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


Islam or Not Islam ?





amirkpe
As you know in Iran a religous regime is ruling the country , and in many cases the islamic rules are not useful and cause the country to be isolated from the world , poor economy,poor culture ....

when i ask some religous persons they say it's not the islam that ruling this country and it''s not the islam that cause the terrors...
and finaly they say that since the islam appeared it has not ruled any country or region and what you see as islam , is just a tool that the rulers use to rule a country ...

i think that if the islam can not be as a religion for all aspects of life, so it's better for them to shut their mouth an d stop telling this that the religion must affect the politic.

something is not usefull so we will not use it ... .
not only islam but all the religions are the main cause of all murders that we see today ...
srdjan
My friend,
You are sadly mistaken, if you think religions are main cause for killings...In case of Christianity, back in the day of the ol' crusade, today in case of Islam. They truth that I belive in, is that religion is, how-so-shamelessly, taken as a disguise, in place of real reasons...like power (in any sense, but we know what it means nowadays..mostly material things, money, oil, world domination...)
I don't think there is a religion that preaches killing and violence (now I know some people will immediately say: "What about Jihad??!!"). They are all, in basis, turned to love and peace...and Jihad is not the primary teaching of Islam..though I do not agree with the idea of having it at all...
Anyways, just my opinion Wink
tc.
DoctorBeaver
One of the biggest problems with Islam is that the Q'uran was written in very ambiguous language - almost a code. The same is true of many medieval occult books. No-one these days knows for certain exactly what was meant.

In Islam, Imams have the authority to re-interpret verses from the Q'uran. As with Christianity, there are those who use a very literal translation and those who believe that what was written was allegorical. However, Imams hold a lot more power over their followers than do Christian Bishops (At least, more than western bishops. There are countries where a Bishop's word is accepted as the law of God; but, fortunately, most Bishops are peaceful people). Plus, one has to remember that the message of the New Testament is, to all intents and purposes, a message of peace. Although the general message of the Q'uran is also one of peace, there are passages that can be interpreted in a very different way. And that is where the "fundamentalist" Imams get their beliefs.

Because of the amount of authority an Imam holds, if he says a certain passage in the Q'uran means a certain something, then that is what his followers will believe. This happens also in Christianity, but we call them cults. In Islam, however, an Imam must earn his rank; anyone can start a cult and declare himself a priest.

That is why extremist Imams hold so much more power than cult leaders; they have to be highly respected by other Islamic clerics or they wouldn't be Imams in the first place. And all Imams are equal in rank. Whereas in the Church of England the Archbishop of York is the highest authority, and in Catholicism it is the Pope, there is no 1 Imam who can direct the others. Therefore, if 1 Imam says that the Q'uran directs that anyone who says or does anything against Islam must be killed, there is no-one who can overrule him.

That's enough for tonight. I'd like to see this thread develop and get back to it. Thanks for a very interesting subject.
Soulfire
My opinions of Islam are not well. For all those people who are going to rush into Islam's rescue and say "Oh it's peaceful, oh we don't do that, oh we respect everyone." Save that.

They are still killing the innocent civilians, and they continue to. Most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.

It's clear that a few "bad" apples can ruin the entire bunch. All these terrorists succeed in doing (besides killing themselves and other people) is to futher distort and destroy the image of Islam.

It's similar into the way in which the rest of the world views America, distorted and destroyed.
yasaroz
Soulfire wrote:
My opinions of Islam are not well. For all those people who are going to rush into Islam's rescue and say "Oh it's peaceful, oh we don't do that, oh we respect everyone." Save that.

They are still killing the innocent civilians, and they continue to. Most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.

It's clear that a few "bad" apples can ruin the entire bunch. All these terrorists succeed in doing (besides killing themselves and other people) is to futher distort and destroy the image of Islam.

It's similar into the way in which the rest of the world views America, distorted and destroyed.


Are you sure that muslims are terrorists? US and Brits striked Afghanistan and Iraq with untrue reasons and killed thousands of civilians (most of them defenceless women and children). Since 2003, more than 200.000 civilians has been killed in Iraq by US troops. If an Iraqi muslim, to defence his country strikes US troops, he's named "terrorist". US and and Brits were not find the so-called nuclear and bilogical weapons of Saddam but muslims are still terrorists (!). US exploits Iraq's petrol sources but Iraqis and muslims still named terrorists. Who is the terrorist(s)? World's number 1 terrorist is president Bush and second is the Blair. Are Bush and Blair muslim? They are christians. So...
swapnalokam
Quote:

Are you sure that muslims are terrorists? US and Brits striked Afghanistan and Iraq with untrue reasons and killed thousands of civilians (most of them defenceless women and children). Since 2003, more than 200.000 civilians has been killed in Iraq by US troops. If an Iraqi muslim, to defence his country strikes US troops, he's named "terrorist". US and and Brits were not find the so-called nuclear and bilogical weapons of Saddam but muslims are still terrorists (!). US exploits Iraq's petrol sources but Iraqis and muslims still named terrorists. Who is the terrorist(s)? World's number 1 terrorist is president Bush and second is the Blair. Are Bush and Blair muslim? They are christians. So...


