would openly admit that he would destroy buildings over some ef'n cartoons?

Rolling Eyes


S3ND K3YS, I posted to that comment, it is connected to teh typo one and once again sorry about that. Also I live in the West, Canda for that matter and I am a proud faithful Muslim. I also hate war, fighting for no reaosn unless it is self-defense. I also hate many other things like making things popular when they are not, which is with the case of the cartoons. Muslims in the East I would say are sort of making a bad impression on some of use here in the West, making it harder for us to show who Prophet Muhammad (SAW) really was!

Once again sorry about the typo people!
S3nd K3ys
srdjan wrote:
loljesus is one of the most disguisting things i've ever seen.
it actually tells us what i have said earlier, that we ARE really a primitive society...

@s3ndk3ys:

i would actually like to hear some real argument from you and all the others who just keep sayin..."yeah, well they need to grow up.." ..."and stop being babies.."..."sum'one should change their diapers..." and such!
that's no real argument!

stop typing and start reading!

once again: The fact that we do not find cartoons about Jesus, Messiah, Mohammad, Pope, etc offensive, does NOT make us more liberate, free, better, or whatever else you are trying to make us look! I think the point here is, that we are so mature (grown up, unlike those crazy Muslims), that we think it's ok to mock some of the most important people in human history!
Well, I'll tell you something, that's nothing but pure vandalism, barbarism, and ignorance.

stop typing and start reading!

and i don't support violence on the Muslim side either, but the newspaper knew what they're playing with, and they still did it.
hell, even i know a true Muslim nature, and i have only a couple of real Muslim friends...i mean the religious ones...the others don't give a ****...
i even know how sensitive they are about these issues, and how they stand up for what they belive in.

so, a newspaper company, whose job is to KNOW, and be informed, must not have done such a thing!
and the real ignorance comes not from the reactions afterwards (of the newspaper), but from the fact that they assumed they can treat another religion, in the same mocking, humiliating way they treat their own. Their own!

you stop typing and read this and tell me i'm wrong. i can't wait for it! Smile

p.s. i appologize for kinda stealing and using someone's sig...won't do it anymore..Wink


You're wrong if you think it's justified to riot, destroy property or kill because of a cartoon. Period.
S3nd K3ys
sciondestiny wrote:


S3ND K3YS, I posted to that comment, it is connected to teh typo one and once again sorry about that. Also I live in the West, Canda for that matter and I am a proud faithful Muslim. I also hate war, fighting for no reaosn unless it is self-defense. I also hate many other things like making things popular when they are not, which is with the case of the cartoons. Muslims in the East I would say are sort of making a bad impression on some of use here in the West, making it harder for us to show who Prophet Muhammad (SAW) really was!

Once again sorry about the typo people!


Thanks for clearing that up. I take back what I said when I posted earlier. Wink

As for 'making things popular', this issue (the cartoons) would have died months ago if the Saudi and Iranian governments wouldn't have brought it back up and made a big deal out of it. Now it's national news every day and people have died because of it.

Hundreds of thousands of (radical?) Muslims jumped blindly on the bandwagon, destroying buildings and causing the deaths/injury of dozens of people.

For what?

For a cartoon.

A cartoon.
Devil
Quote:

DEVIL I want to say somethign to that post. The problem these days is that everyone sees what the Eastern Muslims are doing - which in this case would be destroying, burning, killing, and many other things only God knows of!.

I live in Canda and maybe only once in like a quick second thing did the news bring up what Muslims are doing here! Just recently we had a protest in downtown Toronto, and the Muslims went on a peaceful protest! We did not throw bombs, kill anyone, or even destroy anything. All we did was show how many of us condemn those pictures to the government! I would also like to say this but sadly Eastern Muslim countries are beginning to become more and more like Western countries. Denying their faith and losing their true Islamic faith! I am also sad and surprised to see that Muslims in the West are better Muslims and believrs than those rasied in a Muslim country.

Muslims in the East hardly condemned the terrorist attacks and some even said continue which I desagree with. If they hate being attakced then why say hit Ammerica, or Britain those are countries inhabtated by people too! If you do a bit of research and I will try to do so, you will see that many organizations and Masjids (Muslims Churches) have condemend them here in the west. We have even sent replies to the governments saying hwo we disapprove of such attacks and if it was based on people who say they are Muslim then we ask for pardon. If you ask me in general, Muslims in the West and the East are like two different sects totally yet they say they are on the same faith!


Boss it is totally diff to watch these protest on TV ,i face this here everyday , if u read the above post , u will see a innocent indian man was beaten to death near where i live , u cannot even talk in favour of the dutch , the atmosphere here is like whatever they say or Do is Right , and everyone else is wrong ,

here they use the sharia law too , i have many muslims freinds here and also in canada , but none of them are like this , the real problem of muslims is that they judge everyone ,i mean each and every person ,

like i saw a interveiw on ARY digital of the information minister of Pakistan , they were asking him about the protest that was held in lahore , they asked him why dint u join them , he said he was busy , ARY being a pakistani channel is also muslim , so the person asked him are u not a good muslim , why dint u join them ,

the minister said then ,that he supported the protest but couldnt go cuz he was too busy ,

so this what happens , if a muslim doesnt go to mosque everyone will start asking him questions , islam is like a society , and everyone does follow the islam to please other muslims ,

Like in ramzan here all the shops are closed , ur not allowed to eat or evern drink water in public , or front of anyone , if ur caught u will be punished , so some muslim freinds used to come to my house to eat something , cuz not even thier parents would allow them to eat , or they would be just scared that what other would think about them , [/quote]
S3nd K3ys
Billy Hill wrote:
Anybody else notice the difference in reaction when Jesus is mocked in a cartoon vs when Muhammad is mocked in a cartoon?
.


Yup.
Soulfire
How about, instead of personal attacks, we head back to the topic that we're on.

Thanks.
srdjan
I thought i said I wasn't supportive of the riots...

But I need to hear why I, or anyone else here should be supportive of the behaviour displayed by the danish newspaper...or actually the danish tabloid!

I gave quite a strong argument against it...
Now, if you or anyone else has a valid statement against mine, then I'll accept it..So far I haven't heard a single one...

And another thing! If your aim originally was to judge the Muslim society for reacting the way they did, then you should've done so from the start.
Now, all that is being displayed here as 'support', actually adds more fuel to the fire...answering to violence with more violence (or support to those who have been violent, in any way) is not the solution!
S3nd K3ys
srdjan wrote:
I thought i said I wasn't supportive of the riots...

But I need to hear why I, or anyone else here should be supportive of the behaviour displayed by the danish newspaper...or actually the danish tabloid!

I gave quite a strong argument against it...
Now, if you or anyone else has a valid statement against mine, then I'll accept it..So far I haven't heard a single one...

And another thing! If your aim originally was to judge the Muslim society for reacting the way they did, then you should've done so from the start.
Now, all that is being displayed here as 'support', actually adds more fuel to the fire...answering to violence with more violence (or support to those who have been violent, in any way) is not the solution!


So we should limit Free Speech to ONLY SPEACH THAT DOESN'T OFFEND ANY MUSLIMS? Rolling Eyes

How about the (radical) Muslims quit being crybabies about the cartoons. There's plenty more to get mad about.
mike1reynolds
Soulfire wrote:
How about, instead of personal attacks, we head back to the topic that we're on.
Thanks.


And telling someone they are going to Hell for not thinking the way you do is not a personal attack? Most of what I said to you was straight from the Bible. Telling you what the Bible says about your point of view is a personal attack?
srdjan
Aaaand we're back to square 1....
Rolling Eyes
sciondestiny
S3nd K3ys wrote:
sciondestiny wrote:


S3ND K3YS, I posted to that comment, it is connected to teh typo one and once again sorry about that. Also I live in the West, Canda for that matter and I am a proud faithful Muslim. I also hate war, fighting for no reaosn unless it is self-defense. I also hate many other things like making things popular when they are not, which is with the case of the cartoons. Muslims in the East I would say are sort of making a bad impression on some of use here in the West, making it harder for us to show who Prophet Muhammad (SAW) really was!

Once again sorry about the typo people!


Thanks for clearing that up. I take back what I said when I posted earlier. Wink

As for 'making things popular', this issue (the cartoons) would have died months ago if the Saudi and Iranian governments wouldn't have brought it back up and made a big deal out of it. Now it's national news every day and people have died because of it.

Hundreds of thousands of (radical?) Muslims jumped blindly on the bandwagon, destroying buildings and causing the deaths/injury of dozens of people.

For what?

For a cartoon.

A cartoon.


Hmm,,, S3ND K3YS you are exactly thinking what I and many other Muslims here in the West are thinking! I mean it is like "Satanic Verses" all over again! I mean Salman farisi wrote a book that no one even knew existed, once one person saw it he showed it to others and it turned into a national thing. I mean I thought the Muslims of East would have learned by now that that is not hwo to get something gone, like if they continue on like this they not only will give a bad Rep. to themselves but to all Muslims!

I did not say Islam seeing as most Muslims these days do not even follow what the Qur'an or te Sunnah tell them to do. And I will discuss this in my other post I will make now!
sciondestiny
Devil wrote:
Quote:

DEVIL I want to say somethign to that post. The problem these days is that everyone sees what the Eastern Muslims are doing - which in this case would be destroying, burning, killing, and many other things only God knows of!.

I live in Canda and maybe only once in like a quick second thing did the news bring up what Muslims are doing here! Just recently we had a protest in downtown Toronto, and the Muslims went on a peaceful protest! We did not throw bombs, kill anyone, or even destroy anything. All we did was show how many of us condemn those pictures to the government! I would also like to say this but sadly Eastern Muslim countries are beginning to become more and more like Western countries. Denying their faith and losing their true Islamic faith! I am also sad and surprised to see that Muslims in the West are better Muslims and believrs than those rasied in a Muslim country.

Muslims in the East hardly condemned the terrorist attacks and some even said continue which I desagree with. If they hate being attakced then why say hit Ammerica, or Britain those are countries inhabtated by people too! If you do a bit of research and I will try to do so, you will see that many organizations and Masjids (Muslims Churches) have condemend them here in the west. We have even sent replies to the governments saying hwo we disapprove of such attacks and if it was based on people who say they are Muslim then we ask for pardon. If you ask me in general, Muslims in the West and the East are like two different sects totally yet they say they are on the same faith!


Boss it is totally diff to watch these protest on TV ,i face this here everyday , if u read the above post , u will see a innocent indian man was beaten to death near where i live , u cannot even talk in favour of the dutch , the atmosphere here is like whatever they say or Do is Right , and everyone else is wrong ,

here they use the sharia law too , i have many muslims freinds here and also in canada , but none of them are like this , the real problem of muslims is that they judge everyone ,i mean each and every person ,

like i saw a interveiw on ARY digital of the information minister of Pakistan , they were asking him about the protest that was held in lahore , they asked him why dint u join them , he said he was busy , ARY being a pakistani channel is also muslim , so the person asked him are u not a good muslim , why dint u join them ,

the minister said then ,that he supported the protest but couldnt go cuz he was too busy ,

so this what happens , if a muslim doesnt go to mosque everyone will start asking him questions , islam is like a society , and everyone does follow the islam to please other muslims ,

Like in ramzan here all the shops are closed , ur not allowed to eat or evern drink water in public , or front of anyone , if ur caught u will be punished , so some muslim freinds used to come to my house to eat something , cuz not even thier parents would allow them to eat , or they would be just scared that what other would think about them ,
[/quote]

OK that sounds too scary yet I believe it, for a simple reason that there is stuff like that and if you read my post before this one I said that Muslims are no longer following teh true teachings if Islam, Qur'an or even Sunnah! I am sad to say that they are actually making their own laws, in Islam this is called BIDA. This is a very bad thing to do seeing as you are putting your status as high as God by making your own laws, and it is very much disliked in Islam - so far as I know this is not punishable unless BIda was involved and made punishable!!! Also Devil I would like to tell your friends that if they wish not to follow or be Muslims then tell them to leave their country and do what they wish seeing as they are not supposed to be forced to live as Muslims. And if they cannot take a whole day of fasting, even though it seems impossible seeing as they should be young and strong then they are also not forced but it is a very bad thing since Allah(God) ordered all Muslims to do so.

But we come back to the issue that form what I see Muslims where you live in are just saying they are Muslims to make others believe. I believe the ocrrect term is hypocrisy and those people should not be tortured because they are not Muslims. I think the Muslim council should look into thsi and see if it is true, also fix it!
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
I did not say Islam seeing as most Muslims these days do not even follow what the Qur'an or te Sunnah tell them to do. And I will discuss this in my other post I will make now!
I have a question about Islam, the Qur'an and Hadiths. I spent about 4 years trying to read, but I cold never get through more than a few pages at a time. It read like the hellfire and brimstone sermon of a conservative southern Baptist minister with attention deficit disorder, practically every paragraph was on a different topic. But I kept reading for years, waiting for it to make sense, with the firm conviction that all world religions must come from God. The payoff never came, I never found anything that seemed the slightest bit spiritual in the Qur’an, except in the footnotes. The footnote entries were quotes from the Hadiths, and they were focused and to the point, entirely in contrast to the Qur’an itself. I later found out why…

A Muslim girl, who hasn’t actually read the Qur’an herself, insisted that since the version I had was from Saudi Arabia, that its English translation was tainted by their ultra-conservative point of view and so it was a distorted translation. Do you think that this is so?

Then I found out that Mohammed didn’t write the Qur’an, it was dictated by an entity that he could only hear, and saw only twice in his life, supposedly the archangel Garbriel. In other words, its channeled material. If you are familiar with channelers you’ll know that a huge percentage of them channel garbage, the entities that speak through them are either totally deceptive or whacked out, giving lots of unreliable advice. This isn’t always the case, Edgar Casey was good counter example, but I’d say that about 90% of them are channeling entities that are evil or nuts. In the context of Mohammed’s channeled entity, those are very poor odds.

I mentioned the Hadiths above, which I found out are the actual words Mohammed himself. It struck me that he made a WHOLE lot more sense than the entity he was channeling. I tried to look up Hadiths on the net, but the Hadiths I found were compiled by fanatics, there was not a single mention of the End Times, they were all short paragraphs about the need to kill converts who revert to their former religion, Aishas’ mensus, and the rules for all sorts of mundane situations. Do you know of a good source online for Hadiths?

After 9/11 there was a PBS special on the life of Mohammed, and I was extremely impressed with the character and teachings of Mohammed that were portrayed. It was limited in scope of course, so it is hard to draw larger conclusions, but I am left with the distinct impression that the success and wisdom of Islam comes entirely from Mohammed and that all of it’s evils and ignorance come from the Qur’an. I was so impressed by Mohammed in fact that I am inclined to believe the Hadith that says that Mohammed will be a world savior in the End Times (Redeemer), or rather, from my point of view, his reincarnation will be. But I’m also left with the distinct impression that the entity that came to him was not an archangel, but an arch-demon. Thus all of the violence propagated by so many Islamic adherents, and yet contrasted the profound spirituality of Sufi mystics and other Muslim who reflect the character of Mohammed rather than entity he channeled.

I imagine that is quite a controversial topic to put to a Muslim, but I’ve been curious to put it to a religiously educated Muslim for a long time. I actually went to a Mosque and tried to debate the point with an Imam once, but no matter how hard I tried to make the entity the focus of the conversation, the Imam kept turn the subject to the credibility of Mohammed. He was mentally unable to defend the credibility of the entity, because he couldn’t even entertain the thought that the entity wasn’t an archangel. But strangely, he could defend Mohammed’s credibility, while being completely unable to defend the entity, so that is all that he would do. I made a monumental effort to shift the topic to the entities entity’s credibility rather than Mohammed’s, but he just couldn’t even address the topic, its like he was programmed to avoid the question at all costs. I was left with the distinct impression of cult programming, the questions I asked just short circuited his brain, and yet, if I had attacked Mohammed’s credibility he would have been perfectly prepared to defend against such criticisms.

Please note that I think it is the Apocalypse, and as such, I think that no religion is pure, all religions are tainted by demonic invasion, but I think that Islam is the worst, for the reasons I mentioned above. For counter balance, I’m going to make another post to Horseatingweeds about this aspect of Christianity. Christians are brainwashed about Christ the same way that Muslims are brainwashed about the archangel Gabriel, so, like the Imam, I don’t except him to be able to respond to the subject, except with complete denial, but you don’t seem so brainwashed, so I hope that you can give me a reasoned response, or perhaps direct me to someone with more ecclesiastical knowledge who could give me a counter-argument.

So there are three questions. 1) Where can I find good Hadiths, 2) Was my Qur'an's english translation likely distorted in your opinion, and 3) do you have counter-arguments against my criticism of the entity that dicated the Qur'an?
mike1reynolds
horseatingweeds wrote:
..especially any one knowing and history of the region.
Somewhat like white supremacists, the Chosen Race was to a certain degree racists. John the Baptist warned them, “Don't just say,`We're safe--we're the descendants of Abraham.' That proves nothing.” Matthew 3:9 Its more evident today than ever, Israel is an apartheid state, with the Ashkenazi at the top, while Sephardic Jews are treated worse, Ethiopian Jews are treated substantially worse, immigrant Arabs are near the bottom while Christian and Muslim Palestinian are treated the worst. My maternal grandmother’s maternal grandmother was Jewish, so technically, I’m Jewish. You’d be amazed at how differently Jewish people react to me when they find that out. This in part is the reason why Jews have remained so ethnically pure for two millennia. Given such small numbers and their scattering over the globe, most ethnic groups would have dissolved under the same conditions.

I once put my argument about Jesus’ racism to a woman who did know about the history of the region, and her response was to justify it by saying that everyone in the Western world was racist back then. That seems like a lame excuse to me. Mohammed had far more reason to be racist and proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was not racist at all. I have a high standard for Messiahs, and racist doesn’t cut it.

I believe that Jesus’ racism is reflected throughout the Western world. Hitler said, “I came to complete the work that Jesus started.” Southerners fought the Civil War based on the theological argument, preached from pulpits all over the South, that blacks didn’t have souls. The Spanish brutality with the New World was sanctioned by the Catholic Church which held the same theological stance, that Native Americans did not have souls.

When a spiritual founder has a problem, it doesn’t get better, the problem becomes magnified among the less spiritual followers, so Jesus’ modest level of racism reverberates throughout the Western world in magnified form.
horseatingweeds
@ mike1reynolds

Easy mike1reynolds, I’m not after your soul and I enjoy reading your posts.

My point was simple that such a cartoon would not offend anyone. The Christians you refer to, being uneducated or interested, would not understand and if they did they wouldn’t care.

The Christians I am referring to are very familiar with the bible its history and assembly and such. These people would assume the author was an idiot, not assuming your self as such.

The argument for Jesus’ words in the referred to statement are poor. Certainly they could be construed as such if you try hard enough but there is the issue of pre and post president, such as him helping the women at the well and his overall message that the Lord has been trying to reach out to his chosen people but has now decided to reach out to all the world.

I don’t see how the Roman officer would parallel the Canaanite woman. You could say that the officer had no more reason to believe in Jesus but he also did not have reason not to. Roman religion(s) where very different than the “Canaanite” peoples, as I am sure you know. I think this situation proves more about the fact that Jesus was respected.

Also, you are wrong in thinking that what Soulfire said embarrassed me due to guilt. The frustration I have is when I see Christians touting themselves as being saved while others condemned for their iniquities. As though since “I” am “saved” “I” can tell whether or not YOU are going to the furnace. The furnace being where God sends all the people he doesn’t like as a punishment.

I also mean no offence to Soulfire.

I find your theory about the Qur’an interesting. I have also attempted reading it but found the difficulties you have described. My copy was translated to English by Ahmed Ali (Amazon reviews where good).

Any way, I look forward to you post. I will do my best to produce pre programmed defenses to your questions in a timely manner. If I am unable I will certainly beseech our cults prophet to learn how to deal with your sinfulness.
mike1reynolds
horseatingweeds wrote:
Easy mike1reynolds, I’m not after your soul and I enjoy reading your posts.
I didn't take you to be a bible thumper, your reaction to Soulfire proved that. But I think that most people from Christian upbringings, even if they aren't Christian per say, are brainwashed about Jesus in a manner similar to the way that imam was brainwashed about the entity that dictated the Qur'an. I think that it is the Apocalypse and all religions are corrupted and decayed, although they all still retain some of God's message. The only way to know what God really thinks is try and piece it together from the way he approached all cultures.

horseatingweeds wrote:
...and his overall message that the Lord has been trying to reach out to his chosen people but has now decided to reach out to all the world.
Now when you say Lord, do you mean Jesus or God? Jesus most definitely intended to preach only to Jews. This became a huge debate after his death when Peter decided to preach to gentiles. He was in a very small minority and is the only one of the 12 disciples who ever preached to gentiles. Most of Jesus' followers in the century after his death were adamantly against trying to convert gentiles and preached mainly in synagogues. Even after the practice was accepted, for a long time there was a lot of controversy over whether converted gentiles should be circumcised, as evidenced in the numerous references to circumcision in the new testament. In effect, you had to convert to Judaism first, and then you could become Christian.
Devil
@sciondestiny

Boss most of the middle east countrues have this law , u cannot smoke in public , or eat or even drink water in public , no hotels will be open during the day . if anybody is found eating or drinking they are punished , it doesnt matter if ur a muslim or not ,

this goes on for one whole month , Rolling Eyes

Plus they are so backward ,that when it is time for prayer (5times a day)

they will ask us to off our TV or radio , while azaan , even if the mosque is few Kms away

alchohol is banned here too , so u now can understand , how i live

Christain trapped in muslim land Razz
mike1reynolds
horseatingweeds wrote:
I don’t see how the Roman officer would parallel the Canaanite woman. You could say that the officer had no more reason to believe in Jesus but he also did not have reason not to. Roman religion(s) where very different than the “Canaanite” peoples, as I am sure you know.
Mark 7:26 says that the woman was Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. (NIV) Her religious outlook was probably very similar to the Roman captain's. I think that the discrepancy between the ways he treated them had more to do with their differing social status since Judea was not occupied by the Greeks.
sciondestiny
Devil wrote:
@sciondestiny

Boss most of the middle east countrues have this law , u cannot smoke in public , or eat or even drink water in public , no hotels will be open during the day . if anybody is found eating or drinking they are punished , it doesnt matter if ur a muslim or not ,

this goes on for one whole month , Rolling Eyes

Plus they are so backward ,that when it is time for prayer (5times a day)

they will ask us to off our TV or radio , while azaan , even if the mosque is few Kms away

alchohol is banned here too , so u now can understand , how i live

Christain trapped in muslim land Razz


Hold on Devil, let me get this straight. What you are saying is that they are forcing non-Muslims as in Christians, Jews and other people to fast along side Muslims? Ok now that is not right, in Islam there is no opression - we are not allowed to force somebody since he was given his free will from God. But we are especially not supposed to force non-Muslims to do Muslim things. Can you please state what country this is exactly in sir? I mean this has to be discussed among the Muslims, so please if you could tell me which country this is in?

P.S. Mike I did not forget you I just wanted to answer Devil seeing as my reply would be small. Very Happy
sciondestiny
mike1reynolds wrote:
sciondestiny wrote:
I did not say Islam seeing as most Muslims these days do not even follow what the Qur'an or te Sunnah tell them to do. And I will discuss this in my other post I will make now!
I have a question about Islam, the Qur'an and Hadiths. I spent about 4 years trying to read, but I cold never get through more than a few pages at a time. It read like the hellfire and brimstone sermon of a conservative southern Baptist minister with attention deficit disorder, practically every paragraph was on a different topic. But I kept reading for years, waiting for it to make sense, with the firm conviction that all world religions must come from God. The payoff never came, I never found anything that seemed the slightest bit spiritual in the Qur’an, except in the footnotes. The footnote entries were quotes from the Hadiths, and they were focused and to the point, entirely in contrast to the Qur’an itself. I later found out why…

A Muslim girl, who hasn’t actually read the Qur’an herself, insisted that since the version I had was from Saudi Arabia, that its English translation was tainted by their ultra-conservative point of view and so it was a distorted translation. Do you think that this is so?

