ask me a question about islam

[Knife]

You said i could ask any question about islam, i have, but you have`nt replied. Iasked a genuine question. Women in islam appear to be treated as second class, so when i see reports of somebody blowing themselves up, and its a female, what are they informed of what to expect in paradise?

chiiiiilll winston :m: . i dont stare at my comouter screen all day ,everyday, its the weekend.

now, i dont really understand how this applies to women because no one really asked that one before. i will get the answer for you in a couple of days. until then, one must understand that life in the afterlife is different. we are not the beings we are here. are male/female as we are here ....i dont know.

if remember correctly, women have the choice to be with her spouse in heaven (assuming he made it too). or she may choose to live her eternal life with someone else. here is the vague part, can she choose to live with another human being that ended up in heaven or are there creations for women in heaven should she choose to stay away from those there.

nor sure, but i will try to get an answer with docementation.

peace.

 

[Knife]

There is NO such thing as a lesser of two evils. That is like saying pick the lesser of two goods. Obviously there is no such thing of either. It seems to me that Muslims are frightened to be martyred for their idol, a thing Christians are not capable of by the grace of the eternal Spirit of Holiness. It would of course not be suicide since you did not kill yourself. In that case, if you were so poor that you had to kill someone to steal some food, I am sure you would justify that too. Glad to not be in your family.

no i dont agree with you on the lesser of two evils. i believe there is such a thing. based on the simple fact, you slapping someone is definately less of an evil than you stabbing them to death.

about the lesser of two goods, i know that exists in christianity. i was told this story by a preist in Canterbury Cathedral. once upon a time, in a church an old woman with very tattered clothes, donated three coins to the church box. upon this the preist couldnt stop thanking her. after she walked out a prominent business man at the time, walked up and donated a bag of gold. to which the preists reaction was mild. the businessman was surprised at the lack of reaction and asked the preist why he was so happy with old womans contribution but indeifferent about his. the preist replied that he knew the woman gave all she had, when the businessman only gave a small fraction of what he had.

now, there is a very clear picture of the lesser of two goods. thus, the lesser of two evils must exist.

now, i have the right to push myself to self destruction, but in the example of the family, i do not have the right to choose for them. and i did say, you can go back if you are that honest.

now if following christian law is done by the grace of the holy spirit, then how are some of the laws in the bible followed today? who enforces them? and what happens when people violate them?

another question, if all those who believe in christ and his death to save mankind, what happens when a christian commits a sin? is he forgiven or punshied by god?

one last one, please explain the trinity. please keep it simple, as people have tried to explain and i never seemed to get it, or found someone iwth enough patience to answer my questions.

peace.

 

[§outh§tar]

no i dont agree with you on the lesser of two evils. i believe there is such a thing. based on the simple fact, you slapping someone is definately less of an evil than you stabbing them to death.

In that case please explain what exactly makes one more evil than the other.

about the lesser of two goods, i know that exists in christianity. i was told this story by a preist in Canterbury Cathedral. once upon a time, in a church an old woman with very tattered clothes, donated three coins to the church box. upon this the preist couldnt stop thanking her. after she walked out a prominent business man at the time, walked up and donated a bag of gold. to which the preists reaction was mild. the businessman was surprised at the lack of reaction and asked the preist why he was so happy with old womans contribution but indeifferent about his. the preist replied that he knew the woman gave all she had, when the businessman only gave a small fraction of what he had.

now, there is a very clear picture of the lesser of two goods. thus, the lesser of two evils must exist.

This is the priest's opinion. He judged the hearts of both people (which he is not qualified to do) and therefore the story is not at all accurate. Just because the businessman gave a small fraction does not mean he did not give joyfully or willingly. This was a very poor thing for the priest to do and as you see, certainly no way to measure two "good deeds".


now, i have the right to push myself to self destruction, but in the example of the family, i do not have the right to choose for them. and i did say, you can go back if you are that honest.

now if following christian law is done by the grace of the holy spirit, then how are some of the laws in the bible followed today? who enforces them? and what happens when people violate them?

Which laws are these??? No one enforces adherance to Christian tenets since God is the Judge.

another question, if all those who believe in christ and his death to save mankind, what happens when a christian commits a sin? is he forgiven or punshied by god?

This should explain it for you:

Hebrews 12
1Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. 2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.
4In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons:
"My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline,
and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,
6because the Lord disciplines those he loves,
and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son."[1]
7Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
12Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. 13"Make level paths for your feet,"[2] so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed.

one last one, please explain the trinity. please keep it simple, as people have tried to explain and i never seemed to get it, or found someone iwth enough patience to answer my questions.

peace.