I completely agree with you.. This was the same exact thing I thought of posting as a reply when I satrted reading this topic.. and refering to statments above... There was a time christians where domining all over the world... in South America.. you would get beheaded if you didn't become christian... people where killing innocent people holding bible in one hand.. and they didn't even leave childrens alone in many tribes of Red Indians.. So what %%%% should we call the chirstians at that time.. (terrorists x 3)... So think of what your grand fathers done to this world... and how did most of the people become chirstians... just cause they don't want to get killed.... So Think...
DoctorBeaver
swapnalokam wrote:
Quote:

Are you sure that muslims are terrorists? US and Brits striked Afghanistan and Iraq with untrue reasons and killed thousands of civilians (most of them defenceless women and children). Since 2003, more than 200.000 civilians has been killed in Iraq by US troops. If an Iraqi muslim, to defence his country strikes US troops, he's named "terrorist". US and and Brits were not find the so-called nuclear and bilogical weapons of Saddam but muslims are still terrorists (!). US exploits Iraq's petrol sources but Iraqis and muslims still named terrorists. Who is the terrorist(s)? World's number 1 terrorist is president Bush and second is the Blair. Are Bush and Blair muslim? They are christians. So...


I completely agree with you.. This was the same exact thing I thought of posting as a reply when I satrted reading this topic.. and refering to statments above... There was a time christians where domining all over the world... in South America.. you would get beheaded if you didn't become christian... people where killing innocent people holding bible in one hand.. and they didn't even leave childrens alone in many tribes of Red Indians.. So what %%%% should we call the chirstians at that time.. (terrorists x 3)... So think of what your grand fathers done to this world... and how did most of the people become chirstians... just cause they don't want to get killed.... So Think...


I think you'll find that Christians accept that those days were awful and should never have happened. But Christians have now seen the errors of their ways. That's a lesson some (and I stress SOME) Moslems have yet to learn.
yasaroz
I know that all christians aren't support Bush, even most of them peacefull about muslims. We are, muslims, believe that Jesus and Moses are prophets of God. And I think, if Muslims, Christians and Jews increase their knowledge about each other, world will be more peacefull than today. This is possible, because all of us believe in One God.
gunnarr
Hey lads, remember the golden rule, treat the people likewise you want the people to treat you. Well, that comes from christian religion. I believe president Bush doesn't want Iraq to invate the US, still he, the christian man himself, invates iraq. Religion is most of the time a tool, exploited by politicians to make the crowd obey or do what the politicians wants the crowd to do.

The sarcastic part is that the core of many religions is "dont hurt others".

We must keep in mind that US tanks are arcing over iraqy houses, us troops are killing and raping those "terrorist's" wifes, sisters and daughters, us troops are murdering their sons. Those men have no homes, no families and nothing to live for so they chose to blow themselves up, only if they can kill some americans in the proccess. And they are called Terrorists for that. They don't have the same military resources as the united states have so they find other ways of fighting back. Some might say "well, so they kill innocent people?" Iraq IS innocent, no chemical weapons or connection to al quieda has been found. Still, us troops remain there causing caos.
matrix07
ISLAM IS ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED AND PEACEFUL RELIGION!ISLAM TEACHES PEACE AND HARMONY AMONG EVERYONE!!!
nopaniers
yasaroz wrote:
And I think, if Muslims, Christians and Jews increase their knowledge about each other, world will be more peacefull than today.

I certainly think that's true. It's easy to hate something (or someone) that you don't understand... and it's a lot harder to spread lies and hatred if people are well informed.

Quote:
This is possible, because all of us believe in One God.

That doesn't mean we have to agree, though. Wink
crasso
20. century's economy is the most destructive religion in this world, responsible for ten times more killing than all religion wars from the past together.
Gieter
crasso wrote:
20. century's economy is the most destructive religion in this world, responsible for ten times more killing than all religion wars from the past together.


An economic system is not the same as a religion.

Do you have accurate data to prove this? I guess you're talking about capitalism, but I think "communism" (I put it between braces so that it's clear that I'm talking about the totalitarian regimes who claimed to be communist) killed more people than capitalism.
Epistis
The Foundations of Islam, as well as the Foundations of most religions, almost have it right. But they carry it too far. They forget that the ONLY thing that matters is Living with God in Mind and Spirit. The Journey Home is our focus.
There is no place in Islam for terrorism and such hate.

Yeshua the Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, Buddha, all the Great Messengers(pbut) all taught the same thing. But people became blinded and began worshipping the Teachers, while the Teachers spoke of Worshipping ONE Entity. The All-God. The Supreme. The Everything.
Soulfire
You're not getting my point. Terrorists have an intent to kill (sometimes killing themselves in the process) as many innocent people as possible. The U.S. went into the middle east to try to help. People seem to overlook Saddam's removal. But, in all honesty, if we pull out now - they'll just HATE us even more. It's a lose-lose situation for the United States.

Let me ask you this question:
If you were president, and ALL of your intelligence was saying there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.... would you just sit and wait around?

Note: I am not saying that there are, or aren't, weapons of mass destruction. I would like to stress the difference between found and non-existent. But if all signs were pointing to something bad happen...

Perhaps we should just nuke the entire middle east! Then there would be no middle east for the liberals to complain, b**ch, and moan about!

Just kidding about the last statement.
nopaniers
Soulfire wrote:
The U.S. went into the middle east to try to help.


Well that is something that I don't believe. If it was then it was a really, really shortsighted way of doing it.