Then I found out that Mohammed didn’t write the Qur’an, it was dictated by an entity that he could only hear, and saw only twice in his life, supposedly the archangel Garbriel. In other words, its channeled material. If you are familiar with channelers you’ll know that a huge percentage of them channel garbage, the entities that speak through them are either totally deceptive or whacked out, giving lots of unreliable advice. This isn’t always the case, Edgar Casey was good counter example, but I’d say that about 90% of them are channeling entities that are evil or nuts. In the context of Mohammed’s channeled entity, those are very poor odds.

I mentioned the Hadiths above, which I found out are the actual words Mohammed himself. It struck me that he made a WHOLE lot more sense than the entity he was channeling. I tried to look up Hadiths on the net, but the Hadiths I found were compiled by fanatics, there was not a single mention of the End Times, they were all short paragraphs about the need to kill converts who revert to their former religion, Aishas’ mensus, and the rules for all sorts of mundane situations. Do you know of a good source online for Hadiths?

After 9/11 there was a PBS special on the life of Mohammed, and I was extremely impressed with the character and teachings of Mohammed that were portrayed. It was limited in scope of course, so it is hard to draw larger conclusions, but I am left with the distinct impression that the success and wisdom of Islam comes entirely from Mohammed and that all of it’s evils and ignorance come from the Qur’an. I was so impressed by Mohammed in fact that I am inclined to believe the Hadith that says that Mohammed will be a world savior in the End Times (Redeemer), or rather, from my point of view, his reincarnation will be. But I’m also left with the distinct impression that the entity that came to him was not an archangel, but an arch-demon. Thus all of the violence propagated by so many Islamic adherents, and yet contrasted the profound spirituality of Sufi mystics and other Muslim who reflect the character of Mohammed rather than entity he channeled.

I imagine that is quite a controversial topic to put to a Muslim, but I’ve been curious to put it to a religiously educated Muslim for a long time. I actually went to a Mosque and tried to debate the point with an Imam once, but no matter how hard I tried to make the entity the focus of the conversation, the Imam kept turn the subject to the credibility of Mohammed. He was mentally unable to defend the credibility of the entity, because he couldn’t even entertain the thought that the entity wasn’t an archangel. But strangely, he could defend Mohammed’s credibility, while being completely unable to defend the entity, so that is all that he would do. I made a monumental effort to shift the topic to the entities entity’s credibility rather than Mohammed’s, but he just couldn’t even address the topic, its like he was programmed to avoid the question at all costs. I was left with the distinct impression of cult programming, the questions I asked just short circuited his brain, and yet, if I had attacked Mohammed’s credibility he would have been perfectly prepared to defend against such criticisms.

Please note that I think it is the Apocalypse, and as such, I think that no religion is pure, all religions are tainted by demonic invasion, but I think that Islam is the worst, for the reasons I mentioned above. For counter balance, I’m going to make another post to Horseatingweeds about this aspect of Christianity. Christians are brainwashed about Christ the same way that Muslims are brainwashed about the archangel Gabriel, so, like the Imam, I don’t except him to be able to respond to the subject, except with complete denial, but you don’t seem so brainwashed, so I hope that you can give me a reasoned response, or perhaps direct me to someone with more ecclesiastical knowledge who could give me a counter-argument.

So there are three questions. 1) Where can I find good Hadiths, 2) Was my Qur'an's english translation likely distorted in your opinion, and 3) do you have counter-arguments against my criticism of the entity that dicated the Qur'an?


Hey Mike, well firstly I would like to apologize that I did not have the time to respond sooner. I had some work to do and I was also having computer problems but they are fixed thanks to God.

I will try to answer to the best of my extent all of your questions and concerns that you have in the above quote but I am not guaranteeing that they are the best so please do not think what I say is everything - there could be more ot be added!

1) Concerning Hadiths, there are many books on them and even sites. Right now I have some links which I believe are in my bookmarks or somewhere else, so you might have to wait a bit longer on that one - sorry once again. I will thought try to respond as fast as I can.

2) OK, this is a really nice question that many times imams have tried to answer but there has been only one in my mind that explained it the best. But before I say his quote in my opinion I would not be surprised if it was a distorted version seeing as we are living in a world where people would try to make counterfiet Qur'ans (Actually there was one that was published, cannot remember name but it is all fake things as in translation that the author wrote). I would like to answer this question firstly by telling a story:

In the history of Islam, when Umar was Caliphate or leader of the Muslims there was one time where people started to write incorrect forms of the Qur'an. They were totally different form the Qur'an and were a wrong text for the Muslims. What Umar did was order that all the fake Qur'ans be brought to him and he piled them in a pile and set them on fire. After that he made 7 unique authentic Qur'ans, and he enclosed them in golden covers and sent one to each of the Islamic States. He ordered that any Qur'an that is to be made be made from those Qur'ans, and they are still living today and can be viewed in a Museum in the Middle east somewere I believe.

Now as for your part, it concerns the translationa and not the arabic text. One Imam as I said explained something very clearly once, he said that the translation of any Qur'an whether form Arabic into English, or Arabic into French, or Arabic into Bosnian, or Arabic into any language, that is the authors/translaters understanding of teh QUr'an and it's verses! If we look today, for example a joke that is made in French, when translated into english might lose its humour and thus be not funny anymore but not 100% though. Same goes for Qur'an, although the translators have translated it that is how they understood it and the only way to understand a quote or book in another language is to read it in that language.

Now as for your problem, there might be a different reason. What you explain is that in teh Qur'an it jumps from topic to topic. I have noticed that too but from most of the translations I read - I am not an arab only a Muslim! Yes so from the translations I have read even though it goes into different topics they somehow always connect to each other so I would say that there might be a possibiliy that the translator was inexperienced in arabic or what that young lady has told you. Also a word of advice which is only advice and you do not have to do it, if you continue on with reading the Qur'an in this case try another one. They offer free Qur'ans at your local Mosque for sure, if you keep reading it there is that possibilty that one day it might just make perfect sense to you. There is a nice story to this:

Where one companion of the Prophet (SAW) said to his firends today I have experienced the true fruit of praying. He said even though he was Muslim after almost 7 years of praying he finally obtained the goodness and love for prayer, so do not give up on teh Qur'an kep reading it whenever you get the time.

3) Yes and know to this question lol, I think I have probably heard this many times and I always try my best with Allah's help to answer in the best manner and form I can. Firstly though I want to correct you on telling you that the Prophet saw the entity or Angel Gabriel many more times than just twice, it was actually a tradition that he would come atleast tonce in a year to see how Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was doing with his memory of teh Qur'an. Basically he would listen to him recite it all that he know at that time or that was revealed.

I do not deny that there are other people who say they get entities who give them prophecies which in my view are similar to yours Mike - Satanic!!!! There is actually a good reaosn why they are or have a feeling of Satanic in them and in Islam we believe as well that there are beings that we cannot see. We call them Jinns - which is form where the word genie comes from and that is what they basically are beings with supernatural powers until they change form into a humans! People usually if they try hard will be able to communicate with one of them, and these Jinns usually spy on the Angels or heaven so as to report to the Devil, and that is how you get fortune tellers. Sometimes they might even make up something which is why fortune tellers are not a good thing to use! Well this is the point that Islam makes and that I accept seeing that anything is possible and we have seen it.

What Muslims believe is that Angel Gabriel was only a Messenger from Allah (God) to the Prophets of God. So Allah (SWT) told the Angel Gabriel what to tell or pass on to Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Now the reason why the Hadiths make much more sense than the Qur'an could be of this basically. The Prophet (SAW) whenever he got a Qur'anic revelation he would then try o explain it the best he could. In my opinion te eQur'an was sent sort of like a puzzle or riddles or somewhat in that form. I myself sometimes do not understand some of them and also consult the Hadiths or I ask my father, seeing as he is also an Imam and he has a lot of knowledge on it.

I would like to end though by saying that yes there are a lot of people out there who just do what they are told and believe some things because they are told to. I am in a way or a percent also like that, but for some things I want ot know if there is a reason and what that reaosn is! In the third question I believe that Angel Gabriel was only a Messenger that only convade the message, and that he did not make them up or anything.

Also I want to say that whenever I read the Qur'an I get this wierd sensation like I am not in this worl anymore. I know it might sound wierd but there are also a lot of reverts or converts who say the same thing.

I hope that helped out a bit Mike, and I hope you have more interesting question like that or any questions on what I just said. Very Happy
mike1reynolds
The first copy of the Qur'an I got was from a Muslim, the second was from a mosque, but both were from Saudi Arabia. This precludes the possibility that they are counterfeit.

It’s a bit late, I’ll read your post again in more detail tomorrow and see if I have anymore questions, but this question pops into my mind after first reading:

What about all of the condemnation in the Qur’an? My versions are constantly talking about all of the people who are going to Hell and it sounds very angry. While superficially it is tolerant of Christians and Jews, it is also constantly making profoundly derogatory remarks about them; most of them are going to Hell too. I’m not sure if it never, or almost never, says anything good about Christians and Jews. It strikes me as being extremely emotionally violent and angry. The violence of the Middle East seems to me to directly correspond to this violence in the Qur’an. The Bible is the second most violent of any world scripture, and yet it just describes violent clashes, the emotional tenor is completely different.

The Bible also talks about people who defy God’s will, but it is focused on trying to get them to repent, they can always turn around at anytime and come back to God. (Horseatingwoods, you could give me a hand here because I have hardly read the Old Testament, I never liked it). The Bible doesn’t assume that most of them are intentionally trying to defy God, they just aren’t thinking about God, they are brainwashed or too caught up in thinking about themselves and the dog eat dog world. The Qur’an on the other hand, over and over again lays out a scenario where most people are just damned to Hell from the start, and it asserts that these people are intent on defying God. It seems to me to be purposefully trying to foster an intolerant attitude towards others, and encouraging ignorant people to think that if someone doesn’t agree with them, that they are intentionally trying to defy God. I found nothing in the Qur’an to compare to the Biblical statements of, “Judge not least ye be judged”, “forgive my transgression as I forgive the transgressions of others”, “turn the other cheek”, “stop worrying about the mote in another person’s eye when you’ve got a plank in your own eye”, and “vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord”. (Note that the last quote means, you can’t take vengeance, that isn’t your place, leave that to God and karma). The Qur’an seems to me to be the very antithesis of this. While it doesn’t come right out and say to do acts of violence, it plays a constant drum beat of angry accusations that encourage such actions and does nothing to mitigate this. The actual provocations to violence are in the Hadiths, (or maybe they are in the Qur’an itself). For example, I read online in several Hadiths that if someone converts to Islam, but then reverts to their former religion, they are supposed to be executed. This is essentially saying that no other path to God is valid; not even Christianity, the second most intolerant religion in the world, says that. Another example is the story of when Mohammad was stoned by the people of a city he was trying to convert. Jibriel comes to him and asks him if he would like God to destroy the city. This reinforces the notion to ordinary people that they have the right to commit acts of violence to others that wont listen to them. It also strikes me as the kind of thing the Dark Side would to tempt a good soul to use death magic against someone they were angry at. I’ve been told by one Iranian friend that the common people in Iran do a lot of magic curses against people they don’t like and that this sort of thing is extremely wide spread. I don’t know if you are aware of it, but that sort of thing is extremely rare in Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Taoist countries.

So my question is, does this sound like your Qur’an, or is this angry accusatory language a product of the Saudi translation? Also, are these Hadith stories accurate?
Devil
[quote="sciondestiny"]
Devil wrote:
@sciondestiny

Hold on Devil, let me get this straight. What you are saying is that they are forcing non-Muslims as in Christians, Jews and other people to fast along side Muslims? Ok now that is not right, in Islam there is no opression - we are not allowed to force somebody since he was given his free will from God. But we are especially not supposed to force non-Muslims to do Muslim things. Can you please state what country this is exactly in sir? I mean this has to be discussed among the Muslims, so please if you could tell me which country this is in?

P.S. Mike I did not forget you I just wanted to answer Devil seeing as my reply would be small. Very Happy


i dint say they force us , but i did say they close all the hotels , and shops during the day , and we are not allowed to eat or drink in public during the day , and i live in UAe

Suppose i go to work in dubai from sharjah , how do u think i will have my food when i do a fulltime day job ,

i cannot carry a lucnh box cuz i cannot eat in public places , that includes the office premises , and i cannot go back to sharjah which takes more then 2 hours cuz of traffic jams ,

so basically we endup fasting cuz of this rule , and hell yeah !! u need to discuss it with other muslims ,

cuz if someone goes hungry cuz of this law , then the only thing they will do is curse the muslims, i have been 8 years so i am getting used to it now
SSPIMP
Yes i would support them on this subject.
Lennon
I think religious muslims shouldn't have to close their doors for fasting if there's enough hungry non-muslims, they can fast while they work. And for the office, that shouldn't be considered a public place coz that's private property (just strict muslims).
But if you're a muslim and you fast, i think that's very admirable and respectable and should be practiced by other religions more frequently (Us Catholics are coming up to Lent soon, so we'll be fasting too).

P.S. It's against the 3rd commandment from moses to work on Sunday, that is profitable work. Yet shops remain open...
sciondestiny
Hey Mike I read your post and I think I have some pretty good answers Allah willing. As I always say I will try to answer them in teh best possible reason and thinking but remember I am not a full time Islamic Scholar - Well most of my knowledge is thanks to my dad.

Ok lets begin then:


mike1reynolds wrote:

What about all of the condemnation in the Qur’an? My versions are constantly talking about all of the people who are going to Hell and it sounds very angry. While superficially it is tolerant of Christians and Jews, it is also constantly making profoundly derogatory remarks about them; most of them are going to Hell too. I’m not sure if it never, or almost never, says anything good about Christians and Jews. It strikes me as being extremely emotionally violent and angry. The violence of the Middle East seems to me to directly correspond to this violence in the Qur’an. The Bible is the second most violent of any world scripture, and yet it just describes violent clashes, the emotional tenor is completely different.

The Bible also talks about people who defy God’s will, but it is focused on trying to get them to repent, they can always turn around at anytime and come back to God. (Horseatingwoods, you could give me a hand here because I have hardly read the Old Testament, I never liked it). The Bible doesn’t assume that most of them are intentionally trying to defy God, they just aren’t thinking about God, they are brainwashed or too caught up in thinking about themselves and the dog eat dog world. The Qur’an on the other hand, over and over again lays out a scenario where most people are just damned to Hell from the start, and it asserts that these people are intent on defying God. It seems to me to be purposefully trying to foster an intolerant attitude towards others, and encouraging ignorant people to think that if someone doesn’t agree with them, that they are intentionally trying to defy God. I found nothing in the Qur’an to compare to the Biblical statements of, “Judge not least ye be judged”, “forgive my transgression as I forgive the transgressions of others”, “turn the other cheek”, “stop worrying about the mote in another person’s eye when you’ve got a plank in your own eye”, and “vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord”. (Note that the last quote means, you can’t take vengeance, that isn’t your place, leave that to God and karma). The Qur’an seems to me to be the very antithesis of this. While it doesn’t come right out and say to do acts of violence, it plays a constant drum beat of angry accusations that encourage such actions and does nothing to mitigate this.


I have seen this many times not only in the outside world or the internet but here as well. It gets more and more intense though when people actually bring verses from the Qur'an that are actually miscopied (They are not in full verse). A prime example was the thread called: "islam is..." or the verses brought here by our friend S3ND K3YS.

If you have noticed something though form your reading, please tell me if you have or have not then I can tell you whether there is something wrong with your Qur'an. Yes so if you have noticed in that verse that talks about the punishments or why people are going to hell Allah always gives a very good reason. If you do not find it in that exact verse, then read one after it or one before it or a couple up or down, you will find the reason. In the verses though you wil find that Allah always talks about the Athiests. or in the Qur'an disbelievers! In Islam we are taught and I believe there is an ayah or verse that talks about this where it says that Allah (SWT) will forgive anytype of sin or wrong doing except for one, and that is athiesm or in Islam Shirk. Allah will never forgive a person who believes in another God other than only Allah. But there is a big catch here though that sadly is always dropped by not only non-Muslims but also by Muslims. In Islam if a person comes from disbelieving into Islam all his previous sins will be forgiven and will turn into good deeds (in other words as if he had done only good his whole life, like he was a new born baby fresh and pure.) So when Allah (SWT) says he wont forgive Shirk he is not talking about people who non-Muslims but then repent, rather he is talking about the person who continues it his whole life or who is a Muslim and does that act. Sadly I have seen many non-Muslims get pushed away by this reason of misinformation. If Mike you read on a bit in the Qur'an you will find many verses though that speak of Allah's forgiveness and how he commands forgiveness in certain situations.

Actually if you have noticed every verse begins with a few simple and special words.

"I seek refuge in You from the devil. In the Name of God, The Mercy giving, The Most merciful"

So from those few words or the last few we see that Allah forgives and he is the highest forgiver. Here are a few examples form teh Qur'an talking about his forgiveness:

Qur'an wrote:

Many of the people of teh Scripture (Jews and Christians) wish that if they could turn you away as disbelievers after you have believed, out of envy from their ownselves, even after teh truth has become manifest into them. But Forgive and overlook, till Allah brings his Command. Verily, Allah is Able to do all things. (2:109)

"Say:'O My slaves (Allah is talking to His slaves or worshippers) who have transgressed against themselves (By doing bad deeds)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: verily, Allah forgives all sins. Truly He is the Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful'" (39:53)


So we see that even though the people are trying to change Muslims into their belief Allah says to the Muslims to forgive and overlook, seeing as they were and are only humans like ourselves or myself. We know and I know and accept that humans make mistakes, sometimes even big ones.

In the second quote Allah (SWT) is telling all Muslims how He Will forgive all sins done by them!

Mike if you read a bit more almost into the 2/3 or half part you will start noticing though that Allah (SWT) starts to mention the rewards much more. The only reason Allah gave us such scary images was to make us not transgress or do evil things, I mean look at it this way. If you tell a young child, if you do such and such you will be beaten or you wont get TV for a month. He will of course get scared and try his best not to do it, correct?

mike1reynolds wrote:

The actual provocations to violence are in the Hadiths, (or maybe they are in the Qur’an itself). For example, I read online in several Hadiths that if someone converts to Islam, but then reverts to their former religion, they are supposed to be executed. This is essentially saying that no other path to God is valid; not even Christianity, the second most intolerant religion in the world, says that. Another example is the story of when Mohammad was stoned by the people of a city he was trying to convert. Jibriel comes to him and asks him if he would like God to destroy the city. This reinforces the notion to ordinary people that they have the right to commit acts of violence to others that wont listen to them. It also strikes me as the kind of thing the Dark Side would to tempt a good soul to use death magic against someone they were angry at. I’ve been told by one Iranian friend that the common people in Iran do a lot of magic curses against people they don’t like and that this sort of thing is extremely wide spread. I don’t know if you are aware of it, but that sort of thing is extremely rare in Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Taoist countries.


For the first part, the hadith about converts. I seriously sometimes get mad at hadith books for doing this, but I have to warn you though chief that sometimes even in Islam some of those hadiths are said to be false where a paerson just made it up. If you want true hadiths which are for sure 100% authentic Prophet Muhammad (SAW) then I say read Al-Bukhari. I think he has about 3 or more books of full 100% authentic hadiths. Yes so to the thing I hate, most books leave out the story of why the Prophet said that specific hadith, and guess what in teh stories we sometimes learn the lesson not the Hadith itself.

For this specific hadith, it was when Islam had just been revealed to the Prophet, and some people who were disbelievers at the time thought of an idea to ruin Islam, they were in a way hypocrites basiclaly. They converted to Islam in the morning, and by the end of the day they said oh this is not a good religion, so they kept doing this switching teh people always. In this way tehy thougt the Muslims would say oh they are right seeing as a lot of people were converting and reverting. So the Prophet in terms to stop this ordered thsi to be done but only until it stopped, so as to scare them into stopping it.

As for the second time, this happened in a city called Taif where it is still inbetween two mountains. The angel said I will close the mountains on them, I am not quite sure but this could be a reason, might want to ask an imam about it more if you like. In Islam we know and in every religion it is accepted that God knows everything, so he knew Prophet Muhammad woudl say no, but this was to show how mercigul and kind Muhammad could be even after he was bleeding almost to death from the stones and thorns on his feet. It is also a human nature that you would want to kill someone like that, I mean tell me. If you got cut by someone, a simple cut you would want him to have the same as a revenge. Well Allah tells us many times in the Qur'an that Muhammad (SAW) was a mercy to ALL of mankind so this was a way to prove it. Even though he had been beaten he still forgave them and he also wished for them to be Muslim one day all of them. Right now all of Taif is Muslim! Smile

I actually am opposite my Muslim friends on the last topic about iranians. A lot of Muslims feel mad and angry at them, I feel sad for the,. Iranians are called Muslims as well but as you may know they are also Shia or the full phrase Shia'tu Ali! While other Muslims are either Sufis, hanbalis and so on. but the majority are called Sunni which I am happily! Sunni is the only right way, the magic that iranians do is common in Islam actually but not in the sense that people do it, in the sense they know it exists. Magic is said to have been taught to man by 2 Angels under Allah's command, but man was told to never use it. This was like a test to see who would obey Allah, now they iranian might use it I am unaware and since your friend is iranian I am guessing he is right so sadly they do. I wish they never made that sect in the beginning because they claim to be pure and the only true Islam, but sadly they have many things that are out of reason or Bida (Made up in religion)!

I hope that has answered your questions if you have more about this issue please aks away sir!
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
3) Yes and know to this question lol, I think I have probably heard this many times and I always try my best with Allah's help to answer in the best manner and form I can. Firstly though I want to correct you on telling you that the Prophet saw the entity or Angel Gabriel many more times than just twice, it was actually a tradition that he would come atleast tonce in a year to see how Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was doing with his memory of teh Qur'an. Basically he would listen to him recite it all that he know at that time or that was revealed.

I do not deny that there are other people who say they get entities who give them prophecies which in my view are similar to yours Mike - Satanic!!!! There is actually a good reaosn why they are or have a feeling of Satanic in them and in Islam we believe as well that there are beings that we cannot see. We call them Jinns - which is form where the word genie comes from and that is what they basically are beings with supernatural powers until they change form into a humans! People usually if they try hard will be able to communicate with one of them, and these Jinns usually spy on the Angels or heaven so as to report to the Devil, and that is how you get fortune tellers. Sometimes they might even make up something which is why fortune tellers are not a good thing to use! Well this is the point that Islam makes and that I accept seeing that anything is possible and we have seen it.

What Muslims believe is that Angel Gabriel was only a Messenger from Allah (God) to the Prophets of God. So Allah (SWT) told the Angel Gabriel what to tell or pass on to Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Now the reason why the Hadiths make much more sense than the Qur'an could be of this basically. The Prophet (SAW) whenever he got a Qur'anic revelation he would then try o explain it the best he could. In my opinion te eQur'an was sent sort of like a puzzle or riddles or somewhat in that form. I myself sometimes do not understand some of them and also consult the Hadiths or I ask my father, seeing as he is also an Imam and he has a lot of knowledge on it.

I would like to end though by saying that yes there are a lot of people out there who just do what they are told and believe some things because they are told to. I am in a way or a percent also like that, but for some things I want ot know if there is a reason and what that reaosn is! In the third question I believe that Angel Gabriel was only a Messenger that only convade the message, and that he did not make them up or anything.

You’ve said a lot here without ever actually addressing the question. When hearing voices from an entity, you acknowledge the great risk, indeed the absurdity of simply accepting the statements at face value, but then you proceed to do exactly that without question. You simply assert that the Qur’anic entity is the archangel Jibriel and that you believe him to be a messenger of God. The question is not whether Gabriel is a messenger of God, no Christian or Jew would ever disagree, what is at issue is whether or not the entity in question truly is Jibriel? As I’ve said, I am extremely dubious of this, his language seems very violent to me, demonic rather than angelic. The fact that you so readily short circuited the issue, completely side stepping the question, without appearing to be aware that you have done so, even though you say you’ve heard this doubt expressed many times, gives the distinct impression that you have never really confronted the issue, even as you acknowledge the fact that it is utterly absurd not to question such a thing.