I think it is because, as Cheney, Wolfowitz and others wrote:
Quote:
America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

They did because they believe that the US should use their military to enforce their will on the world or otherwise its economic and strategic interests will challenged. Their ideology has no ethical problems with causing thousands of deaths, and takes no account of the fact that the world does not want to live under US control, or indeed any ethical considerations at all.

Quote:
Let me ask you this question: If you were president, and ALL of your intelligence was saying there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.... would you just sit and wait around?


I don't really want to get into this argument, because it's been had (and won) a thousand times. There was already the embarassments to the US government of uranium from Niger, the falseness of the claims of knowing where any of the WMD were, the wrong claims about Iraq's nuclear program which were dismissed by the IAEA, the readiness (45 minutes in the dodgy dossier) of Iraq to attack, the false claims about various parts (including some aluminium tubes) centrifuges, and the giant guns, for example.

Sadly WMD are not banned, with only the NPT and the Chemical Weapons Convention regulating the worst of them. I do believe that these weapons should be banned (and would like to see the treaties extended a lot, including to landmines), but that should be done through treaties and supporting the institutions which regulate them (and yes, that is a reference to the UN). Instead, the irony is that the US uses every opportunity it has to water down these treaties, and take away the UN's power to regulate them. Put it this way, if we didn't have the NPT and the IAEA then every country in the world would have nuclear weapons. As it is, only a handful do, and not a single one has become a nuclear power which signed the NPT (South Africa did, but they have subsequently disarmed).

Quote:
Perhaps we should just nuke the entire middle east! Then there would be no middle east for the liberals to complain, b**ch, and moan about!


I know that you're kidding. It seems to me that in the US politics becomes like a sport, where you cheer for one side or the other, regardless of the morality. I really don't agree with that. There are basic morals which make starting unprovoked wars wrong. So sadly, it kills thousands of people, and only leads to more violence. Standing up to this sort of thing is a good conservative thing to do.
gunnarr
The US did of course not assault the middle east to help anyone but themselves. Saddam posed no great threat until US citizens had to pay a little bit more for the gallon of oil. Then, Saddam becaume this great offence to western civilization and Iraq had to be invaded instantly, even against the EU's will. And if nuclear weapons were the true reason for the invasion, why haven't they attacked North Korea?

North Korea hasn't Iraq's oil resources. As simple as that. And, Bush maybe wanted to finish the mission his father failed.
selim06
DoctorBeaver wrote:
One of the biggest problems with Islam is that the Q'uran was written in very ambiguous language - almost a code. The same is true of many medieval occult books. No-one these days knows for certain exactly what was meant.

In Islam, Imams have the authority to re-interpret verses from the Q'uran. As with Christianity, there are those who use a very literal translation and those who believe that what was written was allegorical. However, Imams hold a lot more power over their followers than do Christian Bishops (At least, more than western bishops. There are countries where a Bishop's word is accepted as the law of God; but, fortunately, most Bishops are peaceful people). Plus, one has to remember that the message of the New Testament is, to all intents and purposes, a message of peace. Although the general message of the Q'uran is also one of peace, there are passages that can be interpreted in a very different way. And that is where the "fundamentalist" Imams get their beliefs.

Because of the amount of authority an Imam holds, if he says a certain passage in the Q'uran means a certain something, then that is what his followers will believe. This happens also in Christianity, but we call them cults. In Islam, however, an Imam must earn his rank; anyone can start a cult and declare himself a priest.

That is why extremist Imams hold so much more power than cult leaders; they have to be highly respected by other Islamic clerics or they wouldn't be Imams in the first place. And all Imams are equal in rank. Whereas in the Church of England the Archbishop of York is the highest authority, and in Catholicism it is the Pope, there is no 1 Imam who can direct the others. Therefore, if 1 Imam says that the Q'uran directs that anyone who says or does anything against Islam must be killed, there is no-one who can overrule him.

That's enough for tonight. I'd like to see this thread develop and get back to it. Thanks for a very interesting subject.


I'm a Muslim and i don't think so...
A question:How many kind of Quran in the world?and Bible?
Answer:Only 1 Quran but lots of Bible...
If you understand all of the Bibles we can understand a book...
Quran is a Holly Book and no need to making changes and it's really understandable...But in Iran the goverment and some of people don't want to understand what's the truth in Quran...So they obey their cultural rules...Turkey also has %99 of Muslim people but we obey the democrathic rules...
abone
If you don't have sufficient knowledge about Islam and you want to obtain correct informations about it,I advice you the link is below..

http://www.harunyahya.com

Many languages could be choosen from "Other Languages" section at right.Please Don't comment on Islam without obtaining sufficient information about it. Idea
Rosanova
DoctorBeaver wrote:
One of the biggest problems with Islam is that the Q'uran was written in very ambiguous language - almost a code. The same is true of many medieval occult books. No-one these days knows for certain exactly what was meant.

In Islam, Imams have the authority to re-interpret verses from the Q'uran. As with Christianity, there are those who use a very literal translation and those who believe that what was written was allegorical. However, Imams hold a lot more power over their followers than do Christian Bishops (At least, more than western bishops. There are countries where a Bishop's word is accepted as the law of God; but, fortunately, most Bishops are peaceful people). Plus, one has to remember that the message of the New Testament is, to all intents and purposes, a message of peace. Although the general message of the Q'uran is also one of peace, there are passages that can be interpreted in a very different way. And that is where the "fundamentalist" Imams get their beliefs.

Because of the amount of authority an Imam holds, if he says a certain passage in the Q'uran means a certain something, then that is what his followers will believe. This happens also in Christianity, but we call them cults. In Islam, however, an Imam must earn his rank; anyone can start a cult and declare himself a priest.

That is why extremist Imams hold so much more power than cult leaders; they have to be highly respected by other Islamic clerics or they wouldn't be Imams in the first place. And all Imams are equal in rank. Whereas in the Church of England the Archbishop of York is the highest authority, and in Catholicism it is the Pope, there is no 1 Imam who can direct the others. Therefore, if 1 Imam says that the Q'uran directs that anyone who says or does anything against Islam must be killed, there is no-one who can overrule him.

That's enough for tonight. I'd like to see this thread develop and get back to it. Thanks for a very interesting subject.


Great manifest you did made here. And inspired by The DaVinci Codex, do I agree that this is only an islamic issue. Then next once opon a time, before the christans overruled nothren europe, was it the Norse/German mythology that ruled in our part of the world. Then when the Christian crusaders, burned everything down that reminded us about the past and even these humans who still would like to keep their old thoughts.

Be aware...!!! For I really does think that something big is ongoing right now, and yes I think that it would end into a huge bloodbath, and the loosers would be the normal regular people like you and me.

Cheers!
1MinutePictures
I hate Islam and in my oppinion Islam has destroyed alot of nice countries like Iran. I am half Iranian so I know what I am talking about.
Epistis
1MinutePictures wrote:
I hate Islam and in my oppinion Islam has destroyed alot of nice countries like Iran. I am half Iranian so I know what I am talking about.


Islam itself is a wonderful religion. It may not be my religion of choice (although I did go through a phase where Islam was IT), but its core beliefs are solid. A true Muslim nation would never have the atrocities that are abundant now. Islam is a peaceful religion, and this is why I am confused as to why these 'Muslim regimes' exist. Oh well.
Soulfire
gunnarr wrote:
The US did of course not assault the middle east to help anyone but themselves. Saddam posed no great threat until US citizens had to pay a little bit more for the gallon of oil. Then, Saddam becaume this great offence to western civilization and Iraq had to be invaded instantly, even against the EU's will. And if nuclear weapons were the true reason for the invasion, why haven't they attacked North Korea?

North Korea hasn't Iraq's oil resources. As simple as that. And, Bush maybe wanted to finish the mission his father failed.

Pretty high and mighty of you to assume you know why he went to war. How's about we call up Bush and have a little chat?
Soulfire
Epistis wrote:
1MinutePictures wrote:
I hate Islam and in my oppinion Islam has destroyed alot of nice countries like Iran. I am half Iranian so I know what I am talking about.


Islam itself is a wonderful religion. It may not be my religion of choice (although I did go through a phase where Islam was IT), but its core beliefs are solid. A true Muslim nation would never have the atrocities that are abundant now. Islam is a peaceful religion, and this is why I am confused as to why these 'Muslim regimes' exist. Oh well.

So the whole "Islam is peaceful" thing must explain the terrorism. I know that not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. I have nothing against Islam (in general) personally, but I have a deep-rooted disgust for those who try to use Islam to justify themselves killing innocent civilians.

One person claims the reason terrorists attack is because Western culture offends them. Well, we aren't asking your women to wear two-piece bathing suits are we? Nope. A lot of people will say "Oh, but we're forcing democracy and America on the people." Well, not really, democracy is the worst form of government, it's just better than all the other ones we've tried. Who would just sit there and watch a dictator torture his own population?

And to those who say 'Well, they don't want us here." No, that is the message you are getting from the liberal media, who shows only the bad and none of the good. Turn it to any liberal news station, and you will see "Car Bomb in Iraq kills 2 Americans" versus the one major conservative news network (Fox) who will talk about the progress in the elections and congress (or parliament?) of Iraq.

The Democrats are using bad things in Iraq to their advantage, and unfortunately we are surrounded by the liberal media, subject to only one side, and their opinions become embedded into us and become our own opinions.
Epistis
Soulfire wrote:
Epistis wrote:
1MinutePictures wrote:
I hate Islam and in my oppinion Islam has destroyed alot of nice countries like Iran. I am half Iranian so I know what I am talking about.


Islam itself is a wonderful religion. It may not be my religion of choice (although I did go through a phase where Islam was IT), but its core beliefs are solid. A true Muslim nation would never have the atrocities that are abundant now. Islam is a peaceful religion, and this is why I am confused as to why these 'Muslim regimes' exist. Oh well.

So the whole "Islam is peaceful" thing must explain the terrorism. I know that not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. I have nothing against Islam (in general) personally, but I have a deep-rooted disgust for those who try to use Islam to justify themselves killing innocent civilians.

One person claims the reason terrorists attack is because Western culture offends them. Well, we aren't asking your women to wear two-piece bathing suits are we? Nope. A lot of people will say "Oh, but we're forcing democracy and America on the people." Well, not really, democracy is the worst form of government, it's just better than all the other ones we've tried. Who would just sit there and watch a dictator torture his own population?

And to those who say 'Well, they don't want us here." No, that is the message you are getting from the liberal media, who shows only the bad and none of the good. Turn it to any liberal news station, and you will see "Car Bomb in Iraq kills 2 Americans" versus the one major conservative news network (Fox) who will talk about the progress in the elections and congress (or parliament?) of Iraq.