So to reiterate, what evidence is there that the entity the dictated the Qur’an to Mohammed is an angel and not a demon or evil jinn?

BTW, some jinn are good and some are evil, but does the Qur’an actually talk about demons? I know that the Qur’an says that there is no battle of the angels, that no angel has ever fallen, so I gather that Muslims do not believe in demons since a demon is by definition a fallen angel?

I should state up front that I think that this is exactly what a demon would want you to think. “There are none of us chickens in here!” to quote a common cartoon expression, that you might not be familiar with, where the cartoon character tells his pursuer, “No, I’m not in here!” Another analogy would be to AIDS. AIDS is so deadly because the first thing it does is attack the body’s ability to recognize it’s presence. Evil is the same way, if evil can convince you that it doesn’t exist, it has already won most of the battle without a fight. If demons can convince you that they don’t exist, then people just blame each other rather than the demons, and they don’t look within themselves for the demons, they just go around blaming what they don’t like in others without ever looking at themselves.

sciondestiny wrote:
If you have noticed something though form your reading, please tell me if you have or have not then I can tell you whether there is something wrong with your Qur'an. Yes so if you have noticed in that verse that talks about the punishments or why people are going to hell Allah always gives a very good reason.
Rather than disagreeing with my assessment that the Qur’an is filled with enormous amounts of condemnation, you seem to be trying to justify it? It is irrelevant whether or not the reason the Qur’an states that someone else is going to Hell is valid or not. The point is that a) no one but God knows what is between a person and God (and it really isn’t anyone else’s business but God’s) and b) you should focus on YOUR sins, not the sins of others. We all have our hands full trying to keep OURSELVES out of Hell. Feeling angry and self-righteous at others doesn’t help either you or them. Being angry at the world will not get you too Heaven, anger only hastens your path to Hell. Anger is a deadly sin, so why play a constant drum beat of accusations to induce anger? Only a demon would do such a thing. Are you aware that the Qur’an is utterly unique in this regard? No other scripture of any world religion is like this, and indeed, Mohammed was not like this at all. Can you see how people of other religions see a parallel between the harsh judgmental language of the Qur’an and the wide spread violence of the Islamic world?

Every other religion says not to focus on whether or not someone else is going to Hell, leave that to God. You never know what is between someone and God, and there is no other religion on the planet other than the Qur’an that encourages people to try to ascertain God’s judgments of peoples’ souls. It is between God and that person, and isn’t anyone else’s business.

In my opinion, by endlessly harping on how wrong other people are, the Qur’an encourages Muslims to be angry, self-righteous and judgmental. These are traits which every other religion warns against as mortal sins, but the Qur’an is endlessly encouraging it! In Buddhism it is said, ‘you can’t change the world, but you can change yourself.’ And that was the point of all of the Biblical quotes I made, they were saying the same thing, that focusing on whether someone else is right with God is a cop-out, an easy way to avoid dealing with your own wrongs. A demon would want to encourage people not to examine their own behavior and morality and to feel self-righteous, not an angel.

sciondestiny wrote:
In the verses though you wil find that Allah always talks about the Athiests. or in the Qur'an disbelievers! In Islam we are taught and I believe there is an ayah or verse that talks about this where it says that Allah (SWT) will forgive anytype of sin or wrong doing except for one, and that is athiesm or in Islam Shirk. Allah will never forgive a person who believes in another God other than only Allah. But there is a big catch here though that sadly is always dropped by not only non-Muslims but also by Muslims. In Islam if a person comes from disbelieving into Islam all his previous sins will be forgiven and will turn into good deeds (in other words as if he had done only good his whole life, like he was a new born baby fresh and pure.)

a) What is so wrong with atheism? If you look for God in a Godless world and can’t find Him, why would God punish someone for becoming deeply discouraged and pessimistic? The atheists that I have known are some of the most moral people around, they are the kind of people that don’t just take morality and spirituality for granted without ever questioning whether what they think and do is right. It is the self-righteous who never question themselves and always assume they are right with God who are far more prone to immorality. As Socrates said, “The life unexamined is unworthy living.” Why would God give a hill of beans whether or not you believe in Him, when it is what you *DO* that sends you to Heaven or Hell? God is not a petty human being with an ego who can be insulted or flattered, all he cares about is your spiritual growth. I made this same argument against Soulfire, and showed how his point of view was contrary to God and biblical scripture, but now you say that this same false notion is codified in the Qur’an? I was hoping that the references to atheism in my Qur’an were mistranslations.

b) What is another “God” other than God? There is only one God. How can you, “believe in another God”? That doesn’t make any sense. People often misrepresent other religions by saying they are “pantheistic”, when in fact Hinduism has Brahma, and native Americans have the “Great Spirit”. Brahma is everything, there is nothing that is not Brahma, all the other “gods” of Hinduism are something else, just as Christians and Muslims have angels, archangels, principality angels, etc... Similarly, the “Great Spirit” is everything, and all other spirits are either angelic or demonic. Now, the Roman religion had “gods”, but the Bible explicitly states that they are in fact demons.

So, you can either worship God, or mistakenly be worshiping demons. God is one, demons are many, and note how the Qur’an is constantly referring to “We” and “Our”, with a capitol W or O, extolling people to think of the divine as a group rather than a unitary God. To me that sounds like demons talking rather than a message from God.

c) This statement sounds contradictory. There is an act that God won’t forgive, but if you stop that act, God will forgive it. Come again? Isn’t that being forgiven? If the act is unforgivable, then there is nothing that you can do to be forgiven.

d) The REAL distinction here aught to be between what Hindus call volition vs. non-volitional karma. That is to say, is it intentional, or were you deceived. You’ve highlighted a point for me which is that the Qur’an doesn’t seem to make any distinction between people who are in league with the Devil (while rare, such people do exist, like Hitler & Charles Manson), and people who only mean well, but who are deceived. In fact, it strikes me that the entity that dictated the Qur’an was intentionally trying to confuse people on this issue, by making statements that should ONLY be applied to Satan worshiper and applying them to anyone and everyone who isn’t Islamic, as is further exemplified by the next verse that you quote here:

sciondestiny wrote:
Many of the people of teh Scripture (Jews and Christians) wish that if they could turn you away as disbelievers after you have believed, out of envy from their ownselves, even after teh truth has become manifest into them. But Forgive and overlook, till Allah brings his Command. Verily, Allah is Able to do all things. (2:109)

This strikes me as hypocrisy, it says to forgive them even as it second guesses and attacks their motivation. That is not a very forgiving attitude, this is a judgmental and accusatory attitude. This verse programs Muslims to believe that anyone who doesn’t believe as they do must hate God.

Tell me, who envies Muslims and thinks that Muslims are in better with God than they are? This verse states that the ONLY reason someone would disbelieve the Qur’an is because they are envious of a Muslims relationship with God. The statement is totally contradictory, if you envy someone’s relationship with God then inherently, you have acknowledged the validity of their beliefs and practices, quite to the contrary of disbelieving. There is only one group that could fall under this category who would really be envious and not simply convert straight away, and that is Satan worshipers. And they aren’t disbelievers at all, quite to the contrary they believe utterly and completely, but are in open rebellion against God.

The truth is that the vast majority of people mean well, the percentage of human beings who are knowingly and intentionally in league with the devil and in rebellion against God is tiny. But verses like these encourage Muslims to believe that anyone who isn’t Muslim is in open rebellion against God. Rather than being forgiving, this statement is a not so veiled vicious attack. Or at least, that is the distinct impression that I am left with after having read the Qur’an. And this was put forward as a counter-example to the more vitriolic and rabid character assassinations of non-Muslims that are so frequent in other parts of the Qur’an.
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
"Say:'O My slaves (Allah is talking to His slaves or worshippers) who have transgressed against themselves (By doing bad deeds)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: verily, Allah forgives all sins. Truly He is the Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful'" (39:53)

This quote is terrible, it doesn't encourage people to forgive others, it encourages them to feel smug and not examine their own behavior. Instead of encouraging people to be lenient on others, it encourages them to be sinful. It says it doesn't matter how sinful you are, as long as you pay lip service to God and do superficial things that are supposedly relgious, you can screw anybody over that you want and you'll still get into Heaven.

Notice it says nothing about others, it says, those who have "transgressed against themselves". Harming yourself is not a sin, just stupid. It is harming OTHERS that is a sin.

Also, why does the Qur'an always refer to faithful followers as "slaves"? Demons want you to become enslaved, God on the other hand absolutely does NOT want you to follow anything blindly. Blindly following is an open invitation to be decived by the evil entities. God gave you "free will" and wants you to learn how to use free will wisely. Demons want you to give your free will over to them and become their slaves.
mike1reynolds
I found this reference on the net http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sbk/
It is a search engine, so I tried to search on End Times, End Days, and anything that I could think of to refer to the Apocalypse, but I couldn't find anything. In my versions of the Qur'an the phrase is translated as End Days.
sciondestiny
mike1reynolds wrote:
I found this reference on the net http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sbk/
It is a search engine, so I tried to search on End Times, End Days, and anything that I could think of to refer to the Apocalypse, but I couldn't find anything. In my versions of the Qur'an the phrase is translated as End Days.


It could be the reason that they only have 3 volumes uploaded so far. If you notice the message at the top, it says 3 volumes so far, more are being added! Maybe the volumes they uploaded did not contain that many hadiths. I would suggest to search :

The last day
Day of Judgement

As for End Day that is the first time I have seen that word in the Qur'an. It is usually Day of Judgement, Last day!
sciondestiny
mike1reynolds wrote:
sciondestiny wrote:
"Say:'O My slaves (Allah is talking to His slaves or worshippers) who have transgressed against themselves (By doing bad deeds)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: verily, Allah forgives all sins. Truly He is the Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful'" (39:53)

This quote is terrible, it doesn't encourage people to forgive others, it encourages them to feel smug and not examine their own behavior. Instead of encouraging people to be lenient on others, it encourages them to be sinful. It says it doesn't matter how sinful you are, as long as you pay lip service to God and do superficial things that are supposedly relgious, you can screw anybody over that you want and you'll still get into Heaven.

Notice it says nothing about others, it says, those who have "transgressed against themselves". Harming yourself is not a sin, just stupid. It is harming OTHERS that is a sin.

Also, why does the Qur'an always refer to faithful followers as "slaves"? Demons want you to become enslaved, God on the other hand absolutely does NOT want you to follow anything blindly. Blindly following is an open invitation to be decived by the evil entities. God gave you "free will" and wants you to learn how to use free will wisely. Demons want you to give your free will over to them and become their slaves.


Allah (SWT) refers to His worshippers as slaves for many reasons I would think. But the main one I would say is that we as Muslims follow or do what He tells us to do. For example if your wife or mother was to aks you to go buy the grocery, you could say no or you could say yes. When you say yes you go ahead and DO WHAT SHE WANTS you to do, arent slaves those who do what their orderer tellse them to do? So when Allah calls on us to tell us to worship Him, to pray to Him, to ask of Him, He gives us a choice. If we say no then that is our choice yet if we say yes we do what He told us to do or how to do it so we are in a way slaves!

I do not know what you believe in, or do not believe in. But Christians and for sure I know this that Jews believe if you kill yourself you go to hell. Now when a person smokes, or drinks beer lets say he is harming and might get diseases such as cancer or heart problems that can kill him. So isn't that considered a SIN! When Allah tells us transgressed against ourselves, He is not talking about hurting ourselves physically. Instead He means that we do bad things which in turn get us sins, so he is saying even though you sin if you truly with heart promise to not do it again, and ask many times for repentance Allah will forgive you from His Mercy!

Mike, do not know where or how this has to do with forgiving other people at all. I mean I took an ayah which is like probably 1/100,000,000 verses meaning that there are other verses that talk about forgiving people! Think before you reply please! Oh and if we do lip service and do sin again Allah (GOD) does not accept it!
sciondestiny
mike1reynolds wrote:
sciondestiny wrote:
3) Yes and know to this question lol, I think I have probably heard this many times and I always try my best with Allah's help to answer in the best manner and form I can. Firstly though I want to correct you on telling you that the Prophet saw the entity or Angel Gabriel many more times than just twice, it was actually a tradition that he would come atleast tonce in a year to see how Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was doing with his memory of teh Qur'an. Basically he would listen to him recite it all that he know at that time or that was revealed.

I do not deny that there are other people who say they get entities who give them prophecies which in my view are similar to yours Mike - Satanic!!!! There is actually a good reaosn why they are or have a feeling of Satanic in them and in Islam we believe as well that there are beings that we cannot see. We call them Jinns - which is form where the word genie comes from and that is what they basically are beings with supernatural powers until they change form into a humans! People usually if they try hard will be able to communicate with one of them, and these Jinns usually spy on the Angels or heaven so as to report to the Devil, and that is how you get fortune tellers. Sometimes they might even make up something which is why fortune tellers are not a good thing to use! Well this is the point that Islam makes and that I accept seeing that anything is possible and we have seen it.

What Muslims believe is that Angel Gabriel was only a Messenger from Allah (God) to the Prophets of God. So Allah (SWT) told the Angel Gabriel what to tell or pass on to Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Now the reason why the Hadiths make much more sense than the Qur'an could be of this basically. The Prophet (SAW) whenever he got a Qur'anic revelation he would then try o explain it the best he could. In my opinion te eQur'an was sent sort of like a puzzle or riddles or somewhat in that form. I myself sometimes do not understand some of them and also consult the Hadiths or I ask my father, seeing as he is also an Imam and he has a lot of knowledge on it.

I would like to end though by saying that yes there are a lot of people out there who just do what they are told and believe some things because they are told to. I am in a way or a percent also like that, but for some things I want ot know if there is a reason and what that reaosn is! In the third question I believe that Angel Gabriel was only a Messenger that only convade the message, and that he did not make them up or anything.

You’ve said a lot here without ever actually addressing the question. When hearing voices from an entity, you acknowledge the great risk, indeed the absurdity of simply accepting the statements at face value, but then you proceed to do exactly that without question. You simply assert that the Qur’anic entity is the archangel Jibriel and that you believe him to be a messenger of God. The question is not whether Gabriel is a messenger of God, no Christian or Jew would ever disagree, what is at issue is whether or not the entity in question truly is Jibriel? As I’ve said, I am extremely dubious of this, his language seems very violent to me, demonic rather than angelic. The fact that you so readily short circuited the issue, completely side stepping the question, without appearing to be aware that you have done so, even though you say you’ve heard this doubt expressed many times, gives the distinct impression that you have never really confronted the issue, even as you acknowledge the fact that it is utterly absurd not to question such a thing.

So to reiterate, what evidence is there that the entity the dictated the Qur’an to Mohammed is an angel and not a demon or evil jinn?

BTW, some jinn are good and some are evil, but does the Qur’an actually talk about demons? I know that the Qur’an says that there is no battle of the angels, that no angel has ever fallen, so I gather that Muslims do not believe in demons since a demon is by definition a fallen angel?

I should state up front that I think that this is exactly what a demon would want you to think. “There are none of us chickens in here!” to quote a common cartoon expression, that you might not be familiar with, where the cartoon character tells his pursuer, “No, I’m not in here!” Another analogy would be to AIDS. AIDS is so deadly because the first thing it does is attack the body’s ability to recognize it’s presence. Evil is the same way, if evil can convince you that it doesn’t exist, it has already won most of the battle without a fight. If demons can convince you that they don’t exist, then people just blame each other rather than the demons, and they don’t look within themselves for the demons, they just go around blaming what they don’t like in others without ever looking at themselves.

sciondestiny wrote:
If you have noticed something though form your reading, please tell me if you have or have not then I can tell you whether there is something wrong with your Qur'an. Yes so if you have noticed in that verse that talks about the punishments or why people are going to hell Allah always gives a very good reason.
Rather than disagreeing with my assessment that the Qur’an is filled with enormous amounts of condemnation, you seem to be trying to justify it? It is irrelevant whether or not the reason the Qur’an states that someone else is going to Hell is valid or not. The point is that a) no one but God knows what is between a person and God (and it really isn’t anyone else’s business but God’s) and b) you should focus on YOUR sins, not the sins of others. We all have our hands full trying to keep OURSELVES out of Hell. Feeling angry and self-righteous at others doesn’t help either you or them. Being angry at the world will not get you too Heaven, anger only hastens your path to Hell. Anger is a deadly sin, so why play a constant drum beat of accusations to induce anger? Only a demon would do such a thing. Are you aware that the Qur’an is utterly unique in this regard? No other scripture of any world religion is like this, and indeed, Mohammed was not like this at all. Can you see how people of other religions see a parallel between the harsh judgmental language of the Qur’an and the wide spread violence of the Islamic world?

Every other religion says not to focus on whether or not someone else is going to Hell, leave that to God. You never know what is between someone and God, and there is no other religion on the planet other than the Qur’an that encourages people to try to ascertain God’s judgments of peoples’ souls. It is between God and that person, and isn’t anyone else’s business.

In my opinion, by endlessly harping on how wrong other people are, the Qur’an encourages Muslims to be angry, self-righteous and judgmental. These are traits which every other religion warns against as mortal sins, but the Qur’an is endlessly encouraging it! In Buddhism it is said, ‘you can’t change the world, but you can change yourself.’ And that was the point of all of the Biblical quotes I made, they were saying the same thing, that focusing on whether someone else is right with God is a cop-out, an easy way to avoid dealing with your own wrongs. A demon would want to encourage people not to examine their own behavior and morality and to feel self-righteous, not an angel.

sciondestiny wrote:
In the verses though you wil find that Allah always talks about the Athiests. or in the Qur'an disbelievers! In Islam we are taught and I believe there is an ayah or verse that talks about this where it says that Allah (SWT) will forgive anytype of sin or wrong doing except for one, and that is athiesm or in Islam Shirk. Allah will never forgive a person who believes in another God other than only Allah. But there is a big catch here though that sadly is always dropped by not only non-Muslims but also by Muslims. In Islam if a person comes from disbelieving into Islam all his previous sins will be forgiven and will turn into good deeds (in other words as if he had done only good his whole life, like he was a new born baby fresh and pure.)

a) What is so wrong with atheism? If you look for God in a Godless world and can’t find Him, why would God punish someone for becoming deeply discouraged and pessimistic? The atheists that I have known are some of the most moral people around, they are the kind of people that don’t just take morality and spirituality for granted without ever questioning whether what they think and do is right. It is the self-righteous who never question themselves and always assume they are right with God who are far more prone to immorality. As Socrates said, “The life unexamined is unworthy living.” Why would God give a hill of beans whether or not you believe in Him, when it is what you *DO* that sends you to Heaven or Hell? God is not a petty human being with an ego who can be insulted or flattered, all he cares about is your spiritual growth. I made this same argument against Soulfire, and showed how his point of view was contrary to God and biblical scripture, but now you say that this same false notion is codified in the Qur’an? I was hoping that the references to atheism in my Qur’an were mistranslations.

b) What is another “God” other than God? There is only one God. How can you, “believe in another God”? That doesn’t make any sense. People often misrepresent other religions by saying they are “pantheistic”, when in fact Hinduism has Brahma, and native Americans have the “Great Spirit”. Brahma is everything, there is nothing that is not Brahma, all the other “gods” of Hinduism are something else, just as Christians and Muslims have angels, archangels, principality angels, etc... Similarly, the “Great Spirit” is everything, and all other spirits are either angelic or demonic. Now, the Roman religion had “gods”, but the Bible explicitly states that they are in fact demons.

So, you can either worship God, or mistakenly be worshiping demons. God is one, demons are many, and note how the Qur’an is constantly referring to “We” and “Our”, with a capitol W or O, extolling people to think of the divine as a group rather than a unitary God. To me that sounds like demons talking rather than a message from God.

c) This statement sounds contradictory. There is an act that God won’t forgive, but if you stop that act, God will forgive it. Come again? Isn’t that being forgiven? If the act is unforgivable, then there is nothing that you can do to be forgiven.

d) The REAL distinction here aught to be between what Hindus call volition vs. non-volitional karma. That is to say, is it intentional, or were you deceived. You’ve highlighted a point for me which is that the Qur’an doesn’t seem to make any distinction between people who are in league with the Devil (while rare, such people do exist, like Hitler & Charles Manson), and people who only mean well, but who are deceived. In fact, it strikes me that the entity that dictated the Qur’an was intentionally trying to confuse people on this issue, by making statements that should ONLY be applied to Satan worshiper and applying them to anyone and everyone who isn’t Islamic, as is further exemplified by the next verse that you quote here:

sciondestiny wrote:
Many of the people of teh Scripture (Jews and Christians) wish that if they could turn you away as disbelievers after you have believed, out of envy from their ownselves, even after teh truth has become manifest into them. But Forgive and overlook, till Allah brings his Command. Verily, Allah is Able to do all things. (2:109)

This strikes me as hypocrisy, it says to forgive them even as it second guesses and attacks their motivation. That is not a very forgiving attitude, this is a judgmental and accusatory attitude. This verse programs Muslims to believe that anyone who doesn’t believe as they do must hate God.

Tell me, who envies Muslims and thinks that Muslims are in better with God than they are? This verse states that the ONLY reason someone would disbelieve the Qur’an is because they are envious of a Muslims relationship with God. The statement is totally contradictory, if you envy someone’s relationship with God then inherently, you have acknowledged the validity of their beliefs and practices, quite to the contrary of disbelieving. There is only one group that could fall under this category who would really be envious and not simply convert straight away, and that is Satan worshipers. And they aren’t disbelievers at all, quite to the contrary they believe utterly and completely, but are in open rebellion against God.

The truth is that the vast majority of people mean well, the percentage of human beings who are knowingly and intentionally in league with the devil and in rebellion against God is tiny. But verses like these encourage Muslims to believe that anyone who isn’t Muslim is in open rebellion against God. Rather than being forgiving, this statement is a not so veiled vicious attack. Or at least, that is the distinct impression that I am left with after having read the Qur’an. And this was put forward as a counter-example to the more vitriolic and rabid character assassinations of non-Muslims that are so frequent in other parts of the Qur’an.


Well I have to say you can write quite a bit Very Happy . Well I see we have some doubts again! Firstly I have a story about the first question.

In Arabia during the Prophet Muhammad's (SAW) time, people used to give their newborn babies to nursing mothers who would og out side the city and into the farmland to make the baby strong. It was during this time that a youn women who had very weak animals and hardly any milk for her babies was last to arrive in Mecca. When most of teh nursing mothers saw that Muhammad had no father they did not take him, but this young women took him since he was the only one left. After that her camel got so much strength that it outran all other camels. The milk she bore was more than enough for her children and Prophet Muhammad (SAW), and all her animals also gave milk.

During the time at around maybe teh age of 2 I think Muhammad wa soutside playing. When the lady saw a very strong white light coming from outside, stornger than the sun! As she ran out she saw 2 Angels covered in light one holding a bowl of pure light water while the other had taken out Prophet Muhammad's heart and was cleaning it. Doing this cleaned him of any impurity or evil he had, thus he could distinguish between Good or bad. Now we know that Demons/Jinns in Islam cannot touch light or Good since it symbols the just, the lawful or the pure. From this we have some proof! Another one was Angel Jibreel came himself in the form of man and asked the Prophet (SAW) infornt of his companiosn the pillars of Islam. Funny though he was wearing very white clothes that even though were touched by dirt did not hold it or any at all. We these proofs we can see that the entity as you call it was actually Angels, now if you are going to be stubborn like most and say stuff like: "Demons can also hold light" be my guest I do not mind seeing as I have proven it twice to you.