The Democrats are using bad things in Iraq to their advantage, and unfortunately we are surrounded by the liberal media, subject to only one side, and their opinions become embedded into us and become our own opinions.


Yeah, Islam is mostly used now as an excuse for violence.
But, of course, the same goes with all religions.
It's the same as the whole 'Devil made me do it' thing.
"Why did you kill 4000 innocent children?"
"God told me to."

I believe that while we probably should have minded our
own business and not gone into Iraq, the world is better
off without Saddam, and I've seen many Iraqis say that
they are very happy that we came to help them.
selim06
1MinutePictures wrote:
I hate Islam and in my oppinion Islam has destroyed alot of nice countries like Iran. I am half Iranian so I know what I am talking about.

Are you sure that?If i were you i don't make comment because it seems you are half Iranian but you don't know what had came by Islamic Culture in Iran...So please don't make comment about this way "i'm half Iranian"you can hate Islam or another religion but you can't hurt the people's opinions...
geeren
i know that, like in morocco, they think they rule Mad
selim06
Epistis wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
Epistis wrote:
1MinutePictures wrote:
I hate Islam and in my oppinion Islam has destroyed alot of nice countries like Iran. I am half Iranian so I know what I am talking about.


Islam itself is a wonderful religion. It may not be my religion of choice (although I did go through a phase where Islam was IT), but its core beliefs are solid. A true Muslim nation would never have the atrocities that are abundant now. Islam is a peaceful religion, and this is why I am confused as to why these 'Muslim regimes' exist. Oh well.

So the whole "Islam is peaceful" thing must explain the terrorism. I know that not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. I have nothing against Islam (in general) personally, but I have a deep-rooted disgust for those who try to use Islam to justify themselves killing innocent civilians.

One person claims the reason terrorists attack is because Western culture offends them. Well, we aren't asking your women to wear two-piece bathing suits are we? Nope. A lot of people will say "Oh, but we're forcing democracy and America on the people." Well, not really, democracy is the worst form of government, it's just better than all the other ones we've tried. Who would just sit there and watch a dictator torture his own population?

And to those who say 'Well, they don't want us here." No, that is the message you are getting from the liberal media, who shows only the bad and none of the good. Turn it to any liberal news station, and you will see "Car Bomb in Iraq kills 2 Americans" versus the one major conservative news network (Fox) who will talk about the progress in the elections and congress (or parliament?) of Iraq.

The Democrats are using bad things in Iraq to their advantage, and unfortunately we are surrounded by the liberal media, subject to only one side, and their opinions become embedded into us and become our own opinions.


Yeah, Islam is mostly used now as an excuse for violence.
But, of course, the same goes with all religions.
It's the same as the whole 'Devil made me do it' thing.
"Why did you kill 4000 innocent children?"
"God told me to."

I believe that while we probably should have minded our
own business and not gone into Iraq, the world is better
off without Saddam, and I've seen many Iraqis say that
they are very happy that we came to help them.

What a dramatical post...But i see millions of Iraqius people says "I wish USA didn't come here if they kill us what's their difference to SAdddam...I hate Saddam but nobody should dead because life is good....
Epistis
Quote:
What a dramatical post...But i see millions of Iraqius people says "I wish USA didn't come here if they kill us what's their difference to SAdddam...I hate Saddam but nobody should dead because life is good....


Aboslutely right. There are those that are happy, and those that aren't.
To me, in the big scheme of things, none of it matters.
I couldn't care less about what our governments are doing.
insolent1
Epistis wrote:
1MinutePictures wrote:
I hate Islam and in my oppinion Islam has destroyed alot of nice countries like Iran. I am half Iranian so I know what I am talking about.


Islam itself is a wonderful religion. It may not be my religion of choice (although I did go through a phase where Islam was IT), but its core beliefs are solid. A true Muslim nation would never have the atrocities that are abundant now. Islam is a peaceful religion, and this is why I am confused as to why these 'Muslim regimes' exist. Oh well.


abone wrote:
If you don't have sufficient knowledge about Islam and you want to obtain correct informations about it,I advice you the link is below..

http://www.harunyahya.com

Many languages could be choosen from "Other Languages" section at right.Please Don't comment on Islam without obtaining sufficient information about it. Idea


Thank you for your writings.

Nobody must say that Islam associates with terrorism. Maybe, someone who is muslim can kill someone. This is his/her fault.
I dont associates Christianity with terrorism the case for Adolf Hitler.
Everybody must think like me about Islam is opposite to terrorism.
dandan
Epistis wrote:
The Foundations of Islam, as well as the Foundations of most religions, almost have it right. But they carry it too far. They forget that the ONLY thing that matters is Living with God in Mind and Spirit. The Journey Home is our focus.
There is no place in Islam for terrorism and such hate.

Yeshua the Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, Buddha, all the Great Messengers(pbut) all taught the same thing. But people became blinded and began worshipping the Teachers, while the Teachers spoke of Worshipping ONE Entity. The All-God. The Supreme. The Everything.


Oh really? I don't think so. Jesus claimed that He was the ONLY way to the Father. He did not say "I am just one of the many ways to the Father" he specifically said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Light. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6)

Muhammad claimed that Islam was the 'true' religion and got rid of the pagan lifestyle- which is still existant in the Hindu and other Eastern religions.

All religions are not the same.
Subsonic Sound
srdjan wrote:
My friend,
You are sadly mistaken, if you think religions are main cause for killings...In case of Christianity, back in the day of the ol' crusade, today in case of Islam. They truth that I belive in, is that religion is, how-so-shamelessly, taken as a disguise, in place of real reasons...like power (in any sense, but we know what it means nowadays..mostly material things, money, oil, world domination...)
I don't think there is a religion that preaches killing and violence (now I know some people will immediately say: "What about Jihad??!!"). They are all, in basis, turned to love and peace...and Jihad is not the primary teaching of Islam..though I do not agree with the idea of having it at all...
Anyways, just my opinion Wink
tc.


I get what you mean, but it becomes a little clearer if you change the terms a little.

There is no faith that glorifies killing. There is no faith that rules over anywhere.

Religion though, that's another matter. Religion does both, all the time. In the medieval times, the Pope was the de facto ruler of Europe, up until the reformation. He was (and is) the head of his religion - but not of his faith.

Churches, institutions, religious figures, religious decrees... they've done a lot of good, yes, but also a lot of bad. Forgive my constant use of the Catholic church as an example - it's an easy target. The catholic church called the Crusades, and even today the Catholic church uses shameful and poorly justified pseudo-science to denounce the effectiveness of contraception in stopping the spread of HIV - making themselves accomplices to murder, in my view.

The Christian faith of course does no such thing.

Catholics burned protestents, protestents burned catholics.

The Christian faith preaches tolerance and forgiveness, and loving thy neighbour.

I could go on, but you get my point. Faith does the world no harm. Religion does.
dandan
Subsonic Sound wrote:
srdjan wrote:
My friend,
You are sadly mistaken, if you think religions are main cause for killings...In case of Christianity, back in the day of the ol' crusade, today in case of Islam. They truth that I belive in, is that religion is, how-so-shamelessly, taken as a disguise, in place of real reasons...like power (in any sense, but we know what it means nowadays..mostly material things, money, oil, world domination...)
I don't think there is a religion that preaches killing and violence (now I know some people will immediately say: "What about Jihad??!!"). They are all, in basis, turned to love and peace...and Jihad is not the primary teaching of Islam..though I do not agree with the idea of having it at all...
Anyways, just my opinion Wink
tc.


I get what you mean, but it becomes a little clearer if you change the terms a little.

There is no faith that glorifies killing. There is no faith that rules over anywhere.

Religion though, that's another matter. Religion does both, all the time. In the medieval times, the Pope was the de facto ruler of Europe, up until the reformation. He was (and is) the head of his religion - but not of his faith.

Churches, institutions, religious figures, religious decrees... they've done a lot of good, yes, but also a lot of bad. Forgive my constant use of the Catholic church as an example - it's an easy target. The catholic church called the Crusades, and even today the Catholic church uses shameful and poorly justified pseudo-science to denounce the effectiveness of contraception in stopping the spread of HIV - making themselves accomplices to murder, in my view.

The Christian faith of course does no such thing.

Catholics burned protestents, protestents burned catholics.

The Christian faith preaches tolerance and forgiveness, and loving thy neighbour.

I could go on, but you get my point. Faith does the world no harm. Religion does.


But you should know that the Crusades occured to counter-attack the Moslem's attack on Italy several years before. Anyway, back to the topic, I totally agree with you.
Like I'm a Christian; not a Catholic and by looking at history, all the wrong which were commited in the name of religion was primarily due to its wierd leaders. The Pope is a human- he is not perfect like some Catholics think. Thus, even the Pope or the "Head" of the Catholic Church is corrupt in many ways, just like us. Same goes for the Islamic Mullas, Hindu priests, Buddhist monks.
Soulfire
Personally, I'm not generally "for" any religion other than Christianity, or lack of religion. But the thing that bothers me about Islam is their willingness to kill for allah, and I am aware that it's not all of Islam (blame the liberal media in the U.S. for this), but look at this statement: most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.
Subsonic Sound
People are perfectly willing to kill for God, if it comes to that. Even today.

Didn't Bush say at one point that God told him to go to war in Iraq, for a start?
Soulfire
Subsonic Sound wrote:
People are perfectly willing to kill for God, if it comes to that. Even today.

Didn't Bush say at one point that God told him to go to war in Iraq, for a start?

I don't think Bush ever said that, but it's possible, and I wouldn't doubt it. And trust me, God's command is much more important than the complaints, questions, and commands of man.
Subsonic Sound
In your view, certainly. But that's not the point - how can it be alarming that Muslims are willing to kill in the name of Allah, but normal that Christians are willing to kill in the name of God?
Soulfire
Subsonic Sound wrote:
In your view, certainly. But that's not the point - how can it be alarming that Muslims are willing to kill in the name of Allah, but normal that Christians are willing to kill in the name of God?

I think it's in the way that the Muslims do it. Christians don't fly airplanes into buildings, bomb buildings, sink ships, etc. Christians shouldn't support killing anyways, because God clearly says "Thou shalt not kill."
Subsonic Sound
The Koran has rules against killing too. Pretty much all faiths do. But the religious leaders exort them to do it anyway, in Christianity as well as Islam. But does the method of the killing really make so much difference? Murder is murder.