I will reply to the other parts in a while, I need to go pray right now. PEACE!
mike1reynolds
This isn't exactly what I was referring to. What you've done is like a Christian saying that Jesus' virgin birth proves that he is the son of God. The support is intangible, telling a peripheral story that could be nothing more than a myth is not evidence, much less proof. To Christians and Jews it will be even more unpalatable, since it requires one to disregard the Bible. In the Bible, demons are fallen angels, indeed the term Lucifer means “Morning Star”. I don’t have a big problem with disregarding the Bible, but you’re asking me to accept blind faith in this assertion about the nature of demons in order to set up your supporting argument. Basing one unsupported assertion on another is circular reasoning. I’m asking for something more tangible. Let me give you a counter-example:

When Joan of Arc was put on trial by pro-English Burgandian clerics, they were under enormous political pressure to have her put to death, they had to find some excuse, any excuse. She was hearing voices (Archangel Michael) and most of her enemies thought that this was a Satanic deception. However, the Catholic Church has strict rules for judging what an entity says and evaluating the arguments put forward. Based on the merits of the argument they have a pretty good method for determining if an entity’s argument is angelic or demonic. As such, the judging council was completely unable to find ANYTHING wrong with the being that was speaking to Joan, and the strongest evidence that they were able to put forward of Joan being a witch was that she wore men’s cloths!! The case was so weak that it was overturned the instant the paperwork got to the Vatican. In other words, the being was put on trial along with Joan, and the being passed with flying colors, even though the clerics were desperatly tring to convict it. This is an example of an objective evaluation process, where even though the evaluators were totally biased, they could not distort the evaluation process to their purposes. What you have put forward is not up to this standard.

The trial of Joan used the only tangible evidence there is in case like this, and in Mohammed's case, which is what the unseen entity has said. To base a ‘proof’ on anything else is only so much supposition; propping up a call to blind faith with another call to blind faith. The only valid proof will come from the merits of the entity's argument. The entity has to be put on trial and pass the test.
sciondestiny
In Islam a Demon is anything that wishes to do harm and is not of physical form I would assume. in our story of creation, Muslims believe that a Jinn named Iblis was the best worshipper of Allah. He was so good that Allah granted him any wish so he asked to live with the Angels and he was granted. After a while Allah (SWT) went on to create the first human being Adam, when he ordered that all angels and everything bow down to him (Adam) as a way of respect Iblis disobeyed and said why should I who is more powerful than he is bow down ot him. When he said that Allah told him I will forgive you if you bow to him now, Iblis did not respond and so he was banished form heaven forever. But before he left he asked Allah (SWT) to grant him to live until the Lasy Day or The Day of Judgement, till then he said he would convert everyone from Islam. Allah in response told him very kindly I will forgive anyone of them if they ask me whether they strayed from my path or not I will forgive as long as they ask it from me! Iblis is that same Devil or Satan. So we believe that any Jinn that follows him is considered in a way a Demon, trying to corrupt and hurt mankind!

Mike that is in a way correct that Satan would want you to think that he is not evil. He wants to get you to his side so he tells you good things and shows you things that are wonderful to your sight and senses. In Islam we believe that when Adam was sent down to earth it was for a reason, so that man could be tested as to which one would be faithful and reasonable and which one would not be!

Mike I seriously do not see where the Qur'an at all is saying ot forcing people to be angry. If you bring me one verse please form teh Qur'an I will show you with the help of Allah (SWT) that His word does not contain anger or tell us to be angry. Oh and in islam we are taught to first fix up oursins and then help others with that same sin not another one that we have problems with, because in a hadith by the Prophet he said once:

"What ever you say to someone else, you are only discribing your own characteristics, and whatever they talk about you or someone else that is their characteristics."

Once again could you point out as to which exact verse tells us to be on teh look out for other peoples sins and to tell them or judge them as to when they are going to Hell or Heaven. Seems to me that your version of the Qur'an might actually be very faulty or one of those Qur'ans that were deliberately written by non-Muslims. Or and this is a big OR you might not have read a Qur'an at all bt some verses from the interent. If that is the case than stop reading them seeing as most of them are miscopied and written against Islam!!! So please point to which verse exactley says this please.

Mike Worshipping another idol or thing along side God in which terms I mean you believe that he can help you out in any way possible even keeping you alive is *DOING* something that God does not like. When I say other Gods I mean idols, these days idols can be referred to as people. Back in the days they were cavings from wood, stone or even food! But in this era many people especially children or should I say teens look up to someone who in turn they start believeing is their almighty God even though they do not notice it. They thing that if they had the same money as that idol, tehy woudl not die. They think they coudl do everythgin and anything if they were like him, and sometimes even start acting like them to try and be "COOL" or almighty among friends!

As for the ocnstane "We" or "Our" or Us', there is a good reason. To eb honest I also wondered why so I asked my father last month and he pretty much explained it to me. In Islam we were taught by Prophet Muhammad (SAW) that Allah has many other names, to humans we only know "99" but we believe Allah has many more. When Allah says "We" or "Us" He is talking about himself and also describing Himself with His names. He uses them all when speaking, so as to show us that He is the Most High, the Most Knowledgeable, or The Most Merciful. I mean think about it if you had to repeat all 99 names when you wanted to write them down, pretty long not only to write but read as well!!!!
***A Side note to the 99 names. I am not arabic speaking or an arab but I know some of it and I also read something interesting. I believe it might have been a Hadith that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) said, not sure though. If you look at your palms of your hands, on your left hand, pointing your fingers to your right side you will see an upside down "V" and a "I". In Arabic an upside down V is considered an 8 and the I is a 1, so 81. On your other hand you will see if pointing to your left the same symbols or numbers but in different order, so they add up to 18. If we add 81 and 18 together we get 99, in other words it symbolizes the 99 names of Allah. Every Living human has 99 names of Allah (SWT) imprinted in his hand, look at your hands and see.***

When I say unforgivable I mean if the person continues on doing and never repents or stops. Read my post again please. Oh and the Qur'an does discuss about people who are "in league with teh devil", it only does not talk a lot about them seeing as they are disgusting people who do busines with the bad side!

When Allah talks about the verse that states or talks about Jews and Christians, He is talking about the ones who are following the wrong way. I am sure that you know that every year the Popes of Christianity and the Rabis or Jewdaism come together to change their scriptures, in order to "MAKE THEM MODERN"!!! If humans change a scripture is it ever considered a God's religion again, to them yes to us no!

I am not saying that We Muslims have a better connection with our Lord. But since you brought it up Mike, lets look at teh facts. When ever Christians, or Bhuddists or others excluding I believe Jews and some others need to speak with God or ask forgiveness you have to ask a pope or religious leader. But in Islam all Muslims and even human beings all they have to do is ask and He will respond, not maybe that exact moment, maybe later. Maybe even in your descendants time! And no Mike, verses like these do not make thinking Muslims think like that. They make Muslism who are weak in faith and do not pay attention to the true meaning of the verse, or to people like your self who just looks at the outside, read inbetween the lines!
sciondestiny
Mike what you are saying is that when a Muslim believes in the unseen it is demonic, satanic maybe too. Yet when I would ask you where your proof is that your God exists, or where is your proof that Jesus was from a virgin mother you would say because someone told me or I read it somewhere.

I also believe Jesus was form a virgin mother. So if you tell me I am crazy, then should I not say oh wait you are also crazy?

Even though America had and still has no proof that Iraq had nuclear weapons they still attacked and destroyed a country. Even though they had no proof they blamed 9/11 on Muslims and Islam and imprisoned many Muslims where they are being tortured every day and night for nothing, NOTHING!

So is it still crazy when we believe in something we do not see, yet others can believe in it?
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
sciondestiny wrote:
Yes so if you have noticed in that verse that talks about the punishments or why people are going to hell Allah always gives a very good reason.
Once again could you point out as to which exact verse tells us to be on teh look out for other peoples sins and to tell them or judge them as to when they are going to Hell or Heaven.

You don’t understand, I’m referring to the unavoidable consequences of statements rather than explicit statements. To that extent, you have already acknowledged that verses in question are extremely common, we just differ on our judgment of their effect. Lets break this down into the two components: (a) encouragement to judge final destination of others and (b) encouragement to look for faults in others rather than in one’s self. Let’s start with (a):

It’s hard to give analogies since I don’t know what your culture is, but you’ve said you’re from Canada, so I’ll try this analogy: A father disapproved of skiing (say, the way some protestants disapprove of dancing) and whenever he would see someone with skis or wearing certain kinds of cloths, he was constantly saying to his kids, “that person is going skiing!” in a very accusatory tone. Now how do you think these children will grow up? When they see someone carrying skis they will think harsh thoughts, but they will also be obsessed with looking at much more subtle factors about people such as their cloths and the way they talk, constantly looking for any sign of the issue they judge harshly. You could make the same sort of analogy about an anti-Semitic family and the effect on the children.

I acknowledge that the Qur’an doesn’t explicitly tell people to try and determine if someone is going to Hell; my point was that by constantly talking about how people are going to Hell, it UNAVOIDABLY makes ignorant, conservative, judgmental people focus on all the condemned and eternally damned people that they think they see. The Bible does not talk like this and yet look at conservative Christians in this country, just look at Soulfire’s comments in THIS THREAD. Tell me, do you really think that Soulfire wouldn’t be far far worse if he were a Muslim? Are you familiar enough with the Bible to know how much more frequent the talk of damnation is in the Qur’an than in the Bible?

Soulfire is bad enough as it is, but if he were Muslim, he’d be out there burning and looting too. It is just a simple product of human nature, take someone with these kinds of bad traits and make them feel more self-righteous about it, and they are going to be that much worse.

sciondestiny wrote:
Mike I seriously do not see where the Qur'an at all is saying ot forcing people to be angry. If you bring me one verse please form teh Qur'an I will show you with the help of Allah (SWT) that His word does not contain anger or tell us to be angry.

You have to look at the effect of all of the statements as a whole on the mind of an ignorant conservative person. And you have to be able to compare and contrast different types of scriptures and the behavior of their adherents. So once again, are you familiar with the Bible or any other world scriptures other than Islamic scriptures? Why do you think that ignorant conservative Muslim behave so much more violently than ignorant conservative Christians, Buddhists and Taoists?

sciondestiny wrote:
Oh and in islam we are taught to first fix up oursins and then help others with that same sin not another one that we have problems with, because in a hadith by the Prophet he said once:

"What ever you say to someone else, you are only discribing your own characteristics, and whatever they talk about you or someone else that is their characteristics."

Ok, that quote is great, that gets to the heart of the matter, but it also exemplifies my point. Mohammed is not on trial here, he has already passed the test. So naturally, if he was a profound and good man who was deceived by a demon, all of the counter-examples to what I’m saying would come from him rather than the Qur’an. Without realizing it, he would undermine the subtle queues and programming of the demonic entity that he was deceived by. Can you find a SINGLE Qur’anic verse like this that forces people to look to themselves rather than doing the natural thing, which is to harp on the faults of others?

Remember, people just naturally do the wrong thing in this regard and have to be heavily reinforced to look to themselves and take responsibility for their actions. So it is very easy to subtly yet powerfully encourage the wrong behavior, but extremely difficult and laborious to effectively induce the right behavior. Even if you strenuously encourage the right behavior ten times as often as you subtly encourage the wrong behavior, the wrong behavior will win out in most people.

sciondestiny wrote:
Seems to me that your version of the Qur'an might actually be very faulty or one of those Qur'ans that were deliberately written by non-Muslims. Or and this is a big OR you might not have read a Qur'an at all bt some verses from the interent. If that is the case than stop reading them seeing as most of them are miscopied and written against Islam!!! So please point to which verse exactley says this please.

I told you once before, I got the first version from a devout Muslim and the second version from a MOSQUE. The King Fahad MOSQUE. Both version are in pretty close agreement with only the slightest variations.
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
Mike what you are saying is that when a Muslim believes in the unseen it is demonic, satanic maybe too.

No, that is not what I'm saying at all. You are putting words in my mouth, if you actually read what I've said, you can't find any justification for such a point of view, and indeed, this post is full of examples where you take my point of view and turn it on it's head.

sciondestiny wrote:
Yet when I would ask you where your proof is that your God exists, or where is your proof that Jesus was from a virgin mother you would say because someone told me or I read it somewhere.

You haven't been reading my posts very closely! This could not be farther from the truth. Didn't you see my repeated posts referring to Jesus as racist?

sciondestiny wrote:
I also believe Jesus was form a virgin mother. So if you tell me I am crazy, then should I not say oh wait you are also crazy?

Well, maybe so, because I DO NOT believe that Mary was a virgin. But that is a peripheral issue to me, belief in Mary's virginity is not a matter which has a meaningful effect on a believer's moral behavior.

sciondestiny wrote:
Even though America had and still has no proof that Iraq had nuclear weapons they still attacked and destroyed a country.

Aren't you aware of the fact that nearly HALF of America HATES George Bush with an INTENSE passion for this? The American CIA was vehementally opposed during the build-up to war. I remember scoffing in utter disgust at Bush's 2002 State of the Union address where he talked about Iraq's attempts to get nuclear weapons. Anyone who understands the VAST economics behind nuclear procurement knew that was fairy tale story. I was totally disguest with America from the moment of the invasion.

The idea that a Sunni leader like Saddam would support Shia terrorists is beyond absurdity. I use to argue vehemently with the chairman of the Republican central committee for my district about this. He would say things like, "people who believe that are traitors and should be shot in the head!" A year later, he had to admit that I knew exactly what I was talking about.

sciondestiny wrote:
Even though they had no proof they blamed 9/11 on Muslims and Islam and imprisoned many Muslims where they are being tortured every day and night for nothing, NOTHING!

On that VERY DAY, on 9/11/2001, I knew *EXACTLY* what was comming. I was utterly *SHOCKED* when we didn't completely blow it in Afghanistan, I was sure that we were going to blame the Afghans instead of recognizing them as victims of the Taliban too, along with being victims of America's heartless manipulations against the Russians, flooding them with weapons and then just walking away, leaving the sects and factions to turn on each other and start slaughtering each other with all of the weapons that WE gave them!

sciondestiny wrote:
So is it still crazy when we believe in something we do not see, yet others can believe in it?

No, it is crazy when you ignore human nature. It is you who are behaving like the conservative American war-mongers not me, in the sense that you refuse to look to the logical, natural, unavoidable consequence of the Qur'anic verses in question, in much the same way that proponents of the American war machine refuse to look at the inevitable consequences of their actions and how they are only creating more terrorists.
mike1reynolds
The Unseen
========

You are really jumping to conclusions without thinking things through, since the example of Joan's trial that prompted your reaction was entirely based on the words of an unseen being, the Archangel Michael. You are not putting things into perspective. Another example is mathematics. It is unseen as well, and yet completely tangible. There is no supposition in mathemtics what-so-ever. Justic and love are also unseen, yet 100% tangible.

These are just basic constraints of the ancient science of logic, fully and completely understood by the Greeks and other ancient civilizations thousands of years ago. A story isn't proof of anything unless the story itself has evidencial support. You can't prop up proof on thin air, there has to be a solid foundation, or you've only constructed a house of cards. You can't just take the rules of logic and throw them out the window because you are dealing with religion, that is what seperates fanatics from theology. Theology is based on reasoned arguments, not pure supposition, myth and a call to blind faith.
sciondestiny
Mike1reynolds wrote:

Ok, that quote is great, that gets to the heart of the matter, but it also exemplifies my point. Mohammed is not on trial here, he has already passed the test. So naturally, if he was a profound and good man who was deceived by a demon, all of the counter-examples to what I’m saying would come from him rather than the Qur’an. Without realizing it, he would undermine the subtle queues and programming the demonic entity that he was deceived by. Can you find a SINGLE Qur’anic verse like this that forces people to look to themselves rather than doing the natural thing, which is to harp on the faults of others?


I have found one that talks about somethign very similar to what you are asking and actually if we look deeper a bit it does say that you should worry about your own sins.

The Holy Qur'an wrote:

"And whoever earns sin, he earns it only against himself. And Allah is Ever All-knowing, All-Wise." [4:111]

"And whoeve earns a fault or a sin and then throws it on to someone innocent, he has indeed burdended himself with falsehood and a manifest sin." [4:112]


So Allah is saying here that whatever you do is your problem our sin. So do not look at others first look at yourself. And in the other one we see that Allah (SWT) is saying that you only get another sin if you throw yours on someone else, such as the murder of another person.

Mike1reynolds wrote:

I acknowledge that the Qur’an doesn’t explicitly tell people to try and determine of someone is going to Hell; my point was that by constantly talking about how people are going to Hell, it UNAVOIDABLY makes ignorant, conservative, judgmental people focus on all the condemned an eternally damned people that they think they see. The Bible does not talk like this and yet look at conservative Christians in this country, just look at Soulfire’s comments in THIS THREAD. Tell me, do really think that Soulfire wouldn’t be far far worse if he were a Muslim? Are you familiar enough with the Bible to know how much more frequent the talk of damnation is in the Qur’an than in the Bible?

Soulfire is bad enough as it is, but if he were Muslim, he’d be out there burning and looting too. It is just a simple product of human nature, take someone with these kinds of bad traits and make them feel more self-righteous about it, and they are going to be that much worse.

sciondestiny wrote:
Mike I seriously do not see where the Qur'an at all is saying ot forcing people to be angry. If you bring me one verse please form teh Qur'an I will show you with the help of Allah (SWT) that His word does not contain anger or tell us to be angry.

You have to look at the effect of all of the statements as a whole on the mind of an ignorant conservative person. And you have to be able to compare and contrast different types of scriptures and the behavior of their adherents. So once again, are you familiar with the Bible or any other world scriptures other than Islamic scriptures? Why do you think that ignorant conservative Muslim behave so much more violently than ignorant conservative Christians, Buddhists and Taoists?


Mike can you point to any Muslim who is really faithful and you know in this forum, this thread, this site, the internet, the world that has condemned a non-Muslim to the hell fire. That has said all non-Muslims are going to Hell, because last time I checked I consider all humans equal on thsi planet. I do not rank them why because that is God's job to do and like you said he looks at our spiritual growth and how faithful we are to him and not to other people or idols. If you can show me one person in this world, who prays his daily prayers, who worships Allah with every step he takes, yet still condemns people to Hell fire then I will shut my mouth. But like you said, youre not the one to judge people are you, it is God correct?

When I see a Jew, or a Christian or even an Athiest what I see is a human being who is part of a different sect. He is part of a different sect, not a different world and so I respect him why? I am taught to do that in Islam, in the Hadiths of the Prophet (SAW) and in the Qur'an itself. Mike answer me this: Can you say a chocolate is disgusting or a fruit or dish is disgusting without trying it out first? If no then how ocme people all over the world are condemning Muslims as to what they believe in, just because they have seen how a small percent of them react or what their scripture says. I myself who is a Muslim am scared to judge the Qur'an unless I have read what all scholars have said about that verse (Not even the Qur'an, but verse) and yet people are judging it who are not Muslim.

Allah (SWT) as I said before sent down the Qur'an in riddles in a form that was hard for a normal Muslim to understand, that is why he sent down Prophet Muhammad (SAW). All of his hadiths were teachings on Islam, form the Qur'an and Allah (SWT). Not his mind, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) explained the Qur'an to us through his sayings.

Mike you still though did not answer, If you believe in something that you have never seen. Then why is it that I and my fellow Muslim Brothers and Sisters cannot believe in something we have never seen. A big part of religions is the fact of believeing in the unseen Mike, the unseen!
sciondestiny
Quote:

sciondestiny wrote:
So is it still crazy when we believe in something we do not see, yet others can believe in it?

No, it is crazy when you ignore human nature. It is you who are behaving like the conservative American war-mongers not me, in the sense that you refuse to look to the logical, natural, unavoidable consequence of the Qur'anic verses in question, in much the same way that proponents of the American war machine refuse to look at the inevitable consequences of their actions and how they are only creating more terrorists.


Read my previous post Mike and then respond once again with what you said. I do not knwo if you have noticed this and I am sory if it does offend you but you are agreeing to what America is saying about our Qur'an. They wanted to make Saudi Arabia delete some of the verses from the Qur'an, we said no since it is God's word not ours! By saying that teh Qur'an is full of hatred you accept the intentions of the American people!
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
Mike can you point to any Muslim who is really faithful and you know in this forum, this thread, this site, the internet, the world that has condemned a non-Muslim to the hell fire. That has said all non-Muslims are going to Hell, because last time I checked I consider all humans equal on thsi planet.

I never said ALL, I said MOST. I once read an editorial in a Muslim newspaper that really struck me. The commentator was obviously a liberal Muslim (I always prefer liberals) and he was very upset by a Muslim religious meeting that he had been too in the Middle East. Unfortunately I can’t remember the context, the gathering had a particular name, it was some kind of formal religious conference, but at any rate, he was very disturbed by the way the whole group would vehemently ascent in prayers which called for the destruction of their enemies. He said that this was totally opposed to the manner in which Mohammed conducted himself. Then he quoted the Hadith story about Mohammed’s narrow escape from being stoned to death and how Jibriel came to him and asked him if he wanted the city destroyed. He immediately rejected the idea. As in so many other cases, I find Mohammed’s behavior exemplary, but Jibriel’s not so. But the author of the editorial noted that this kind of self-righteous and unjustified call for the destruction of “enemies” was very common in the Muslim world, which is something that he bewailed as contrary to his understanding of Islam. But I would say, it depends on whether you follow the example of Mohammed’s life, or the not so hidden message of the Qur’an.

Another example is how many Muslim clerics call for the destruction of America and all non-Muslim countries. Perhaps I’m not quite getting the context right here, and this is certainly not all or even most Muslim clerics, but there are many that do call for the destruction of all other religions, aren’t there?

sciondestiny wrote:
Mike answer me this: Can you say a chocolate is disgusting or a fruit or dish is disgusting without trying it out first? If no then how ocme people all over the world are condemning Muslims as to what they believe in, just because they have seen how a small percent of them react or what their scripture says. I myself who is a Muslim am scared to judge the Qur'an unless I have read what all scholars have said about that verse (Not even the Qur'an, but verse) and yet people are judging it who are not Muslim.

Well, first, I ask you not to judge me with guilt by association to ignorant conservatives that I disagree with vehemently and have absolutely no affiliation with. I spent 4 years reading the Qur’an on a regular basis. You won’t see me joining in ascent with S3nd K3ys, and conversely, he is mysteriously absent from this dialog, even though he is DEFINITELY reading. That should tell you that my arguments are nothing like his, and he has no way of joining in with me because his point of view is completely alien to mine.

The widespread condemnation of Islam from people who know little or nothing about the Qur’an is based on their behavior only. My arguments are theological. Granted, the violence comes from a minority of Muslims, but it is a very significant minority, just as most Christians are not racist, but a very significant minority of them ARE. And as I have said in this very thread, I think that Jesus himself bears a lot of responsibility for this. In a similar way, I think the Qur’an is responsible for the behavior of the violent Muslim minority. While my condemnation of Jesus is extremely harsh, I can only point to one verse in the New Testament (albeit, there’s a lot more in the Old Testament) that is the root cause of this. But with the Qur’an, there seem to me to be large numbers of verses that fit the pattern that I’m talking about.

sciondestiny wrote:
The Holy Qur'an wrote:

"And whoever earns sin, he earns it only against himself. And Allah is Ever All-knowing, All-Wise." [4:111]

"And whoeve earns a fault or a sin and then throws it on to someone innocent, he has indeed burdended himself with falsehood and a manifest sin." [4:112]


So Allah is saying here that whatever you do is your problem our sin. So do not look at others first look at yourself. And in the other one we see that Allah (SWT) is saying that you only get another sin if you throw yours on someone else, such as the murder of another person.

OK, this is a good counter-example. But to fully counter my point you will have to demonstrate that there are at least as many of these kinds of statements as of the condemnatory statements. Also, note that these two quotes are short, only one sentence. The condemnatory statements are more in depth, taking several sentences, as well as being far more frequent.
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
Quote:

sciondestiny wrote:
So is it still crazy when we believe in something we do not see, yet others can believe in it?

No, it is crazy when you ignore human nature. It is you who are behaving like the conservative American war-mongers not me, in the sense that you refuse to look to the logical, natural, unavoidable consequence of the Qur'anic verses in question, in much the same way that proponents of the American war machine refuse to look at the inevitable consequences of their actions and how they are only creating more terrorists.


Read my previous post Mike and then respond once again with what you said. I do not knwo if you have noticed this and I am sory if it does offend you but you are agreeing to what America is saying about our Qur'an.

I am not offended, but you are quick to assume that I think like conservative Christians, when I am neither conservative nor Christian.

sciondestiny wrote:
They wanted to make Saudi Arabia delete some of the verses from the Qur'an, we said no since it is God's word not ours!