It's true that terrorist means seem more shocking to us, but I wonder if that's because the stuff we're doing is a long way away, and we don't really see it in the same way we see terrorist attacks on our own soil. Cluster bombs and firebombs are absolutely horrific.
insolent1
Soulfire wrote:

I think it's in the way that the Muslims do it. Christians don't fly airplanes into buildings, bomb buildings, sink ships, etc. Christians shouldn't support killing anyways, because God clearly says "Thou shalt not kill."


Quote:
Sunday, May 30, 2004
ETA Terrorism

El Mundo publishes today an article about the Spanish terrorist group ETA - apparantly today is the first time in 30 years that the terrorists have gone a whole year without killing anyone (not counting the 1999 truce between ETA and the Spanish Government).

This does not suggest any new benevolence on behalf of the terrorists. Last year bombs planted by ETA in a carpark in Santander, hotels in Alicante and Benidorm, and other buildings and public transport in Pamplona, Madrid, the Basque Country, Navarra etc. Police also succeeded in finding explosives being transported to Madrid by two ETA terrorists just weeks before the Madrid train bombings. Since 1972, ETA has killed 848 people, according to El Mundo, and since breaking the truce in 1999, has caused the death of 46 victims and injured over 300.

It would be a relief for everybody in Spain if ETA were to rethink its violent policies in Spain's new climate of political dialogue and consensus. Many see this as a historical moment in Spain as, for the first time, political parties have agreed to negotiate constitutional change (even the King of Spain referred to this possibility recently).


What about ETA(in Spain) or IRA (in Irland)?

I also think that there are too many people who are killed because of fetching democracy,their profits. This does not point terrorism in environment.But it is also terrorism in my opinion.
mike1reynolds
Few westerners realize that Muhammed did not write the Quran, but rather it was dictated to him by an unseen entity. I think that Muhammed is an extremely impressive person, but the credibility of Islam rests not on the characters of Muhammed, but on the nature of this unseen entity. It is similar to Mormonism in the sense that Joseph Smith was also an extremely impressive person, but the validity of Mormonism rests not on his character, but on the nature of the entities that brought the Book of Mormons too him.

Even if the issue is not resolvable, it is quite straight forward. If you start hearing a voice that claims to be an angel, how do you verify this? It is the must fundamental question that any human being would have about such an experience, and yet it seems to be an issue that is all but completely overlooked by Islam. I’ve had two experiences with trying to debate this issue with Muslims, one an Imam and the other the son of an Imam, and in both cases the issue was most or entirely sidestepped. The Imam kept changing the subject to the credibility of Muhammed. No matter how much I asserted my respect for Muhammed in extreme terms, the Imam kept defending Muhammed and seemed so completely incapable of questioning the identity of the entity that he could not come up with a single defense for the assertion that the entity was angelic, other than a reference to the Night Journey, which is in no way differentiates between whether the entity is demonic or angelic. When I had this debate more recently with an Imam’s son he was at least able to provide a highly subjective argument, alleging that the entity did something with light that only angels can do. But since only Islam applies this attribute to angels vs. jinn, the argument was circular reasoning.

To many Christians this might sound like an intractable problem, but it is actually much more straight forward than one might imagine. Take the example of the trial of Joan of Arc: the pro-British clerical court in Burgundy HAD to convict Joan of witchcraft and yet after grilling her and the Archangel that spoke through her for weeks, the strongest support for their assertion, the first charge listed, was that she wore men’s clothing. It was such an obvious sham that one of the British ministers present at her execution wailed from a tower, “God help us all, we are murdering a saint!” A priest at the scene defied the clergy and hastily made a simple crucifix, tossing it to her is what made her eligible of canonization. As soon as the paperwork of the trial reached Rome the conviction was overturned. How is that all of these church officials could be so certain that Joan was in fact hearing the voice of an Archangel? How is it that even high ranking political figures from the opposing army became convinced that she was genuinely speaking the words of an Archangel?

Unlike the archangel that spoke through Joan, the Quran is full of double speak and subtle implications that are not immediately obvious. The Quran never acknowledges, not once, that *anyone* could sincerely disbelieve the Quran. The Quran asserts that anyone who claims to disbelieve the Quran is in fact jealous. Logically this is self-contradictory, if they are jealous then they do believe, if they didn’t believe in the Quran then what could they be jealous of? The hidden implication here is that those who disbelieve in the Quran must be in league with Satan. While it never says this explicitly, who else but a Satanist could be jealous of someone else having non-exclusive access to the word of God? Why be jealous when you could simply adhere to it and have it too? So there are two layers of self-contradiction in this one Quranic verse, then there is a third (and possibly fourth): the Quranic verse extols Muslims not to be angry with such non-Muslims precisely because their motivation is jealousy. So it implies that all infidels are Satanists, and then says that you should be nice to Satanists. Words that come from the divine are dense with layer upon layer of meaning, while words that come from Satan are equally dense with lie upon lie and deception upon deception.