I know nothing of this, and if it were made known in the American media there would be a widespread outcry from huge numbers of Americans that this is an utterly absurd thing to request. It is so absurd, in fact, that I would need more evidence to actually believe it. First of all, since Saudi Arabia is hardly the only Muslim country, it hardly makes sense to ask only them to make the change. Where do you get this information?

sciondestiny wrote:
By saying that teh Qur'an is full of hatred you accept the intentions of the American people!

Name a SINGLE American who says, like me, that Mohammed is one of the world's most profound men? I am much more impressed with the character and behavior of Mohammed than with the character and behavior of Jesus. But Mohammed was illiterate, and I think that left him open to be decieved.

I am making a theological argument. I have never heard of a single American in the media who has made any sort of comment about the Qur'an. S3nd K3ys is the first American that I've come across who has even attempted the read the Qur'an. The American people are basing their reaction on behavior, not theological arguments.

Name *ONE* other Westerner who is attempting to argue that the Qur'an was dictated by a demon? 99.9% of Westerners think that Mohammed wrote the Qur'an, that is why the cartoons where a depiction of Mohammed. If they were very familiar with Islam, they would have depicted the true author of the Qur'an and not Mohammed.

Lets take another example, Mormons. Similarly to Mohammed, I think that Joseph Smith is a very impressive person, not as impressive as Mohammed, but still quite impressive. Similarly, he did not write the Book of Mormons, it was shown to him by a being that claimed to be an angel. Lots of Christian groups, mostly only liberal Christian groups, say that Mormonism is a cult. No one openly says that they think the supposed angel was actually a demon, at least, not in the press, but when the idea is put to people, some will acknowledge that the possibility is plausible, though they do not feel in a position to judge.

I have studied the Qur'an and Hadiths, so it is not right for you to paint me with the same brush as whole mass of people who would never even consider doing such a thing.
Soulfire
To those people that are saying Islam is non-violent:

Which other religion is burning down buildings over cartoons, murdering people, raping people, abducting people, kidnaping people, flying airplanes into buildings, sinking ships, suicide bombing places, and in general causing over 90% of the world's problems?

I am not saying all Muslims are terrorists, but too many are. So many are terrorists that they've completely ruined the credibility for Islam. I have NO trust in Islam.

The thing that gets me is that they expect EVERYONE to follow sharia (Islam law) even though we aren't Muslim! Sorry folks, but those rules do not apply.
mike1reynolds
Soulfire wrote:
To those people that are saying Islam is non-violent:

Which other religion is burning down buildings over cartoons, murdering people, raping people, abducting people, kidnaping people, flying airplanes into buildings, sinking ships, suicide bombing places, and in general causing over 90% of the world's problems?

It has only been since the turn of the century that American Christians can claim to be any different. Prior to that, our treatment of the indians fits your description, as well as our treatment of Africans.

Hitler was a Christian, and he was never condemned by the Catholic church during the war. The Holocaust occured because of Christian values.

Soulfire wrote:
I am not saying all Muslims are terrorists, but too many are. So many are terrorists that they've completely ruined the credibility for Islam. I have NO trust in Islam.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Look at what the ultra-Christian George Bush is doing for the crediblity of Christians? He is as responsible as anyone for all of the terrorism. The CIA and all Middle Eastern experts knew this would cause a huge expansion of terrorism, but he refused to listen.

Soulfire wrote:
The thing that gets me is that they expect EVERYONE to follow sharia (Islam law) even though we aren't Muslim! Sorry folks, but those rules do not apply.

There are no Shiites here, Sharia is Shiite law. Sciondesteny is a Sunni, and I don't know if you have been watching the news in Iraq, but Sunnis and Shiites aren't very fond of each other.

Why do you think that we gave Saddam so much miliary support during the Iran/Iraq war 30 years ago? Because Saddam is Sunni, and Sunnis are much more moderate than Shiites.

Thanks for your help, Soulfire, but you're completely clueless and Sciondesteny is starting to get very aggitated by my blasphemy, so your ill informed argument is only hurting my case. You make me look bad from guilt by assoication. Our arguments are superficially similar, but you couldn't make your case to even the most moderate Muslim if your life depended on it.
mike1reynolds
Soulfire, since you represent the opposite extreme of American culture from me, I’d like to ask you this question to demonstrate that American culture would be virtually unanimous on this point.

What do you think about the idea of pressuring, or even just asking a Muslim country to modify and edit out certain passages of the Qur’an? Don’t you agree that this would be extraordinarily presumptuous and arrogant? Don’t you agree that this is an utterly absurd notion that virtually no American would ascent too? Now, you might well say that in theory, if they wanted to do it, it would be a good idea, but don’t you agree that it would never happen and that to make such a request would be extremely rude?

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

Sciondestiny, this is exactly the sort of thing that I am talking about, you are fully ready to believe such an absurd notion about America even though you live in the West and should know better. I believe that the Qur’an programs Muslims to believe these kinds of crazy things about non-Muslims by incessantly attacking the motivations of non-Muslims.

I’m making a distinction here between the explicit message and the implied message. While the Qur’an doesn’t come right out and say that non-Muslims are either in league with Satan or malicious and dishonest people, over and over it applies motivations to non-Muslims that could only be true of Satanist or extremely malicious and dishonest people. While it doesn’t explicitly say to commit acts of violence, by impugning non-Muslims with such loathsome motivations it is clearly encouraging Muslims to deal with non-Muslims in the manner that would be appropriate to people with such evil intentions. People who are perpetually dishonest and malicious really and truly deserve whatever they get, so by casting all non-Muslims in this light, it is a short step away from hating non-Muslims and treating them in a manner that would seem appropriate for malicious and dishonest people.

I’ve made this assertion a number of times now. In response you referred to your own point of view and how you see all people as equal, but the point of contention is not your view of others, but the Qur’an’s. So to disprove the point you would have to show Qur’anic quotes that do not impugn the motivation of non-Muslims.

For example, your quote about forgiving non-Muslims says that non-Muslims disbelieve because they are envious of Muslims, which means that their disbelief must be insincere. As far as I know, the Qur’an puts forward no sincere motivation of nonbelievers. So to provide a counter-example of my assertion here, you will have to provide Qur’anic quotes that recognize that there are non-Muslims who sincerely disbelieve. The real truth is that 99.99% of all non-Muslims are utterly and completely sincere in their disbelief of Islam and simply don’t buy it.

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

Let me give you an example of how this plays out from the life of Mohammed: Mohammed was conducting negotiations for a peace treaty with a group that the Muslims had been at war with. They were nearing the end of negotiations and all of the points had been mutually agreed on except for one, the rival leader refused to acknowledge Mohammed as the messenger of God. Every other point had been agreed upon, but this rival leader sincerely did not believe that Mohammed was the messenger of God, and negotiations were completely stalled on this one final point. Being a very humble man, Mohammed said, OK, fine, this is good enough and we shall declare a truce. But when the Muslims heard of this they were enraged. It looked as though the mob was going to get out of control and that the truce was going to be broken without his consent by his unruly followers. He was deeply distraught, afraid that the scene would turn to disaster because he could not control his followers violent reaction. So he went to Hadija, his wife and asked her for some idea on how to handle the situation. She recommended that he perform a certain ceremony, the slaughtering of a camel, that has some religious significance that I don’t understand in terminating a gathering like that. So he did it and everyone left, narrowly avoiding a riotous rebellion against his own command.

My point is that the crux of their violent reaction is that they did not believe that the rival leader was sincere in his disbelief. They must have imagined all kinds of dastardly motivations behind his refusal to recognize Mohammed as the messenger of God. I submit to you that it is the numerous references in the Qur’an about the insidious motivation of non-Muslims that encouraged these people to defy Mohammed himself and try to break the truce in his very presence, a truce which he himself negotiated.

I also submit to you that it is this same message in the Qur’an that makes you so willing to believe such a preposterous notion that so impugns the nature of Americans, to assert that we are trying to get Saudi Arabia to edit passages out of the Qur’an. Now, if you can provide evidence that this is really true, I’ll have to eat my words, but I know the mindset of Americans, even the ones I disagree with vehemently, and the odds of it being true are nil.
Soulfire
mike1reynolds wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
To those people that are saying Islam is non-violent:

Which other religion is burning down buildings over cartoons, murdering people, raping people, abducting people, kidnaping people, flying airplanes into buildings, sinking ships, suicide bombing places, and in general causing over 90% of the world's problems?

It has only been since the turn of the century that American Christians can claim to be any different. Prior to that, our treatment of the indians fits your description, as well as our treatment of Africans.

Hitler was a Christian, and he was never condemned by the Catholic church during the war. The Holocaust occured because of Christian values.

Soulfire wrote:
I am not saying all Muslims are terrorists, but too many are. So many are terrorists that they've completely ruined the credibility for Islam. I have NO trust in Islam.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Look at what the ultra-Christian George Bush is doing for the crediblity of Christians? He is as responsible as anyone for all of the terrorism. The CIA and all Middle Eastern experts knew this would cause a huge expansion of terrorism, but he refused to listen.

Soulfire wrote:
The thing that gets me is that they expect EVERYONE to follow sharia (Islam law) even though we aren't Muslim! Sorry folks, but those rules do not apply.

There are no Shiites here, Sharia is Shiite law. Sciondesteny is a Sunni, and I don't know if you have been watching the news in Iraq, but Sunnis and Shiites aren't very fond of each other.

Why do you think that we gave Saddam so much miliary support during the Iran/Iraq war 30 years ago? Because Saddam is Sunni, and Sunnis are much more moderate than Shiites.

Thanks for your help, Soulfire, but you're completely clueless and Sciondesteny is starting to get very aggitated by my blasphemy, so your ill informed argument is only hurting my case. You make me look bad from guilt by assoication. Our arguments are superficially similar, but you couldn't make your case to even the most moderate Muslim if your life depended on it.


The keyword is "was." We were doing this until we realized it was wrong., Islam is still burning down buildings, torturing people, raping people, abducting the innocent, killing people, flying airplanes into buildings, etc. Do you condone such acts?

Fine then, Muslims don't expect everyone to follow Sharia, Shiites do. What the hell is the difference? Nothing. They still expect everyone to abide by the laws which SHOULD apply only to their faith. That's overstepping your boundaries a bit in my opinion.

George Bush is NOT responsible for this. Yes, he invaded a country because his intelligence told him that there were weapons of mass destruction there. Okay, so, if you had that intelligence, everyone was telling you that they were there.... Would you just sit back and let them nuke you first? I don't think so.

And there is a HUGE difference between weapons existing and weapons found, do you think that whole country has been combed inch by inch? No.

I'm not clueless, far from it, so your personal flame attempts really backfired there, sorry to spoil your fun.

I am watching Muslims destroy the world, that is what I am seeing. Notice the stable (predominately Christian) areas of North America and Europe. Then look at the middle east, instability and turmoil. Hmm... I wonder...

Let the killing of the innocent continue! ... for it is at the hands of these radical Muslims.
mike1reynolds
Soulfire wrote:
Fine then, Muslims don't expect everyone to follow Sharia, Shiites do. What the hell is the difference? Nothing. They still expect everyone to abide by the laws which SHOULD apply only to their faith. That's overstepping your boundaries a bit in my opinion.

Who is they? Sunnis certainly don’t except you to follow Sharia anymore than them, which is not at all. Just to give you an example, Saddam’s trial is being executed by the judges that his system put in place, using the same rules that his system put in place. Believe it or not, Iraq’s judiciary was largely independent of his authority. There were exceptions of course, political show trials and the like, but when it came to the great majority of the criminal justice system in Iraq, it was an independent judiciary, very much like our own and entirely different from Shiite countries.

Soulfire wrote:
George Bush is NOT responsible for this. Yes, he invaded a country because his intelligence told him that there were weapons of mass destruction there. Okay, so, if you had that intelligence, everyone was telling you that they were there.... Would you just sit back and let them nuke you first? I don't think so.

There was never ANY intelligence evidence of a nuclear weapons program. The CIA warned him not to make those statements publicly, so he quoted an isolated and discredited piece of British intelligence instead. Nuclear weapons programs require huge expenditures, Iraq was clearly in no financial state to even begin to afford them.

As to WMDs, our allies had the same faulty intel, but their intelligence services and our own CIA concluded that Saddam was extremely unlikely to use them. All the intelligence services, ours and theirs, KNEW there would be an ugly bloody aftermath that would turn into a terrorist breeding ground. The risks clearly outweighed the potential gain, but Bush was heedless of all warnings.

But the really egregious lie was that Saddam would join forces with his mortal enemy al Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is a Shiite group. If Saddam had given them weapons they would have used them on HIM FIRST. Anyone who knew the least thing about how much Sunnis and Shiites hate each other knew that Bush’s assertion was patently absurd, and after all of this sectarian violence it should be obvious even to you.

Soulfire wrote:
And there is a HUGE difference between weapons existing and weapons found, do you think that whole country has been combed inch by inch? No.

If Saddam had them then why didn’t he use them? Weapons don’t appear out of thin air, production facilities aren’t portable, you can’t hide them in the sand. It is already conclusively proven that such facilities don’t exist. But that is beside the point, the truly insidious lies were about the absurd claim of an Iraq/al Qaeda link and the preposterous nuclear claim, as well as his failure to warn the American people about what the real cost to our soldiers would be. Not to mention the fact that we are breeding terrorist, not squelching them, while Bin Laden runs scot free.

Did you know that Bush has strong ties with the Bin Laden family going back 30 years? When bush went AWOL from the National Guard in 1972, the fellow guardsman that he was AWOL with was none other than the Bin Laden’s US money manager. It was the Bin Ladens that rescued Bush time and time again from all of his failed drilling companies like Harken that drilled nothing but dry wells. On 9/12, while US citizens were all grounded, Bush had nearly 20 members of Bin Ladens family flown out of the country on jets with special executive permits to fly. Bush’s father was sitting at a conference table with one of them on 9/11, at a defense contractor's board meeting.

Bush and his small circle of cohorts have received tens of BILLIONS in financing from the Bin Ladens and other Saudi sources over the past 30 years. He gets $200,000 as president. If one group was giving you $200,000 and another giving you tens of $1,000,000,000s, whose interests would you be looking after?
Devil
Lets get one thing clear saddam never supported binladen or his retard group ,

it is a diff issue that he had his differences with the united states and he was a son of a bitch , but he was a millitary man and he always fought wars on the battlefield not targetting innocents like Retard Laden
S3nd K3ys
Devil wrote:
Lets get one thing clear saddam never supported binladen or his retard group ,


Um....

What??? Surprised

Quote:
Saddam-al Qaeda links:

thanks to MrSnuggleBunny (excerpt from his thread):
Quote: There have been several recent developments. One month ago, Jordan's King Abdullah explained to the Arabic-language newspaper al Hayat that his government had tried before the Iraq war to extradite Abu Musab al Zarqawi from Iraq. "We had information that he entered Iraq from a neighboring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information we had, but they didn't respond." He added: "Since Zarqawi entered Iraq before the fall of the former regime we have been trying to have him deported back to Jordan for trial, but our efforts were in vain."

One week later, former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi told the same newspaper that the new Iraqi government is in possession of documents showing that Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden's top deputy, and Zarqawi both entered Iraq in September 1999. (If the documents are authentic, they suggest that Zarqawi may have plotted the Jordanian Millennium attacks from Iraq.)

Beyond what people are saying about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, there is the evidence. In 1992 the Iraqi Intelligence services compiled a list of its assets. On page 14 of the document, marked "Top Secret" and dated March 28, 1992, is the name of Osama bin Laden, who is reported to have a "good relationship" with the Iraqi intelligence section in Syria. The Defense Intelligence Agency has possession of the document and has assessed that it is accurate. In 1993, Saddam Hussein and bin Laden reached an "understanding" that Islamic radicals would refrain from attacking the Iraqi regime in exchange for unspecified assistance, including weapons development. This understanding, which was included in the Clinton administration's indictment of bin Laden in the spring of 1998, has been corroborated by numerous Iraqis and al Qaeda terrorists now in U.S. custody. In 1994, Faruq Hijazi, then deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met face-to-face with bin Laden. Bin Laden requested anti-ship limpet mines and training camps in Iraq. Hijazi has detailed the meeting in a custodial interview with U.S. interrogators. In 1995, according to internal Iraqi intelligence documents first reported by the New York Times on June 25, 2004, a "former director of operations for Iraqi Intelligence Directorate 4 met with Mr. bin Laden on Feb. 19." When bin Laden left Sudan in 1996, the document states, Iraqi intelligence sough "other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." That same year, Hussein agreed to a request from bin Laden to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state television. In 1997, al Qaeda sent an emissary with the nom de guerre Abdullah al Iraqi to Iraq for training on weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell cited this evidence in his presentation at the UN on February 5, 2003. The Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded that Powell's presentation on Iraq and terrorism was "reasonable."

In 1998, according to documents unearthed in Iraq's Intelligence headquarters in April 2003, al Qaeda sent a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden to Baghdad for 16 days of meetings beginning March 5. Iraqi intelligence paid for his stay in Room 414 of the Mansur al Melia hotel and expressed hope that the envoy would serve as the liaison between Iraqi intelligence and bin Laden. The DIA has assessed those documents as authentic. In 1999, a CIA Counterterrorism Center analysis reported on April 13 that four intelligence reports indicate Saddam Hussein has given bin Laden a standing offer of safe haven in Iraq. The CTC report is included in the Senate Intelligence Committee's review on prewar intelligence.

In 2000, Saudi Arabia went on kingdom-wide alert after learning that Iraq had agreed to help al Qaeda attack U.S. and British interests on the peninsula. In 2001, satellite images show large numbers of al Qaeda terrorists displaced after the war in Afghanistan relocating to camps in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Hussein regime. In 2002, a report from the National Security Agency in October reveals that Iraq agreed to provide safe haven, financing and weapons to al Qaeda members relocating in northern Iraq. In 2003, on February 14, the Philippine government ousted Hisham Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, for his involvement in al Qaeda-related terrorist activites. Andrea Domingo, head of Immigration for the Philippine government, told reporters that "studying the movements and activities" of Iraqi intelligence assets in the country, including radical Islamists, revealed an "established network" of terrorists headed by Hussein.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm
Quote: WASHINGTON — U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.

Quote: On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the "nothing whatsoever" crowd have to say about:

- Ahmed Hikmat Shakir -- the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?


- Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990s?

- Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which -- notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) -- the Czechs have not retracted?


The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

- Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

- Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

- Saddam's ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

- Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden's fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

- Saddam's official press lionizing bin Laden as "an Arab and Islamic hero" following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

- The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

- Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke's assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke's memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and "[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad"?

- Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?


- Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

- Former CIA Director George Tenet's October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

- We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

- Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

- Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

- We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

- Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.
Possible Link to al Qaeda Seen in Oil for Food Program
Quote: LUGANO, Switzerland — Did Saddam Hussein use any of his ill-gotten billions filched from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program to help fund Al Qaeda?

More Connections
Iraq: A convenient letter from an Al Qaeda terrorist
'Iraq and Al Qaeda; There's More Evidence of a Link than the Critics Admit'
Iraq, al-Qaeda links confirmed
Quote: Washington - Iraqi opposition leader Ahmad Chalabi said on Sunday that he has"specific information" about links between the terror group al-Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence service Mukhabarat.

"We have specific information about visits that leaders of al-Qaeda made to Iraq in as late as 2000, and the requests for large amounts of cash," Chalabi said.
Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror
Case Closed
Zarqawi medical treatment before the war
The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections
Excerpt:
Quote: * Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.

(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")

* As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.

* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.

* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.

* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.

* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."

* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.

* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."

* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.


Care to re-think your statement?
sciondestiny
mike1reynolds wrote:

sciondestiny wrote:
They wanted to make Saudi Arabia delete some of the verses from the Qur'an, we said no since it is God's word not ours!

I know nothing of this, and if it were made known in the American media there would be a widespread outcry from huge numbers of Americans that this is an utterly absurd thing to request. It is so absurd, in fact, that I would need more evidence to actually believe it. First of all, since Saudi Arabia is hardly the only Muslim country, it hardly makes sense to ask only them to make the change. Where do you get this information?


Think about Mike, most Muslim countries follow the lead of Saudi Arabia, if they accepted it like that would not others also, not all but most of them like those weak countries. Also I get my news from Al-Jazeera which as you have heard has always told the truth even if most people do not accept!

Mike the reason that the Qur'an is so different from the other scriptures is because in other scriptures the words are changed. They are made or written to the liking of the people, so of course anyone who would read the bible and see bad verses or evil verses would say oh this is an evil religion. But in the Qur'an we have verses that are and have been kept from the years of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions, those verses were put there to teach us about life. In the Qur'an all I see is verses that talk about war and not killing innocent people. If you have truly read the footnotes you would have known that Mike and we and many others would not be here.

And no Mike you are not teh only person to read, but sadly you are teh first one that I have heard who has rejected Islam, all of the people who have read the Qur'an have turned Muslim here in Canada and America. This also supports my argument that Muslims in the west have a greater effect and better qyalities!
Devil
yes ofcourse , if in the whole world IRaq had support from any country , then it owuld be india ,china ,russia and France , even after usa invaded iraq , india still had the diplomats sent by saddam .

as a india we know saddam never supported this terrorists , cuz these were the same people operating in kashmir , plus all the documents can be made up since it were found after the usa took over iraq , like they did with saddam drugged him and told the whole world he was too afraid to fight .

dont get me wrong saddam deserved what he got , but he still dint support binlanden , about binladen right hand and mentor Abu Musab al Zarqawi been in iraq , is possible cuz Abu Musab al Zarqawi was a terrorists (also a doctor) before he met laden , so Saddam and Abu Musab al Zarqawi had a common enemy USA

but never did saddam fund these terrorists ,

The rich people from saudi still fund terrorists ,

can u imagine , here in uae there is a company owned by binladen family

No prizes to guess the name , binladen construction , and it is one of the biggest in this country ,
sciondestiny
Mike I wish you not to answer me this but if you truly read the Qur'an fully, seeing as you said you read it for 4 years going then why are you asking me for verses. Like you said you also read the footnotes that much means that you might have read all of the Qur'an. If you continue to the middle or end of the Qur'an you will see beautiful verses about Heaven and how Allah describes them.

But the big problem here Mike is that you are not a Christian at all or Muslim. Seeing this is it ok for people like you or non-religious people to judge a religion. I am sure soulfire can agree with that, to judge something especially a religion you have to have lived through it. Also I want to add I am not getting agitated by your comments, rather I am surprised that you turned out like you are ritgh now.
amirkpe
As an atheist in a muslim country (Iran ) i think according to freedom of speech it's they're right even to insult Mohammed cause we can see many insult to christians , atheists ... . , but another thing that annoy me is that why talking about Holocaust is banned ??
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:

sciondestiny wrote:
They wanted to make Saudi Arabia delete some of the verses from the Qur'an, we said no since it is God's word not ours!

I know nothing of this, and if it were made known in the American media there would be a widespread outcry from huge numbers of Americans that this is an utterly absurd thing to request. It is so absurd, in fact, that I would need more evidence to actually believe it. First of all, since Saudi Arabia is hardly the only Muslim country, it hardly makes sense to ask only them to make the change. Where do you get this information?


Think about Mike, most Muslim countries follow the lead of Saudi Arabia, if they accepted it like that would not others also, not all but most of them like those weak countries.

Don't ordinary Muslims hate the Saudi leadership? First off all, even the most conservative Christian like Bush wouldn’t dream of making such an outrageous request, if only for religious reasons, but also Bush is totally in bed with the Saudis, so in the astronomically unlikely scenario that he would and succeeded, all it would do is turns all Muslims against te Saudi leadership and send them crashing down in flames, which Bush would never dream of doing. Every aspect of this claim is preposterous.

sciondestiny wrote:
Also I get my news from Al-Jazeera which as you have heard has always told the truth even if most people do not accept!

I’ve heard no such thing, what I have heard is that Al-Jazera gives moral support to Al-Qaeda and airs everything that Al-Qaeda puts out, so Al-Qaeda’s comments aired on Al-Jazera are the absolute truth as well?