The Quran reads like the Hellfire and brimstone sermon of a conservative Baptist minister, it is perpetually riling against all of the evil people who are supposedly going to Hell, especially among Christians and Jews. It is a book of hate that is perpetually describing how evil most human beings are. It is ‘the glass is half empty’ approach to humanity. Every other religion on the planet, even Christianity, is full of statements about personal-responsibility and accountability, saying to look to yourself first instead of the mote in the other guy’s eye. The Quran on the other hand, seldom talks about this, and only in the briefest passing when it does, and instead talks ad infinitium about how vile everyone else is. It is a book that endlessly reinforces the message that bigotry is an expression of piety. As another example, when my last debate concluded, the Imam’s son asserted that he could not teach me anything because I would submit to the will of Allah. Which reinforced my point that the Quran implies over and over that all infidels are in open rebellion against God and in league with Satan. So many Muslims behave in such a violent manner because they the Quran indoctrinates Muslims with the belief that all non-Muslims, and even members of other Muslims sects, are essentially Satanists.
MaMdOuH ViRuS
I think That Islam is the best religion can any body nows

but the problem is no body understand Islam
MaMdOuH ViRuS
Subsonic Sound wrote:
People are perfectly willing to kill for God, if it comes to that. Even today.

Didn't Bush say at one point that God told him to go to war in Iraq, for a start?



i agree with u
MaMdOuH ViRuS
I think That Islam is the best religion can any body knows

but the problem is no body understand Islam

even the Muslim Poeple
mike1reynolds
So what is your defense for the validity of the entity that approached Muhammed as being the archangel that it claimed to be? If you started hearing voices would you automatically take the statements that you heard at face value?

I'm certainly not saying that because one hears voices that it automatically invalidates the experience. I take St. Teresa's and Joan of Arc's locutions (Catholic term for hearing the voices of angels, saints or Jesus) at face value, but not without first having critically questioned it in order to rule out a sinister source for the voices that they heard.
KSheriff
I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if I'm just reitterating another post.

Islam has been used as a means of justifying terrorist acts. Unfortunately, because of a lack of understanding, some believe that Jihad=Aggression.

Jihad is about protecting an individuals beliefs. It is intended as a defense mechanism, not one of aggresion. In essence, if one was forced into the ultimatum of their religion or death, they could pick up arms to defend their beliefs.

Terrorism and Jihad are no more synonymous, than Fire and Ice are.

Also, the Quran, within it's texts, states that it's words are allegorical, and as such cannot be taken completely literally. Imams are teachers, that's it. They are as wise men, not leaders. They study the Quran, and interpret it. When people are educated enough to understand this, they will not look up to Imams as though they were speaking the word of God.

Islam is about tolerance, and because of "Islamic" terrorist organizations, that concept is all but lost.

As proof, a translation of a few verses of the Quran:

Say: O disbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship;
Nor worship ye that which I worship.
And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

If that isn't tolerance, I don't know what is. It's for this same reason I cannot get my head around the concept of "Islamic law". In a society of tolerance, everyone is allowed to have their own beliefs. Creating a set of laws tolerant to all is a much stickier matter, but that isn't the point.
mike1reynolds
Then why does the Quran read like the Hellfire and brimstone sermon of an angry Baptist minister? Why does it rile on and on about how most Christians and Jews are sinister and going to Hell?

I'm well aware that prior to the 21st century Islamic countries were more tolerant of Jews than Christian countries, but that is because of certain verses that specify extra taxation on Jews and Christians.

Actually, that is another example of a double standard in Islam. Even if it encouraged tolerane, it was tolernace that was paid for, and given a little provocation, it disentigrated and vanshed. Note that all forms of bigotry are based on double standards, so Islamic tolerance was a sham, a ticking bomb that was timed to explode in the modern world.
KSheriff
I think you're confusing politics and law with religion.

Believers of the First Testament, Torah, and Quran are all considered to believe in the same single God. As such, in the full scope of things, a Muslim views a Christian or Jew as a believer who has in some regard, lost his way. (I'm not saying I agree of disagree with that mentality). I'd love to see those verses about heavier taxation on Jews and Christians, as I've never come across them, and I have gone through the book a number of times. I suppose it's possible that I interpret things differently, but that's a different problem all together.

Another problem I commonly see is that single lines are isolated and shunned, without ever including the surrounding verses. I will admit, I have come to "questionable" verses, but upon further reading, I understand why such a verse was written.
dahan
HI
I think that sone people in this forum does not know well what is Islam perhaps they heard informations about Islam from some persons who does not know about Islam or from somepersons who hate Islam. Islam is the religion of Allah, God of all the places and all times. I post some links to knew islam from clear and precise sources
http://english.islamway.com/
http://www.islamway.com/mohammad/
http://www.islamqa.com
HI
mike1reynolds
Soulfire wrote:
Personally, I'm not generally "for" any religion other than Christianity, or lack of religion. But the thing that bothers me about Islam is their willingness to kill for allah, and I am aware that it's not all of Islam (blame the liberal media in the U.S. for this), but look at this statement: most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.

Why do you label the media as liberal when you blame it for imposing conservative stereotypes? This is not a liberal stereotype. Liberals stand up for Palestinian rights and take issue with Israel while conservatives ignore Palestinian rights and always support Israel. That is why only Democratic presidents have brought about any progress in negotiation between them in the last 35 years.
Related topics
islam is...
All you need to know about ISLAM!!!
Support Danish
The Apostates of Islam
truth about Islam's violent teachings, .. depraved founder
Images of Islam - "Death to America, Death to Denmark&a
Islam
All you need to know about Religion Islam....
A resonable comparison between Christianity and Islam
Most peaceful religion
The RISE of Islam!!
Pope speaks out on Jihad
Anything you want to know about islam??
The FALL of Islam!!
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.