You’ll have to do better than that, what is the source of this ridiculous rumor? You certainly won’t be able to find any Western sources for it because it is completely fabricated.

sciondestiny wrote:
Mike the reason that the Qur'an is so different from the other scriptures is because in other scriptures the words are changed.

My favorite scriptures are Taoist, which are not altered at all, and vastly superior to either the Bible or Qur’an. The Old Testament is also not altered. The New Testament was in disarray because early Christians were hunted down until the 300s, but after that there were no substantial alterations. There were some minor alterations, but these are easily reconciled by comparison with other versions, because no alteration could be mass produced or widespread in those days of transcription by hand. The big problem with the New Testament is that 90% of the material in 300 A.D. was destroyed; the New Testament contains only 10% of what was written about Jesus up to 300 A.D. But this is very different from alteration.

I'm not a Christian and I have very intensely studied the history of how the Bible came into being. Even on the face of it your statement is mostly inaccurate, I can only agree to your statement in the very limited fashion that I have done above, but it sounds like you are implying something much more pervasively false: that there are on-going alterations to the Bible taking place. Conservative Christians consider it a mortal sin to alter the Bible, but you seem to think that they do it willy-nilly? So can you be more specific about what you are referring to here as to the process and manner by which you think the Bible has changed?

sciondestiny wrote:
They are made or written to the liking of the people, so of course anyone who would read the bible and see bad verses or evil verses would say oh this is an evil religion.

The Old Testament describes violent clashes, but it does not contain overt references describing all non-Christians as dishonest and of ill-intent, unlike the Qur’an, which does so incessantly.

sciondestiny wrote:
But in the Qur'an we have verses that are and have been kept from the years of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions, those verses were put there to teach us about life.
In the Qur'an all I see is verses that talk about war and not killing innocent people. If you have truly read the footnotes you would have known that Mike and we and many others would not be here.

I can’t decipher your typo here. It looks like you mean “kept from the ears of the Prohpet”, but that doesn’t make any sense either?

sciondestiny wrote:
In the Qur'an all I see is verses that talk about war and not killing innocent people. If you have truly read the footnotes you would have known that Mike and we and many others would not be here.

You obviously aren’t reading my posts very closely. I’ve said over and over again that the Qur’an makes no overt reference to acts of violence, but it engages in relentless character assassination against non-Muslims which encourages violence against non-Muslims.

sciondestiny wrote:
And no Mike you are not teh only person to read, but sadly you are teh first one that I have heard who has rejected Islam, all of the people who have read the Qur'an have turned Muslim here in Canada and America. This also supports my argument that Muslims in the west have a greater effect and better qyalities!

How many converts do you know? There is a small minority of black converts in this country, but I’ve only come across two white converts in the media: Cat Stevens and an unnamed British girl on a BBC report. I’ve been to the King Fahad mosque here in LA, and there wasn’t a single white person besides me. It was all Middle Easterners and a handful of blacks.

Actually, I misspoke, Horseatingweeds made a post saying that he had read the Qur’an and had all of the same issues with it that I do. If the Qur’an were more widely published in English it would only make Islam look worse because it perpetually insults non-Muslims as being dishonest and having only malicious intent.
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
Mike I wish you not to answer me this but if you truly read the Qur'an fully, seeing as you said you read it for 4 years going then why are you asking me for verses.

Because I’ve read the Qur’an and know that such quotes don’t exist. The Qur’an never once acknowledges that someone could disbelieve the Qur’an for honest reasons. It always asserts that non-Muslims could only be dishonest in their disbelief.

What you’re saying here is, ‘why do you expect me to make my case, why don’t you make my case for me?’ It is your job to provide quotes that support your assertion and prove it true, not mine. I’ve read the Qur’an and am pretty confident that they don’t exist. You can easily prove me wrong by providing a quote that acknowledges that non-Muslims can disbelieve for honest reasons.

sciondestiny wrote:
Like you said you also read the footnotes that much means that you might have read all of the Qur'an. If you continue to the middle or end of the Qur'an you will see beautiful verses about Heaven and how Allah describes them.

Beautiful poetry does not make religious bigotry any less bigoted. If it were the words of a demon naturally it would provide incentives to believe its lies. Also, the descriptions of Paradise are all extremely physical and even quite carnal. No other religion implies a sexual inducement to Heaven besides the Qur’an, nor does any other religion apply physical sense gratification to Heaven. All other religions assert that Heaven is a non-physical place where the real reward is a state of mind and freedom from physicality. Physicality brings temptation and suffering which do not exist in Heaven.

sciondestiny wrote:
But the big problem here Mike is that you are not a Christian at all or Muslim. Seeing this is it ok for people like you or non-religious people to judge a religion.

I am a deeply spiritual person, I consider myself a priest of sorts. But it is the end times. In Hinduism it is said that at the end of every age all religions are corrupt. I believe that every religion also contains some spiritual truth that has not been completely corrupted by Satan. In Islam, I believe that these uncorrupted truths come exclusively from the example set by the life of Mohammed. I believe that he set the best possible example even while living under the worst possible conditions (of being decieved by no ordinary demon but rather a duke of Hell). I believe that despite being deceived by an extremely powerful demon that his life is utterly exemplary and that he also had a direct connection to God for many of his revelations. Jesus, by contrast, was not decieved by a demon, and yet his life is not nearly so exemplary. His life didn't have half the adversity of Mohammed's, and yet he showed signs of moral failings, while Mohammed showed none.

sciondestiny wrote:
I am sure soulfire can agree with that, to judge something especially a religion you have to have lived through it.

So you have to become a Muslim in order to have a valid opinion about the Qur’an? You have a lot of opinions about Christianity, have you been a Christian? Do you have to become a pagan in order to have an opinion about the Roman religion? It was clearly demonic, just as the Bible says.

sciondestiny wrote:
Also I want to add I am not getting agitated by your comments, rather I am surprised that you turned out like you are ritgh now.

What do you mean? I said from the start that I thought the Qur’an was dictated by a deceptive entity who engaged in perpetual condemnation. I’m simply asking you for even one quote where the Qur’an doesn’t cast dispersions on the motivations of all non-Muslims, or even just leaves open the possibility that some non-Muslims could honestly disbelieve.

You provided a quote that supported your assertion that the Qur’an doesn’t always tell people to look at others, sometimes it tells people to look at their own behavior. Even though I think the verse was superficial and facile as well as being the exception rather than the rule in the Qur’an, I dropped that point. I only want to go with unequivocal incontrovertibles. I’m stacking the deck in your favor, if you can provide even one counter-example, I’ll concede the point.
mike1reynolds
S3nd K3ys, this post in filled with flaws, oversights, unconnected dots and wild eyed right-wing conspiracy theories.

S3nd K3ys wrote:

In 2000, Saudi Arabia went on kingdom-wide alert after learning that Iraq had agreed to help al Qaeda attack U.S. and British interests on the peninsula.

Yeah right. Al-Qaedans are almost all Saudis and they’re going to attack Saudi Arabians. When Al-Qadea does attack in Saudi Arabia they are extremely pinpoint targeted attacks at the leadership. Al-Qaeda would never dream of killing ordinary Saudi citizens. Who do you think funds them? They won’t bite the hand that feeds them and kill their own.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
In 2001, satellite images show large numbers of al Qaeda terrorists displaced after the war in Afghanistan relocating to camps in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Hussein regime. In 2002, a report from the National Security Agency in October reveals that Iraq agreed to provide safe haven, financing and weapons to al Qaeda members relocating in northern Iraq.

Northern Iraq is the Kurd stronghold, the Kurds hate Saddam and it is well known in intelligence services that they had enlisted Al-Qaeda support in their fight against Saddam, their mutual enemy. As a matter of fact, Bush was so hell bent on getting Iraq and ignoring Al-Qaeda that he allowed these Kurdish Al-Qaeda camps to exist for months after we invaded Iraq.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
In 2003, on February 14, the Philippine government ousted Hisham Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, for his involvement in al Qaeda-related terrorist activites. Andrea Domingo, head of Immigration for the Philippine government, told reporters that "studying the movements and activities" of Iraqi intelligence assets in the country, including radical Islamists, revealed an "established network" of terrorists headed by Hussein.

When you have to rely on the Philippine intelligence service to support your case rather than the CIA, you KNOW you’ve got a problem with the facts.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm
Quote: WASHINGTON — U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.

Bait and switch. That wasn’t al-Qaeda. Just because someone is a terrorist doesn’t automatically mean they must be a member of al-Qaeda, especially if the terrorists from the two groups hate each other.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
- Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990s?

Even if its true, and that is a big if, given the fact that the website you’re quoting from in this section is full of wild eyed conspiracy theories, it doesn’t say anything about an al-Qaeda/Iraq connection, it is pure innuendo based on trying to support the next piece of fluff:

S3nd K3ys wrote:
- Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which -- notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) -- the Czechs have not retracted?

Oh yes, the evil democrat empire has it’s tentacles in all things and covertly supports al-Qaeda by trying to cover its tracks all over the world. Even though the chairman of the 9/11 commission was a Republican, he was actually a robot replaced be the evil democratic empire, and so was most of the CIA’s staff. So all the proof that this Czech thing was pure fabrication is really a bunch of popyc*ck. (How strange, popyc*ck is a banned word in on frih.net!)

S3nd K3ys wrote:
- Saddam's ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Once again, not a member of al-Qaeda.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
- Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke's assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings…

Come into my parlor said the spider to the fly.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
…and Clarke's memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and "[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad"?

This is amazing, in a what-the-f*** kind of way. Why would U-2 missions cause bin Laden to flee the best safe haven he could possibly have, much less into the arms of someone that would immediately have him executed? And I’m *sure* that a national security report used the word boogie. Probably even boogie-oogie-oogie.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
- Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Because Zarqawi is a Sunni who would have never DREAMED of joining forces with al-Qaeda if not for the invasion of Iraq.

It is like the war in Vietnam which has been mortal enemies with China for 2000 years. Only we could be stupid enough to turn mortal enemies into allies of convenience. Vietnam and China have fought two wars since then, and as soon is we pull out of Iraq, Zarqawi’s alliance with al-Qaeda will abruptly cease and turn into the mortal hatred that it always has been.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
- Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Ah, so naturally this proves that they were in league with their mortal Shiite enemies!

S3nd K3ys wrote:
- Former CIA Director George Tenet's October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

Well, after telling congress that, “There is no credible evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda” the same week that Bush asserted that there was, he had to say something equivocal to keep his job. This floundering quote of yours was purely the product of intense manipulation and political pressure by the White House.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
- We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

These reporters are so much more well informed than Western intelligence services. Honestly, the National Enquirer is really much more reliable than it use to be.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
- Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Who is “we”? The Philippine intelligence service?

S3nd K3ys wrote:
- Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

That is because al-Qaeda is Shiite and we destroyed the Sunni power structure that had kept them out.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
- We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities.

That’s it, they were going to buy WMDs from a country that didn’t have any WMDs! The National Enquirer follows absolutely brilliant leads!

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Quote: Washington - Iraqi opposition leader Ahmad Chalabi said on Sunday that he has"specific information" about links between the terror group al-Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence service Mukhabarat.

Who is speaking here? George Washington? The entire district of Columbia, or all members of the state of Washington speaking in perfect unison?

S3nd K3ys wrote:
"We have specific information about visits that leaders of al-Qaeda made to Iraq in as late as 2000, and the requests for large amounts of cash," Chalabi said.

The CIA is utterly clueless, but this unknown dude from the Middle East knows ALL. He’s omniscient actually.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Quote: * Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

Once again, not a member of al-Qaeda.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

Which later infuriated Colin Powell, since he lost all credibility with the world for reading this load of white-wash. Within two days the BBC’s top headlines was the fact that Powells speech was in fact a doctored and plagiarized Oxford doctoral thesis delivered in the early 1990’s. The White-House made Colin Powell a laughing stock in Europe. Not surprisingly, Powell decided not to remain with the administration in it’s second term, and he has said privately to his friends that this is the reason why.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

Ah yes, what better source of information than the Philippine intelligence service, but the Sudanese intelligence service! Now if we could just keep them from killing millions of their civilians in Darfor…

S3nd K3ys wrote:
* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

Completely disproven.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

It’s like two people holding guns to each other’s heads saying, I’ll put my gun down if you put your gun down. Then, naturally, by your assertion, they would dance arm and arm and say to each other, “I just can’t quite you!” (Broke Back Iraqi Mountain)

S3nd K3ys wrote:
* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

“Yes, Mr. bin Ladin, leave your safest of all safe havens and come enjoy an Iraqi style execution! – err… I mean hospitality…”

OK, enough, this is like shoot birds in a cage (or 72 year old men in Texas).
sciondestiny
mike`reynolds wrote:

Don't ordinary Muslims hate the Saudi leadership? First off all, even the most conservative Christian like Bush wouldn’t dream of making such an outrageous request, if only for religious reasons, but also Bush is totally in bed with the Saudis, so in the astronomically unlikely scenario that he would and succeeded, all it would do is turns all Muslims against te Saudi leadership and send them crashing down in flames, which Bush would never dream of doing. Every aspect of this claim is preposterous.


hmm ordinary Muslims nope, they actually love them. If you ask me ordinary Muslims love all Muslim countries because they are not the countries they were before, they have been "Modernized". The Muslims that do hate the Saudi leadership are faithful Muslims, those who actually follow the true teachings of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) (The ways of the Prophet).

How do you know for sure what Bush is thinking, I mean you were surprised I believe when America attacked Afghanistan, or I misunderstood that. But anyways are you President bush or Vice President Dick Cheney to know what they are planning next, or what they want to do or have fun done in secret, obviously not!

mike`reynolds wrote:

I’ve heard no such thing, what I have heard is that Al-Jazera gives moral support to Al-Qaeda and airs everything that Al-Qaeda puts out, so Al-Qaeda’s comments aired on Al-Jazera are the absolute truth as well?


Well this is a first, Al Jazeera gives moral suport to Al-Qaeda. All Al-Jazeera does is show the videos of Al-Qaeda, but not only that they also show the videos of what America is doing to Iraqians or the other Guantanamo prisoners. What is funny really is that I accept that you guys will say ok Al-Jazeera is lying, but when you say that your own broadcasting shows lie about stuff like this, man! I am not talking about teh news channels, I am talking about all teh documentaries made on many things, 9/11, Guantanamo bay prison, the war in Iraq!!!!

mike1reynolds wrote:

You obviously aren’t reading my posts very closely. I’ve said over and over again that the Qur’an makes no overt reference to acts of violence, but it engages in relentless character assassination against non-Muslims which encourages violence against non-Muslims.


What is the difference, I mean if you say that it attacks non-Muslims then in other words you are saying violence!!! Before I can reply though to these posts like these I want you to define to me the meaning of non-Muslims. you seem to be having this biased opinion that whenever the Qur'an speaks about non-Muslims it speaks about Jews and Christians as well and athiests and other religions. Jews and Christians are not non-Muslims they are considered in the Qur'an as "People of the Book" as are Muslims as well. So please define to me non-Muslim!

mike1reynolds wrote:

How many converts do you know? There is a small minority of black converts in this country, but I’ve only come across two white converts in the media: Cat Stevens and an unnamed British girl on a BBC report. I’ve been to the King Fahad mosque here in LA, and there wasn’t a single white person besides me. It was all Middle Easterners and a handful of blacks.


Mike this proves my point when I sayed you were acting a bit stubborn. I do not know if you have seen lately but a lot of polls and magazines/articles have been saying things like:
"After the 9/11 attacks, more and more people have been converting into the religion of Islam. It is in such a fast rate that it is almost as fat as Christianities conversion rate."



mike1reynolds wrote:

sciondestiny wrote:
But in the Qur'an we have verses that are and have been kept from the years of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions, those verses were put there to teach us about life.
In the Qur'an all I see is verses that talk about war and not killing innocent people. If you have truly read the footnotes you would have known that Mike and we and many others would not be here.

I can’t decipher your typo here. It looks like you mean “kept from the ears of the Prohpet”, but that doesn’t make any sense either?


Mike what do you mean you do not get it, it clearly states that the verses form the Qur'an have been kept in the same form as they were in the years of the Prophet (SAW) and his companions. Mike I am sorry though if I did not type it properly I was in a bit of a rush!

mike1reynolds wrote:

Beautiful poetry does not make religious bigotry any less bigoted. If it were the words of a demon naturally it would provide incentives to believe its lies. Also, the descriptions of Paradise are all extremely physical and even quite carnal. No other religion implies a sexual inducement to Heaven besides the Qur’an, nor does any other religion apply physical sense gratification to Heaven. All other religions assert that Heaven is a non-physical place where the real reward is a state of mind and freedom from physicality. Physicality brings temptation and suffering which do not exist in Heaven.


Show me such verses from teh Qur'an if you have read it. Also the verses of teh Qur'an are not poems or poem lines they are the actual speech of Allah (SWT).

mike1reynolds wrote:

I am a deeply spiritual person, I consider myself a priest of sorts. But it is the end times. In Hinduism it is said that at the end of every age all religions are corrupt. I believe that every religion also contains some spiritual truth that has not been completely corrupted by Satan. In Islam, I believe that these uncorrupted truths come exclusively from the example set by the life of Mohammed. I believe that he set the best possible example even while living under the worst possible conditions (of being decieved by no ordinary demon but rather a duke of Hell). I believe that despite being deceived by an extremely powerful demon that his life is utterly exemplary and that he also had a direct connection to God for many of his revelations. Jesus, by contrast, was not decieved by a demon, and yet his life is not nearly so exemplary. His life didn't have half the adversity of Mohammed's, and yet he showed signs of moral failings, while Mohammed showed none.


I appreciate what you are saying here Mike and I really love it and all, but I just remembered something that was said about the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) at the time he was alive and this might actually prove your points that the Qur'an is Demonic in its speech.

Quotes form History wrote:

1. The life of the Prophet (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon Him) has been said by his wife, Aisha (May Allah (S) be pleased with her) to be like "a walking Qur`an", embodying the Laws of Almighty Allah (subhaana wa taalah).

2. His behaviour as a chosen messenger of Allah was such that when Aisha (his wife) was questioned about it she said he was a walking Quran.


The real story goes as follows:

3 men once went together to visit the house of the Messenger of Allah (SAW), who at that time was not there. So when they knocked Aisha (RA) replied behind the door asking who it was, they said their names but she did not open the door. As was the rule of Islam, so they asked here to tell them anthing that would help them become atleast 1/10 of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). She replied by saying: "If you read the Qur'an and observe the Prophet, you will notice that the Messenger of Allah is the walking Qur'an."

Mike if you are saying that the Qur'anic verses were said by demons and that they were demonic in their text then how is it the man that you consider even better than Jesus (Whch is also the case, where Allah has said all Prophets are my best creation, but Prophet Muhammad is the best of my creation). SO if you say stuff like that then would you not also be saying that he is corrupt? But in actuality with this quote we can see that the Quran is not corrupt, if it was would Islam still be living today? Would Islam have created a man like Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who was the best of creation. But I ask you would a Demon keep all promises that Allah (SWT) in the Qur'an makes? To protect the Prophet of Allah, to Protect the Qur'an (Statistically there are almost 1000+ Muslims who have memorized the Qur'an - in this way protecting the Qur'an). I do not think Demons keep promises, last time I checked in most stories and works Demons actually lie and break promises!!!
sciondestiny
mike1reynolds wrote:

Let me give you an example of how this plays out from the life of Mohammed: Mohammed was conducting negotiations for a peace treaty with a group that the Muslims had been at war with. They were nearing the end of negotiations and all of the points had been mutually agreed on except for one, the rival leader refused to acknowledge Mohammed as the messenger of God. Every other point had been agreed upon, but this rival leader sincerely did not believe that Mohammed was the messenger of God, and negotiations were completely stalled on this one final point. Being a very humble man, Mohammed said, OK, fine, this is good enough and we shall declare a truce. But when the Muslims heard of this they were enraged. It looked as though the mob was going to get out of control and that the truce was going to be broken without his consent by his unruly followers. He was deeply distraught, afraid that the scene would turn to disaster because he could not control his followers violent reaction. So he went to Hadija, his wife and asked her for some idea on how to handle the situation. She recommended that he perform a certain ceremony, the slaughtering of a camel, that has some religious significance that I don’t understand in terminating a gathering like that. So he did it and everyone left, narrowly avoiding a riotous rebellion against his own command.


Mike being a Muslim I study my religions history thoroughly and I can tell you 100% that that is not what happened. Seeing as I have a bit more time left over I will retell the whole story to you!

Yes you are correct that at the time the Prophet wanted to make a peace treaty with the Kuffar, this treaty was called the treaty o f Hudaybiyah (It was a location caled Hudaybiyah). When they met up with the Kuffar (idol worshippers) they made agreements that no one would attack for a set period of years and that anyone wishing to go to pilgrimage that year was allowed to go. The Kuffar agreed and so when they Muslims signed it and gave it over to them to sign they looked it over and aksed to change the top words: First teh erased the words (In teh Name of Allah, The Mercy giving, The Most Merciful) and then they chaned the words (Muhammad is the Messenger of God to Muhammad is the son of Abdullah). The Muslims wanted that were around the Prophet, started to tell the Kuffar to change it back but the Prophet told them to leave it be as he saw it OK for now. There was no sacrifice of the camel, strange version you have. Also that same year when the Muslims were going to pilgrimage in Makkah which they were allowed seeing as they agreed to it, the Kuffar came and killed all of them overnight (not in teh daylight but overnight, women and children, and fathers husbands, all)!

So you can see that the Kuffar were the ones who wanted to attack and attacked, also if you remember there was one verse where it talked about beheading, for some reaosn I cannot find it if you come across please post it but the true version not the short false one. This verse was exactly revealed at that time, and guess what it was the first verse talking about fighting, it was actually allowing the Muslims to do revenge because their brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, mothers and so on had been beheaded over night. So now Allah is giving us permission, even though it was a bit later on after the trajedy. This is why I always say if you are going to quote something try to find if it has a story or not because all verses of the Qur'an have stories!


Side Note:

Mike Sharia Law is not Shiite law. Actually it is in Islam the Islamic Law, Shiites though have changed it so much that it is not supposed ot be considered Sharia law well that is their version. The QUr'anic and Prophetic version though is the pure and true Sharia law.
Soulfire
Scion, why do Muslims kill people for their God? Can they not follow Christian example and at least respect others?
sciondestiny
Peace be upon you Soulfire and my other friends.

Soulfire I am pleased that you asked me that question, and I have to tell you that I hope my answer satisfies you God willing. I am not sure if this is true but this si what I have heard from my Christian friends and some Christian aquantances, and I am sure there are many people like these in all religions. People who are not fully religious you could say or sometimes like to do what they want, making up things or just what they see is written but not getting the true meaning of the scripture. I am not aware if there are any people like that or even hypocrites in Christainity.

In Islam though there is for sure, and there has been. I can say this for sure because I am a Muslim and believe me I have seen some of them, you can sort of tell them apart. What the Muslims in the Middle East are doing is actually being abolished by many Muslims here in the West and some religious groups in the East (but not that many). Those people who are doing such things have taken the verses that talk about well revenge and when it is allowed and have come to "their own" conclusions that it is ok.

I have ot say though that in Islam the killing of innocent people, whether Christian, Jew, Bhuddist, Athiest or even Muslim is by far one of the greatest sins in Islam. Our own Prophet Muhammad (SAW) has said that whoever kills one man has teh same reward as if he killed all of humanity, and whoever saves one man has the reward of saving all of humanity. So in this example we are talking about a large scale killings of innocent people, I mean the 100's if I am correct, so multiply all of humanity by 100's and you get your sins.

In my opion, if I was lets say the leader of the Muslim nation or one of them, I would use my whole power to capture those men. Then when I have captured them I would send them out into the streets with signs on them saying I am a murderor who goes against the teachings of Islam. In islam the punishment is death and thus those who have done it would die if they did not die (in other words just threw bombs not suicide bombers.) Basically in Islam what those men are doing is Haram (forbidden), and many scholars and leaders have called on to these men to tell tem to stop and yet hey do not listen which mean that they are either very stubborn or not very practicing Muslim and only come out when fighting is involved.

In Islam even if we go into war we have rules and laws that are punishable if not followed. In Islam whenever the army was sent into battle the Prophet or whoever was incharge before getting onto the battlefield woudl stop the army and stand in front and say all the rules to make people remember! I am sure most other religions have these rules:

Do not kill innocent people or civilians

Do not kill children, women, elderly or those who are not fighting

If the enemy has no wepaon take him to safety and leave him there to eb safe form others fighting

If the enemy calls for peace, then stop your attack and go and take him to a safe spot.

Do not burn trees or houses or villages.

Do not take anything that is not within the battlefield or in other words War booty, belongings of the enemy only.

and there are many more, all of these are mentioned in many verses of the Qur'an and were always said before a battle to all Muslim fighters. So like many and myself these attacks and killings are abolished, I would not be surprised if those people are not even Muslims, but say they are. But then again anything is possible!

Hope that helped Soulfire!
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
If you ask me ordinary Muslims love all Muslim countries because they are not the countries they were before, they have been "Modernized".

Well, I said the leadership, not the country.

sciondestiny wrote:
The Muslims that do hate the Saudi leadership are faithful Muslims, those who actually follow the true teachings of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) (The ways of the Prophet).

I never suggested that they weren't faithful Muslims. Your statement is rather equivocal here, first you say they love the House of Saud as if it was a unanimous thing, and then you acknowledge that some do hate the Houe of Saud. Anyway, Bush DEFINITELY *LOOOOVES* the House of Saud and treats Saudi leaders with more deference than the leaders of any other country.

So my point was, if the House of Saud agreed to change the Qur’an it would be the END of the House of Saud, which is the LAST thing that Bush wants.

sciondestiny wrote:
How do you know for sure what Bush is thinking, I mean you were surprised I believe when America attacked Afghanistan, or I misunderstood that.

I can’t decipher this sentence. Obviously America attacked Afghanistan, why would it surprise me for you to acknowledge an obvious fact…?

sciondestiny wrote:
But anyways are you President bush or Vice President Dick Cheney to know what they are planning next, or what they want to do or have fun done in secret, obviously not!

I gave one reason above. You obviously don’t understand Americans, I challenge you to find ONE American that thinks that this would be a good idea rather than an utterly presumptuous and rude affront to all Muslims. They would no sooner suggest editing the Qur’an than they would agree to edit the Bible.

I don’t know if you realize this, but it is really an extremely presumptuous and insulting insinuation about Americans. In fact, it plays right into the argument, I believe that it is precisely the sorts of statements in the Qur’an that I am talking about that leads you to so readily believe such and absurd and preposterous notion about a non-Muslims country. If the Qur’an didn’t perpetually insult the motivations of non-Muslims, you would not be so quick to swallow a lie that defies all logical about the motivation of Americans.

sciondestiny wrote:
mike`reynolds wrote:

I’ve heard no such thing, what I have heard is that Al-Jazera gives moral support to Al-Qaeda and airs everything that Al-Qaeda puts out, so Al-Qaeda’s comments aired on Al-Jazera are the absolute truth as well?

Well this is a first, Al Jazeera gives moral suport to Al-Qaeda. All Al-Jazeera does is show the videos of Al-Qaeda..

In what context does it air these tapes and videos? Does it present them as murderous people, as unfaithful Muslims, or does it air them without commenting on their moral content?

sciondestiny wrote:
…but not only that they also show the videos of what America is doing to Iraqians or the other Guantanamo prisoners. What is funny really is that I accept that you guys will say ok Al-Jazeera is lying, but when you say that your own broadcasting shows lie about stuff like this, man! I am not talking about teh news channels, I am talking about all teh documentaries made on many things, 9/11, Guantanamo bay prison, the war in Iraq!!!!

You’ve changed the topic, and you are obviously lumping all Americans together as conservative fundamentalist, which is actually only about ¼ of the US population. Why do you think 2/3rds of America disapproves of Bush right now? And even the fundamentalists don’t say the reports are lies, they claim that the criticism is blown out of proportion and misinterpretations of the facts, not lies. It is OUR side that claims that Bush lied. “Fire the Liar” was my favorite democratic slogan.

But this is all very different from this wild eyed loony-toon rumor that you are putting forward about editing the Qur’an. Virtually no one, not one in a thousand Americans, neither liberal nor conservative, would give the slightest credibility to this insane notion.

sciondestiny wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
You obviously aren’t reading my posts very closely. I’ve said over and over again that the Qur’an makes no overt reference to acts of violence, but it engages in relentless character assassination against non-Muslims which encourages violence against non-Muslims.


What is the difference, I mean if you say that it attacks non-Muslims then in other words you are saying violence!!!

I can’t tell if you are confused or flip flopping. You said this before:
sciondestiny wrote:
In the Qur'an all I see is verses that talk about war and not killing innocent people.

So I’m stressing that it does not overtly tell people to commit acts of violence, but it applies motivations that can only be describe as Satanic to large numbers of Christians and Jews. This is incitement to violence, even if it doesn’t explicitly say to commit violence against them.

Qur'an wrote:
Many of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) wish they could make you turn away from your faith, because they envy you, even after the truth has been made clear to them.

What is being described here is someone who is convinced that Qur’an is true, yet wants to sabotage your faith. It claims that many Christians and Jews want you to turn against God. What is really being described here is someone who is in league with the Devil. Only someone in league with the Devil wants you to turn against God. While it claims to be describing Christians and Jews, it in fact describes not a single Christian or Jew; what is described is by definition a Satanist. The Qur’an is lumping Christians and Jews together with Satanists.

sciondestiny wrote:
Before I can reply though to these posts like these I want you to define to me the meaning of non-Muslims. you seem to be having this biased opinion that whenever the Qur'an speaks about non-Muslims it speaks about Jews and Christians as well and athiests and other religions. Jews and Christians are not non-Muslims they are considered in the Qur'an as "People of the Book" as are Muslims as well. So please define to me non-Muslim!

I’m well aware of this. But what difference does it make when the Qur’an is perpetually describing Christians and Jews in terms that could only be true of a Satanist?

sciondestiny wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
How many converts do you know? There is a small minority of black converts in this country, but I’ve only come across two white converts in the media: Cat Stevens and an unnamed British girl on a BBC report. I’ve been to the King Fahad mosque here in LA, and there wasn’t a single white person besides me. It was all Middle Easterners and a handful of blacks.


Mike this proves my point when I sayed you were acting a bit stubborn.

How does the almost universal absence of white Muslim converts prove your point?

sciondestiny wrote:
I do not know if you have seen lately but a lot of polls and magazines/articles have been saying things like:
"After the 9/11 attacks, more and more people have been converting into the religion of Islam. It is in such a fast rate that it is almost as fat as Christianities conversion rate."

That is false. Immigration and birth are not forms of conversion. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world only because it has the fastest growth rate. Scientists use to talk about the population bomb, the human birth rate was out of control, but backwards countries like Mexico and India are coming into the modern world and their birth rates have slowed dramatically. Only the Islamic nations have failed to join the rest of the modern world in this regard, just as it seems to be incapable of democratization. The growth of Islam is entirely a product of it’s backwardness, which isn’t exactly something to be proud of.

sciondestiny wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Beautiful poetry does not make religious bigotry any less bigoted. If it were the words of a demon naturally it would provide incentives to believe its lies. Also, the descriptions of Paradise are all extremely physical and even quite carnal. No other religion implies a sexual inducement to Heaven besides the Qur’an, nor does any other religion apply physical sense gratification to Heaven. All other religions assert that Heaven is a non-physical place where the real reward is a state of mind and freedom from physicality. Physicality brings temptation and suffering which do not exist in Heaven.


Show me such verses from teh Qur'an if you have read it. Also the verses of teh Qur'an are not poems or poem lines they are the actual speech of Allah (SWT).

You referred to the Qur’anic passages as ‘beautiful’, any beautiful text is poetic; poetry does not have to rhyme. If it isn’t poetic, then the descriptions are not beautiful.

As to your question, isn’t it patently obvious? Every single American knows where I am going here: all the virgins in Heaven. The virtuous men (what about virtuous women, do they get young hunks?) win as their reward a bevy of beautiful young ageless virgins as their reward in Heaven, at least, they start out as virgins.

Why do men like young girls? The entire setting is one of physicality, good food, good wine, and good women. It even implies getting drunk on the wine by saying that you won’t get a headache from drinking a lot of it. (What other drink besides alcohol will give you a headache, and how much do you have to drink to get a headache – a lot.)

[56.12] In the gardens of bliss.
[56.13] A numerous company from among the first,
[56.14] And a few from among the latter.
[56.15] On thrones decorated,
[56.16] Reclining on them, facing one another.
[56.17] Round about them shall go youths never altering in age,
[56.18] With goblets and ewers and a cup of pure drink;
[56.19] They shall not be affected with headache thereby, nor shall they get exhausted,
[56.20] And fruits such as they choose,
[56.21] And the flesh of fowl such as they desire.
[56.22] And pure, beautiful ones,
[56.23] The like of the hidden pearls.

sciondestiny wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
I am a deeply spiritual person, I consider myself a priest of sorts. But it is the end times. In Hinduism it is said that at the end of every age all religions are corrupt. I believe that every religion also contains some spiritual truth that has not been completely corrupted by Satan. In Islam, I believe that these uncorrupted truths come exclusively from the example set by the life of Mohammed. I believe that he set the best possible example even while living under the worst possible conditions (of being deceived by no ordinary demon but rather a duke of Hell). I believe that despite being deceived by an extremely powerful demon that his life is utterly exemplary and that he also had a direct connection to God for many of his revelations. Jesus, by contrast, was not deceived by a demon, and yet his life is not nearly so exemplary. His life didn't have half the adversity of Mohammed's, and yet he showed signs of moral failings, while Mohammed showed none.


I appreciate what you are saying here Mike and I really love it and all, but I just remembered something that was said about the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) at the time he was alive and this might actually prove your points that the Qur'an is Demonic in its speech.

How so? You mean by the fact that he was a walking Qur’an? (In this culture one would say a walking encyclopedia, which is to say extremely intelligent and well versed in many things.) I don’t know what you re referring to here.

sciondestiny wrote:
Mike if you are saying that the Qur'anic verses were said by demons and that they were demonic in their text then how is it the man that you consider even better than Jesus (Whch is also the case, where Allah has said all Prophets are my best creation, but Prophet Muhammad is the best of my creation).

As you well know, he was illiterate. Being completely unfamiliar with the religious scriptures of any other religion he was easily deceived in a manner that would not have been possible if he were literate and had a point of comparison. If had had been familiar with the religious scriptures of ANY other religion, he would have immediately noticed the profoundly unfavorable contrast.

When the entity first approached him, in a cave no less (the underworld has easier access to you in a cave and Hell is always depicted as cavernous in all other world religions), he fled in sheer terror, convinced that it was a jinn. The soul thinks quicker than the brain, when you have a mystical experience the soul reacts first, then the intellect, so always trust the first reaction in situations like this. When he got back to Hadija, he was still trembling in fear.

So Hadija enlisted his elderly Christian cousin to give his blessing to the experience, because she wanted to believe she was the wife of the ‘Law Giver’. Since he was illiterate, Mohammed did not know that his cousin was not qualified to test the entity. If the entity had been tested by the Catholic Church, the way Joan’s correspondence with the archangel Michael was, do you really think that it would have passed the test with flying colors the way Michael did? The statements that the Qur’anic deamon makes are utterly and completely different from the statements that archangel Michael makes in their moral character. The Qur’anic entity would have immediately failed such a test. But Mohammaed was illiterate and did not have the help of anyone with a real religious education, just a lay reader of the Bible who didn’t have much spiritual understanding.

sciondestiny wrote:
SO if you say stuff like that then would you not also be saying that he is corrupt?

I said that he was deceived, not corrupt. I said that all religions are corrupted. Most of this corruption comes from a flaw in the founder which has sprouted, grown and magnified. Islam is different, if it had just been Mohammed and God, this would not have happened. It is the Qur’an that is the source of all corruption in Islam.

sciondestiny wrote:
But in actuality with this quote we can see that the Quran is not corrupt, if it was would Islam still be living today?

So then, by your argument, no world religion can possibly be corrupt, because they are all even older than Islam?

sciondestiny wrote:
Would Islam have created a man like Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who was the best of creation.

In many of his other incarnations he did much more impressive things, but in an incarnation where he was illiterate he created a demonic religion. He is the Hero Eternal, so naturally, when he was in an incarnation where he was at his most vulnerable and ignorant, the demons swooped in to take best advantage of the opportunity.

sciondestiny wrote:
But I ask you would a Demon keep all promises that Allah (SWT) in the Qur'an makes? To protect the Prophet of Allah, to Protect the Qur'an (Statistically there are almost 1000+ Muslims who have memorized the Qur'an - in this way protecting the Qur'an). I do not think Demons keep promises, last time I checked in most stories and works Demons actually lie and break promises!!!

When it comes to spreading it’s influence, of course a demon will reward, shelter and protect the people and things that help to spread it’s influence. Devil keeps his promises as long as you do his work, it is only when you are doing God’s work that the Devil tries to stop you.

Tell me, how is Islam a force for good in the world? No man knows himself, it is only by the consequence of his actions that he can judge whether he is right or wrong. What are the consequences of Islam?

The Islamic countries are backwards, brutal, and unable to become democratic. If a girl is raped, or even just kidnapped so that she might have been raped, the family will KILL her. These are called “honor killings”. What other religion beheads people? Even Christianity has never done this, while Islam has always done this. And just a few generations after Mohammed, the Caliph and his entire family, the descendants of Mohammed, was assassinated by jealous Muslims. Turkey is the most evolved Islamic democracy, just two weeks ago they jailed a journalist for writing a report about the Turkish genocide of the Armenians. He was arrest for insulting Turkey. These are the most brutal backwards countries in the world, the deadliest places in the world for any foreigners to travel in.

A thousand years ago Islam was a source of education, civilization and learning. But that was ENTIRELY a product of Mohammed’s character and in no way a product of exhortations from the Qur’an. This is why the effect has faded and vanished so profoundly, so that now, Islam is the very antithesis of what it was more than a thousand years ago. There is nothing left of that time. What can you say for Islam today? It is old? It is the youngest world religion. It is big? It has the most number of uneducated and backwards followers of any religion. You have yet to name a good consequence, a way in which Islam has actually improved the world, rather than spreading brutality, intolerance and death cults.
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
This is why I always say if you are going to quote something try to find if it has a story or not because all verses of the Qur'an have stories!

You mean, all the Hadiths have stories? Most of the Qur'anic quotes are vague generalizations with no focused train of thought. Two paragraphs later it is some other topic entirely. There is no way to give any kind of narrative or story with such a constantly shifting (shifty) train of thought.

As I've said, I've never been able to find a good Hadith. I was reciting from memory a story about Mohammed that was aired on PBS. An Imam put it forward as an example of Mohammed's himility, not insisting that the other tribe bow down to him as the messaner of God.

You said that the camel part was not in the story, but you omitted without any comment the critical reason I brought up the story, which was that his followers want to riot and defy his command. Is that true or not? That was the critical part. You just left it out without saying anything about it, while focusing on the irrelevant camel slaughtering.

==========

Since I'm making another post, and the last one was so long, which could get your thoughts convoluted, I want to focus your attention on what I think is the critical issue: the perpetual character assassination of Christians and Jews in the Qur'an. You've danced around the point repeatedly, I have asked you over and over to give me a Qur'anic verse that treats at least some Christians and Jews with respect. At this point, you must either provide one, or acknowledge that no such verse exists.
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
In Islam though there is for sure, and there has been. I can say this for sure because I am a Muslim and believe me I have seen some of them, you can sort of tell them apart. What the Muslims in the Middle East are doing is actually being abolished by many Muslims here in the West and some religious groups in the East (but not that many).

I don’t see any abolishing going on. The Middle East is just as violent as it ever was. How has it improved?

sciondestiny wrote:
Those people who are doing such things have taken the verses that talk about well revenge and when it is allowed and have come to "their own" conclusions that it is ok.

So they’ve taken things out of context, which many Christians do as well, the question is about why this is so much worse, so much more violent in Islam than in any other religion in the world? How does this misunderstanding take place, and what is it specifically that is being misunderstood?
mike1reynolds
I've been sitting on this objection for awhile, and a good way to word it finally popped out while I was writing all the above (but it was out of context where it was before I moved it here).

God is not a group. Your father’s explanation is completely unconvincing to me. Hinduism has 33 Billion names for God, and yet in Hinduism, God says I and Me, not We and Our. God is a being of universal oneness, demons are lords of separation, always fighting among ‘Themselves’. Would you refer to God as ‘Them’??!!
sciondestiny
mike1reynolds wrote:
I've been sitting on this objection for awhile, and a good way to word it finally popped out while I was writing all the above (but it was out of context where it was before I moved it here).

God is not a group. Your father’s explanation is completely unconvincing to me. Hinduism has 33 Billion names for God, and yet in Hinduism, God says I and Me, not We and Our. God is a being of universal oneness, demons are lords of separation, always fighting among ‘Themselves’. Would you refer to God as ‘Them’??!!


This is exactly why I said in the beginning and in many places that it is impossible to know the religion truly if you have not believed in it yourself. If I was to ask Soulfire about the trinity to explain to me what is so special about it and what it is to him and Christians I probably would not fully understand it, why? I am not a Christian and have never been one, even though I read some passages soemtimes I still canot judge it because I do not know it and I woudl never understand or obtain the happiness when he woudl explain it to me. I knew it would come to this Mike and that is why I just can't explin it to you anymore.
sciondestiny
mike1reynolds wrote:
sciondestiny wrote:
This is why I always say if you are going to quote something try to find if it has a story or not because all verses of the Qur'an have stories!

You mean, all the Hadiths have stories? Most of the Qur'anic quotes are vague generalizations with no focused train of thought. Two paragraphs later it is some other topic entirely. There is no way to give any kind of narrative or story with such a constantly shifting (shifty) train of thought.

As I've said, I've never been able to find a good Hadith. I was reciting from memory a story about Mohammed that was aired on PBS. An Imam put it forward as an example of Mohammed's himility, not insisting that the other tribe bow down to him as the messaner of God.

You said that the camel part was not in the story, but you omitted without any comment the critical reason I brought up the story, which was that his followers want to riot and defy his command. Is that true or not? That was the critical part. You just left it out without saying anything about it, while focusing on the irrelevant camel slaughtering.

==========

Since I'm making another post, and the last one was so long, which could get your thoughts convoluted, I want to focus your attention on what I think is the critical issue: the perpetual character assassination of Christians and Jews in the Qur'an. You've danced around the point repeatedly, I have asked you over and over to give me a Qur'anic verse that treats at least some Christians and Jews with respect. At this point, you must either provide one, or acknowledge that no such verse exists.


Firstly Mike I did explain that part of the companions wanting to riot it out. This just showed me that your are looking at my posts but not reading them clearly, probably just skimming through them. I said that they wanted to tell the Kuffar (Disblelievers) to change it back but the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) told them that it was ok so they al sat down seeing as they knew he knew better than them. What ever version you heard was false and that Imam was probably not well versed in the history of Islam, which is strange seeing as it is usually a must for them.

As for the ayahs I have found one and many others but I will only post one seeing as I need ot post once more. Although I found one about the Jews I did not find one about Christians seeing as the word Christian is said over 600 times in teh Qur'an so it might take me a while!

The Holy Qur'an wrote:

O Children of Israel (Jews)! Remeber My Favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil (your obligations to My) My covenant (to you) so that I fulfil (My obligations to) your covenant (with Me), and fear none but Me.


I hope this was convincing seeing as Allah (SWT) is saying here that I have given you (the Jews) a gift, a gift is usually given when you like someone correct?
sciondestiny
mike1reynolds wrote:

sciondestiny wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Beautiful poetry does not make religious bigotry any less bigoted. If it were the words of a demon naturally it would provide incentives to believe its lies. Also, the descriptions of Paradise are all extremely physical and even quite carnal. No other religion implies a sexual inducement to Heaven besides the Qur’an, nor does any other religion apply physical sense gratification to Heaven. All other religions assert that Heaven is a non-physical place where the real reward is a state of mind and freedom from physicality. Physicality brings temptation and suffering which do not exist in Heaven.


Show me such verses from teh Qur'an if you have read it. Also the verses of teh Qur'an are not poems or poem lines they are the actual speech of Allah (SWT).

You referred to the Qur’anic passages as ‘beautiful’, any beautiful text is poetic; poetry does not have to rhyme. If it isn’t poetic, then the descriptions are not beautiful.

As to your question, isn’t it patently obvious? Every single American knows where I am going here: all the virgins in Heaven. The virtuous men (what about virtuous women, do they get young hunks?) win as their reward a bevy of beautiful young ageless virgins as their reward in Heaven, at least, they start out as virgins.

Why do men like young girls? The entire setting is one of physicality, good food, good wine, and good women. It even implies getting drunk on the wine by saying that you won’t get a headache from drinking a lot of it. (What other drink besides alcohol will give you a headache, and how much do you have to drink to get a headache – a lot.)

[56.12] In the gardens of bliss.
[56.13] A numerous company from among the first,
[56.14] And a few from among the latter.
[56.15] On thrones decorated,
[56.16] Reclining on them, facing one another.
[56.17] Round about them shall go youths never altering in age,
[56.18] With goblets and ewers and a cup of pure drink;
[56.19] They shall not be affected with headache thereby, nor shall they get exhausted,
[56.20] And fruits such as they choose,
[56.21] And the flesh of fowl such as they desire.
[56.22] And pure, beautiful ones,
[56.23] The like of the hidden pearls.


If I wrote a novel that was beautiful would that be considered poetry? No it would not because it is a novel a whole book, a poem is something totally different my friend it is 3 sentences, 5 maybe, or a whole page or even 3, always changing and never constant. yet a nvel or a book is always known to have chapters, to always have huge amounts of wriing.

Now to the second part of the verses quoted, this is exactly the reason why I said in the beginning that it would be hard to understand a religion when it is translated. "Hurulayn" does not in one least aspect mean virgin or young!!! It means in a way "beauty to the eye", so Allah (SWT) has promised that all the people who are going to paradise will be in their best years which is around 30, thus at that age everyone looks beautiful. Some scholars here have said that maybe the "Hurul ayn" might actually be your spouse seeing as Allah (SWT) can make her once again a vrigin as he can you. Also who said she/he would lose their virginity, you said that Islam was saying or describing Paradise/Heaven as a physical thing. But did you not just describe it sir as a physical thing, because losing your virginity is a earthly process. Some scholars have translated the next part where it says that all people of Heaven will not need to clean themsekvesin any manner including the need ot go to the washroom - so our private parts would not be needed thus correct? But still these are mostly thoughts and guesses by well learned scholars. Mike if you have noticed in this era if you drink beer like a bottle or two you will get drunk and headaches quickly just from 2 bottles? Ah what if you could drink and never get headaches, the wine of Heaven as described in the Qur'an is totally different from this earths wine seeing as it is firstly haram (forbidden) and for good reasons. It is also not an intoxicant, also would you consider this a physical thing that the Qur'an describes. Rivers that gush forth Milk, wine, and honey? Honey is pretty thick and hard to make gush as a river, only a spiritual or great power could make such a thing. Also we do not see milk or wine as rivers since they would get dirty and no one would drink them now would they?
sciondestiny
From all of this said it is quite difficult to teach or lecture a person who is not willing to submit to the will of Allah (SWT) or who does not believe in something from nothing. Some of the greatest victories of this world had started form nothing, from only a belief that had started form nothing. If a person is not spiritual enough they will never get to a level where they can truly enter a religion and enjoy it. I am still young and I am still learning more and more about my religion and other religions, and everyday I respect and honour my religion more and more.

Mike from this thread and this conversation I have realized something that is hard to explain to other people. It is one of those things that you have to find out yourself, and through you I have found it Alhamdulillah (Thanks be to Allah [SWT]), and thanks to you Mike. I might continue to read these posts form now on and maybe answer but not a lot seeing as I have started somethgin crucial that will also takle time.

So Assalamu Alaikum (Peace Be Upon You), Shalom Alaikum, Good bye, Khuda'afiz and hope to see you guys again somewhere InshAllah (God Willing)!
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
From all of this said it is quite difficult to teach or lecture a person who is not willing to submit to the will of Allah (SWT) or who does not believe in something from nothing.

Ah, yes, because I don't believe that the Qur'an comes from God I am in defiance against God. This is what the Qur'an teaches. This is precisely why so many Muslims are so violent. They are taught by the Qur'an that all non-Muslims are in defiance against God. You yourself demonstrate how the Qur'an teaches this. You can't provide a Qur'anic quote that treats other religions with respect because no such verses exist. The Qur'an is utterly unqiue among all world religions in teaching this kind of religious bigotry.
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
Some scholars here have said that maybe the "Hurul ayn" might actually be your spouse seeing as Allah (SWT) can make her once again a vrigin as he can you.

This implies a sexual connotation, does it not? And this interpretation only works if you have multiple wives, because the Qur’an speaks of the reward being the companionship of multiple virgins.

sciondestiny wrote:
Also who said she/he would lose their virginity, you said that Islam was saying or describing Paradise/Heaven as a physical thing. But did you not just describe it sir as a physical thing, because losing your virginity is a earthly process.

I didn’t turn food, wine and women into a physical thing, it just inherently is a matter of physical sense gratification, which doesn't exist in Heaven.

sciondestiny wrote:
Some scholars have translated the next part where it says that all people of Heaven will not need to clean themsekvesin any manner including the need ot go to the washroom - so our private parts would not be needed thus correct?

Actually, this whole line of thinking is disgusting. If you don’t have a physical body, what’s the point of bringing up the subject of urination and defecation in Heaven?!! No other religion on the planet even considers addressing such a topic; it is just manifestly obvious that the soul doesn’t need to use the bathroom...

sciondestiny wrote:
Mike if you have noticed in this era if you drink beer like a bottle or two you will get drunk and headaches quickly just from 2 bottles?

No, you have to get drunk to get a headache, very drunk.

sciondestiny wrote:
Ah what if you could drink and never get headaches,…

You can, just drink anything other than alcohol and it will never give you a headache, no mater how much of it you drink.

sciondestiny wrote:
…the wine of Heaven as described in the Qur'an is totally different from this earths wine seeing as it is firstly haram (forbidden) and for good reasons.

The clear implication is that you can get intoxicated on alcohol in Heaven ("without getting a headache!"...) I am well aware that alcohol is forbidden in Islam, so the quote is not only an appeal to sense gratification, it makes the Qur’an self-contradictory.

sciondestiny wrote:
It is also not an intoxicant, also would you consider this a physical thing that the Qur'an describes.

If it doesn’t get you intoxicated, then why even refer to it as having the special property of not giving you a headache? No other drink will give you a headache, so for any other drink, that would not be anything special or unusual at all. What is it referring to, if not intoxication? What other unique properties does alcohol have, besides intoxication and hangover? What else could it possible be referring to?

And yes, sense gratification is a physical thing that is alien to the soul and Heaven.
sciondestiny
mike1reynolds wrote:
sciondestiny wrote:
From all of this said it is quite difficult to teach or lecture a person who is not willing to submit to the will of Allah (SWT) or who does not believe in something from nothing.

Ah, yes, because I don't believe that the Qur'an comes from God I am in defiance against God. This is what the Qur'an teaches. This is precisely why so many Muslims are so violent. They are taught by the Qur'an that all non-Muslims are in defiance against God. You yourself demonstrate how the Qur'an teaches this. You can't provide a Qur'anic quote that treats other religions with respect because no such verses exist. The Qur'an is utterly unqiue among all world religions in teaching this kind of religious bigotry.


I did not mean defiance of the religion, I meant you have not accepted the religion by your own will. I am saying that even if I push you to be Muslim you still wont understand it.
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
sciondestiny wrote:
From all of this said it is quite difficult to teach or lecture a person who is not willing to submit to the will of Allah (SWT) or who does not believe in something from nothing.

Ah, yes, because I don't believe that the Qur'an comes from God I am in defiance against God. This is what the Qur'an teaches. This is precisely why so many Muslims are so violent. They are taught by the Qur'an that all non-Muslims are in defiance against God. You yourself demonstrate how the Qur'an teaches this. You can't provide a Qur'anic quote that treats other religions with respect because no such verses exist. The Qur'an is utterly unqiue among all world religions in teaching this kind of religious bigotry.


I did not mean defiance of the religion, I meant you have not accepted the religion by your own will. I am saying that even if I push you to be Muslim you still wont understand it.


You said that I won't submit to the will of God, i.e. in rebellion against God. Since only Satanists are in rebellion against God, you have called me a Satanists. This is religious bigotry, you are a religious bigot. Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a Satanist who is defying God.

You make statements like this, and then you wonder why your fellow Muslims commit acts of violence. Isn't it abundantly clear to you?
mike1reynolds
sciondestiny wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
I've been sitting on this objection for awhile, and a good way to word it finally popped out while I was writing all the above (but it was out of context where it was before I moved it here).

God is not a group. Your father’s explanation is completely unconvincing to me. Hinduism has 33 Billion names for God, and yet in Hinduism, God says I and Me, not We and Our. God is a being of universal oneness, demons are lords of separation, always fighting among ‘Themselves’. Would you refer to God as ‘Them’??!!


This is exactly why I said in the beginning and in many places that it is impossible to know the religion truly if you have not believed in it yourself. If I was to ask Soulfire about the trinity to explain to me what is so special about it and what it is to him and Christians I probably would not fully understand it, why? I am not a Christian and have never been one, even though I read some passages soemtimes I still canot judge it because I do not know it and I woudl never understand or obtain the happiness when he woudl explain it to me. I knew it would come to this Mike and that is why I just can't explin it to you anymore.


This is very unlikely, the trinity is a Catholic concept and doesn't appear in the Bible. Some Protestant churchs make passing reference to it, but not one in a 1000 Protestants could tell you what the Holy Ghost is. I'd be shocked if Soulfire could. It is a very peripheral matter in Christianity, something with no meaning to the personal life of a Christian.

This is a cop-out, to say that unless you're Muslims the Qur'an won't make sense. The Trinity doesn't make sense, but it is extremely peripheral to Christianity. On the other hand, the entirety of the Qur'an doesn't make sense, or doesn't hold water. You have to do backflips to try to get anything coherent out of the Qur'an.

I am not a Hindu, and yet I can make perfect sense of Hinduism. I am not a Buddhist, and yet I can make perfect sense of Buddhism. I am not a Taoist, and yet I can make perfect sense of Taoism. I am not Zen, and yet I can make perfect sense of Zen. I am not Shinto, and yet I can make perfect sense of Sintoism. I am not a shaman, and yet I can make perfect sense of shamanism.

So why is the Qur'an so different from all other religious scriptures? Have you read any other religious scriptures in order to compare your religion? Even the Bible compares favorably, although it is the second most barbaric religious scriptures on the planet.
Soulfire
I am Catholic, the Trinity is ALL of Christianity. The Father (God), The Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit (a.k.a. Holy Ghost). It's not an invention of the Catholic Church as many people say (some even say Hell was invented by the Catholic Church). There are plenty of referrences to the Holy Spirit (also called Holy Ghost) in the Bible.
mike1reynolds
Soulfire wrote:
I am Catholic…

Ah, good, that makes this a better test of sciondestiny’s false assertion.

Soulfire wrote:
…the Trinity is ALL of Christianity. The Father (God), The Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit (a.k.a. Holy Ghost).

But is it central to your faith? What does it mean? What is the Holy Ghost? And does this meaning have a deep personal effect on you, or is it just some piece of intellectual knowledge that has no bearing on your personal life and how you conduct yourself? The point of the issue is that sciondestiny is using this issue as an excuse. He claims the trinity has this deeply profound meaning for most Christians that he will never be able to fathom. I say this is utterly false, even at best, it is just an intellectual concept to anyone that isn't a theologian.

Sciondestiny claims that just like his inability to comprehend the trinity, non-Muslims can never comprehend the Qur'an. Of course, he'd never claim that the Bible is incomprehensible to non-Christians, he knows better, so he is trying to use the cover of this obscure topic, the trinity, that isn't even comprehensible to Christians. It's a dishonest sham of an argument. Now, I’m not saying that Sciondestiny is dishonest, it is a dishonest argument that has been programmed into him. People who have never questioned their own faith are easily lead down the primrose path with deceptive self-serving arguments like the one sciondestiny is repeating here, probably from an imam.

What sciondestiny is doing is acknowledging that the Qur’an is indefensible. So now he is trying to find a Christian concept that is also indefensible, and the trinity is a pretty good choice. I’m not interested in debating whether or not the trinity is defensible. Unless you have an EXTREMELY solid argument, Soulfire, then it would just be a distraction. It is more expedient simply to put the trinity into perspective as the non-essential extremely peripheral thing it is when compared with the utter centrality and unavoidable essentiality of the Qur’an to Islam.
horseatingweeds
mike1reynolds wrote:
When a spiritual founder has a problem, it doesn’t get better, the problem becomes magnified among the less spiritual followers, so Jesus’ modest level of racism reverberates throughout the Western world in magnified form.


Let’s first approach Jesus’ apparent racist comment

Matther 15 wrote:
21Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to
their dogs."
27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.


Mark 7 wrote:
24Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.[g] He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil[h] spirit came and fell at his feet. 26The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27"First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
28"Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."
29Then he told her, "For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter."
30She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.


The woman was from a people with whom Jesus’ people, the Jews, had racial tension. (I decided to leave the racial details out as they are less pertinent and are complicated) They did not even speak to each other and especially not to there woman. They would even cross the street to ovoid each other. I think Jesus wanted to make a point about this. At first he ignored her. Then his apostils asked him to get rid of her. So he approached as a man in the community would be expected to in saying more or less “why should I help one of you?” This gave her a chance to show her wisdom and humility.

Also, Jesus did not us the word “KUON” for dog, rather he used the word “KUNARION” which means puppy. The woman would obviously seen the difference in Jesus’ response and the expected response from a Jewish male.

Jesus first needed to establish a base in the Israelite community obviously because they had been waiting for him. Many Jews assumed that he came ONLY for them and to save them from their difficulties. Contrarily, Jesus makes points such as this throughout his teachings that he has not come ONLY for the Jews nor has he come to save them from Roman oppression rather he was sent for all. It also serves to show that no mater how “doglike” or unworthy we feel that we may all come to the Lord and he will answer us.

Your other example of Jesus only coming for the Jews....

Matthew 3 wrote:
And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.


The Jews had an understanding that being descendants of Jacob insured them salvation. I think it is obvious here that John is contradicting this thought. Later Jesus would also, particularly to the Pharisees.

THere are also many examples of Jesus announcing that he is here for all. One plain and simple comes from Matthew. He also heals many other gentiles.

Matthew wrote:
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."


Also, it is unfair to blame a religion for how people pervert it. Certainly, the Nazis, slave owners and who ever else have taken tide bits of the bible and used it to bolster their agendas. This however is not due to the teachings of the religions but to their affect. Christianity being the TRUTH, or being very close to the TRUTH if your will accept that weight heavily in mans’ heart and motivates him greatly. Perverting one part for convenience can be a good method of rationalizing something that is evil.

We don’t even need religion to do this. Take any authority. Kidnapers have used this tactic. “Billy, your Mom sent me to pick you up. She is very angry at you and we need to get you home fast! Quickly, get in. I’m her friend from work.”

Saying that Jesus is responsible for instilling racism into the Nazis is similar to accusing Billy’s parents of instilling willingness to take rides from straingers. Even if you sight a time that Billy’s mother instructed him that “when I call you, you come right away, I don’t care what you are doing.” And through the use of the term “come” in current English often mean traveling in a car. Or the term “right away” meaning even if you have to take a ride from a coworker.
horseatingweeds
sciondestiny wrote:


Read my previous post Mike and then respond once again with what you said. I do not knwo if you have noticed this and I am sory if it does offend you but you are agreeing to what America is saying about our Qur'an. They wanted to make Saudi Arabia delete some of the verses from the Qur'an, we said no since it is God's word not ours! By saying that teh Qur'an is full of hatred you accept the intentions of the American people!


Why in the world do you think that the US wants to change the Qur'an????

There would be, however, some benefit for the leaders of a country such as Iran or possible Saudi Arabia it’s self to convince the world’s Muslims that the US would attempt such a thing. It would bolster their other claim that the US trying to eradicate all Muslims and Islam.
Soulfire
Okay, so I guess in a way the Trinity is not the central focus of Christianity, Jesus would be. The Holy Ghost is, in essence, the spirit of God that descended upon the apostles. It's hard to understand unless you believe it, only if you have faith does it make sense - but no, Jesus and His relationship to God would be the center of the faith.

I hope that, in some way, clears it up.
horseatingweeds
sciondestiny

If someone where to ask me which book or books of teh bible they should study or first study to understand Christianity I would suggest to first read through Romans and then study the gospels, Matthew, Mark, Lucke and John.

After doing so a person would have a fairly good understanding of Christian beliefe.

How would you approach this similarly.
mike1reynolds
Soulfire wrote:
The Holy Ghost is, in essence, the spirit of God that descended upon the apostles.

So then why is the Holy Ghost considered a seperate entity from God? And yet in thought and prayer Christians never invoke the Holy Ghost as a being seperate from God. So my point is that as a practical matter the trinity has no effect on the thought and conduct of Christianity. If this were not the case, how would you defend against the accusation that the trinity makes Christianity polytheistic and not truly monotheistic?
Scorpio
I am strongly in support of the Danish.

Reasons:

1) They have apologized atleast once
2) Some muslims just found a new hobby of vandalising everything around the world and this must not go on
3) This is jus another reason to go on protests and rampages

I can probably give other reasons.
But now I'd jus like to express my support to them
horseatingweeds
mike1reynolds wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
The Holy Ghost is, in essence, the spirit of God that descended upon the apostles.

So then why is the Holy Ghost considered a seperate entity from God? And yet in thought and prayer Christians never invoke the Holy Ghost as a being seperate from God. So my point is that as a practical matter the trinity has no effect on the thought and conduct of Christianity. If this were not the case, how would you defend against the accusation that the trinity makes Christianity polytheistic and not truly monotheistic?


Sorry soulfire but I am going to claim that the Catholic church did invent the trinity. The bible does speak of the son, father, and holey ghost but as mike1reynolds has pointed to it has little relevance as to how Christians conduct their end of their relationship with God. I see it more as an attempt to understand God. Not in the sense of knowing his, which would then be very important, but more in the sense of understanding the entity or the creator, something we really can’t comprehend.

Example: My dogs can have a perfectly good relationship with be without knowing how my heart works or where I get their food or what I am doing on the computer. They would never understand anyway. All they need to do is act like I’m famous, protect the house and not make so many damned messes. It would be nice if they where not so loud too.

I think the question of the trinity, is it three entities, how does it work, is out of our grasp. If a being can create a universe I’m willing to be it took multi-tasking, maybe that is all it is. Maybe he has split himself up……

This question is along the lines of HOW did he create us, HOW does Jesus dieing bring us a guarantied position is the heavenly kingdom or whatever, there is another good one, HOW will this ever lasting life be spent, will we have jobs?
broadparker
Imagine... (pardon me if this is already said)
-If somebody in a muslim country make a painting of for example Jesus. Would Denmark and all Christian countries in Europe make a living hell? Would they burn ambassades and flags? I think some people are all too extreme in their reactions...
Soulfire
The Catholic Church did not invent it. The Bible speaks of all three, and Christianity (if you believe the 'right' way) has belief of the trinity. At least, every denomination I've seen their specific beliefs for.

The problem is so many false accusations against the Catholic Church. It drives me insane. But, more to the point, Christianity is monotheistic because the trinity is three persons in one.

The trinity did start in the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church was the first and only church at the time! Everything that anyone practices comes from the Catholic Church, they just changed it to suit their wants and needs.

There's a difference, no matter how fuzzy the line may be.
mike1reynolds
Soulfire wrote:
The Catholic Church did not invent it. The Bible speaks of all three, and Christianity (if you believe the 'right' way) has belief of the trinity.

The Bible does not explicitly speak of the Holy Spirit as a seperate entity from God, while obvious Jesus is explicitly a seperate entity from God.

Soulfire wrote:
At least, every denomination I've seen their specific beliefs for.

I was raised Methodist, and the pastor use to say "Father, Son & Holy Ghost" in a singular liturgical ritual that was always repeated in exactly the same manner, but the subject never ever came up in a sermon, or Sunday school. I can remember the students in Sunday school making a joke about it: “What *IS* the Holy Ghost, it sounds *creepy*!”. The youth minister was right there and he didn’t have an answer. The trinity just doesn’t come up in Methodist teachings.

Soulfire wrote:
The problem is so many false accusations against the Catholic Church. It drives me insane. But, more to the point, Christianity is monotheistic because the trinity is three persons in one.

OK, I know who God is, and I know who Jesus is, but I don't have a clue who this Holy Ghost 'person' is? And from the way you keep addressing the subject without ever answering the primary question, it is obvious that you don't know who this 'person' is either.

Soulfire wrote:
The trinity did start in the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church was the first and only church at the time! Everything that anyone practices comes from the Catholic Church, they just changed it to suit their wants and needs.

Your saying they didn't invent it, they changed it. Huh?

Soulfire wrote:
There's a difference, no matter how fuzzy the line may be.

What is the difference?

Did you know that during the period of conflict between Arius and Athanasius over the trinity doctrine, more Christians murdered other Christians (because of this issue) than were killed in all of the Roman persecutions combined?
mike1reynolds
horseatingweeds wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
When a spiritual founder has a problem, it doesn’t get better, the problem becomes magnified among the less spiritual followers, so Jesus’ modest level of racism reverberates throughout the Western world in magnified form.


Let’s first approach Jesus’ apparent racist comment

Matther 15 wrote:
He [Jesus] replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to
their dogs."


Also, Jesus did not us the word “KUON” for dog, rather he used the word “KUNARION” which means puppy. The woman would obviously seen the difference in Jesus’ response and the expected response from a Jewish male.

OK, I concede this point. I noticed that one translation of this said puppy rather than dog, but I thought that the translator was taking liberties to soften the statement.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Your other example of Jesus only coming for the Jews....

Matthew 3 wrote:
And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.


The Jews had an understanding that being descendants of Jacob insured them salvation. I think it is obvious here that John is contradicting this thought. Later Jesus would also, particularly to the Pharisees.

Where does Jesus do this?

There is so little data on the subject that it is hard to make much of a case, but I think that John was more advanced and held in higher esteem by their contemporaries. In one of the gospels Herod likes to listen to John, even though he is personally critical of Herod, and is terrified when Herodias’ daughter asks for John’s head after Herod had made a pledge to give her anything she wanted in front of important guests. By contrast, he sneers at Jesus during his trial. Also, John is widely compared to Elijah and Jesus to Elisha, Elijah being the more important figure in Judaism. So it wouldn’t surprise me if John’s point of view was more evolved.

horseatingweeds wrote:
There are also many examples of Jesus announcing that he is here for all. One plain and simple comes from Matthew. He also heals many other gentiles.

Matthew wrote:
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."


So how would you reconcile this with Acts 11, where Peter is severely criticized by all the other apostles for preaching to gentiles? If Jesus had actually made the statement in Matthew that you quote, then why was preaching to gentiles such a profoundly controversial subject among early Christians? Unlike the life of Jesus which has few historical corroborants that say nothing at all of the content of his ministry, there are a lot of extra-Biblical sources of corroboration for the kind of thing described in Acts 11. Everyone but Peter and his followers were vehemently opposed to trying to convert gentiles.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Also, it is unfair to blame a religion for how people pervert it. Certainly, the Nazis, slave owners and who ever else have taken tide bits of the bible and used it to bolster their agendas.

I was not referring to the Nazis, slave owners or Spanish aristocracy, I was referring to the societies that they convinced.

horseatingweeds wrote:
This however is not due to the teachings of the religions but to their affect. Christianity being the TRUTH, or being very close to the TRUTH if your will accept that weight heavily in mans’ heart and motivates him greatly. Perverting one part for convenience can be a good method of rationalizing something that is evil.

We don’t even need religion to do this. Take any authority. Kidnapers have used this tactic. “Billy, your Mom sent me to pick you up. She is very angry at you and we need to get you home fast! Quickly, get in. I’m her friend from work.”

Saying that Jesus is responsible for instilling racism into the Nazis is similar to accusing Billy’s parents of instilling willingness to take rides from straingers. Even if you sight a time that Billy’s mother instructed him that “when I call you, you come right away, I don’t care what you are doing.” And through the use of the term “come” in current English often mean traveling in a car. Or the term “right away” meaning even if you have to take a ride from a coworker.

So why was anti-Semitism so rampant and ubiquitous in Christian countries? Why do so many people still consider the Jews to have killed Jesus, as if Jesus were not a Jew himself? Why did virtually all of the information about Jesus written by disciples who refused to preach to gentiles (which is to say, everyone but Peter) get destroyed by the early church as heretical? How did the early, exclusively Jewish nature of the Christian community get so white-washed that virtually no one is aware of it today, even though it is extensively alluded to in the New Testament? If you count the number of references to circumcision in the New Testament it is huge. There are so many references because preaching to gentiles was so controversial.

My point is that Jesus’ Jewish only policy had unimaginable repercussions and blow-back. It created a lot of resentment and political conflict that ultimately resulted in the bloody genocide of Jewish Christians and all of the material that they had on Jesus, which of course was the vast majority of it. What was left was barely a pamphlet. After they got done destroying all of the historical material on Jesus that had been handed down by Jewish Christians, there was almost nothing left of his story, and nothing left to appeal to Jews.

It is often said that the Jews rejected Jesus throughout history. The truth is that the early Church destroyed all of the Jewish outreach material that had been developed over three centuries, which was the vast majority of Christian material at the time, specifically in order to make an anti-Jewish religion out of Christianity. After the Nicene council anti-Semitism spread like wildfire and by the end of the century it was so rampant that many versions of the gospels had the “Lord, forgive them for they know not what they do” edited out for anti-Semitic reasons.

I should also note that the primary goal was not to make an anti-Jewish Christianity, it was simply a power grab made by bloody Romans, doing what they always did, (which is kill and rewrite history in their favor) who now claimed to be "Christians". The Roman Italians were not going to loose control of their empire to Jews. So this was the method that they used to wrestle religious authority away from the original Christian authorities who were heavily Judaic in thought, if not in race. In order to do this, they had to turn Christianity against it's source and vilify the messiah's race. It was an amazing con job.
godset
I just wonder?!!? What does the most harm to a religion (in this case Islam) in the opinion of no believers.

Some cartoondrawing in a newspaper (forgotten be the readers in a couple of days) or a person cutting the throat on a helprelieve worker on video on the web???

I have no doubts (but that`s just my opinion)

with the knowledge I posses abuot religion (any relegion) it`s about about worship, respect and love.

Used other ways it is used for political reasons by fanatics that uses his name and word for owen gain or suppresion as seen in some countries. (not only in islamisk countries but also seen eg. by IRA in nothern Ireland)

This is just me oppinion as an Soldier that have served with Danish army`s UN peacekeeping forces in Cyprus, Croatia, Kosovo and Iraq. (where I was wounded and therefor now are disabled and retiered)

A great thank to all the peace loveing and wonderfull people I meat on my service those places. Fortunally it is the majority of people those places that are peacefull, loveing, familypeople, that just want to get along with the rest of the world in peace and harmony. I feel so sorry for these peoples that they get cought in some fanatics greed for hate and uppression.
mrLenin
Those stuffs can't be conceive very seriously. If people would have better humour, there would be less wars and conflicts.
Related topics
I Have a question . Is it the server support Chinese?
LINK SUPPORT??? PLZ HELP ITS CONFUSING
file support
Gigabyte to support four SLI graphics cards on one
What football team do u support?
Tech Support
If you Support asp that is well
2 good Customer Support jokes!!!
Does this host support email redirects
OS support
Please Support my Site - I need votes for the CNC Awards '05
Do we support php include and/or SSI?
Programming Help & Support Guidelines
Updates of the Cartoon Row
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.