The historic formulation of the Trinity is that God is one in essence and three in person. Through the forumla is mysterious and even paradoxical, it is in no way contradictory. The unity of the Godhead is affirmed in terms of essence or being, while the diversity of the Godhead is expressed in terms of person.

The term person does not mean a distinction in essence but a different subsistence in the Godhead. A subsistence in the Godhead is a real difference but not an essential difference in the sence of a difference in being. Each person subsists or exists "under" the pure essence of deity. Subsistence is a difference within the scope of being, not a separate being or essence. All persons in the Godhead have all the attributes of deity.

- Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

 

[everneo]

You sounded to me, to say that Muslims were particularly brutal in their way of fighting. And that I do not agree with. As for the fact that they conquered many grounds, I don't think you would see that as a bad thing if we were discussing Alexander the great or Rome.

Alexander had an adjective 'the Great' also for his genlte treatment of fallen enemies. He was with no religious 'backup'.

Point is that Muslims have conquered a lot. But even when they conquered they never went amoke like the others. Off course there might have been errors at times but on the overall and when people were behaving on Islamic grounds they were not easy to fall in sins and brutalities that many others viewed as the way war is.

You can see loads of references to the brutalities in historical accounts. But you are oblivious to records of non-muslim historians. As for the muslim accounts, you would suggest us to read again to find the correctness for ourselves however damning it is.

An example: Saladdin himself vowed to slaughter every christian in Al-Quds (Jerusalem) when he retook it. He didn't though, because of Muslim scholars.

First, Saladdin was a kind-hearted man. Can you give reference to his vow to slaughter every christian in Al-Quds aka Jerusalem ?

Second, the Muslim Scholars. I don't know who could be called a Muslim Scholar ? Anyone who is well 'versed' with the Quran, hadiths, Sharia etc (irrespective of how much they understood) ?

On the contrary, whenever the conquerers indulged in slaughter where were these muslim scholars ? These rulers also had their own 'muslim scholars' who could quote quran,hadiths, sharia at any time of the day and also could tell only what the rulers wanted to hear.

 

[everneo]

This is the priest's opinion. He judged the hearts of both people (which he is not qualified to do) and therefore the story is not at all accurate.

And you are judging their hearts to be equal ?

Just because the businessman gave a small fraction does not mean he did not give joyfully or willingly.

he could joyfully or willingly give whatever he had, like that poor woman did. but that is impractical. (how much God appreciates these contributions at all is a different thing)

This was a very poor thing for the priest to do and as you see, certainly no way to measure two "good deeds".

The only poor thing was this gentle man looked up to see the face of the priest to know how much happy the priest was after seeing the fat contributions.

 

[everneo]

First Muslims don't compete with Allah.

Are we talking about muslims in general ?

They do believe that instilling terror in the hearts of the enemy would divert the attacker. I don't agree with how they go about doing that, though.

How else they go about doing that ? This belief itself is flawed for 2 things.
1) They are not Allah. 2) They don't succeed in that if the enemy could instill more terror in return !. History and present tells that. Remember Chenghiz ? Israel ? Bush ?

I note that your argument has shifted from decapitating to instilling terror.

From the beginning i was talking about the same verse. It contains both and taken literally as a way by the proponents of terror.

As for instilling terror, in order to discourage attacks, this is, but it has its rules.

'Instilling terror in the hearts' is meant for God ; Allah talks in first person; it is not left to the humans.

In Islam there is no machiavellian principle that the goal justifies the means. The means have to be just too. The people that are supposably Muslim fanatics and the like know this better than anyone. But they make a pragmatic choice not a religious one.

Is the pragmatic choice preferred because religion does not give any 'suitable' choice ?

And so they do not justify they actions with the word of God. The may insert it but they don't.

What is the meaning of "Inshallah" often heared from them ? Is Allah allowed to reconsider His own Will in addition/contradiction to what has already been expressed against these things in Quran ?

My point is that people might do wrong. But it cannot be atributed to Islamic scipture because it is cleaa, it instill people with a spiritual independence from the wordly, and because it's law is to a far extant mainstream. To the contrary of other religions, our scriptures are not concentrated in the hands of a few, they and knowledge of them are widely circulated.

But the genuine and scholarly voices don't have strong enough audience to confirm the sanctiity of the religion.

I am not finding fault with Islam or its scriptures. I myself is interested in Sufis' view of Allah and a comparision with other philosophical views of other religions, like buddhism, hinduism and some gnostic christian writings, gives an interesting insight into Mohammad's Allah. I feel all point to the same supreme entity.

 

[Sufi]

Yeah I am interested to hear your point of view since we haven't gotten a POV from a sufi before

PS I started reading the material you posted.

Enjoy reading. It will be nice to hear your thoughts after ou complete reading it.
I think reading it is a journey f r o m a God that thinks and acts the same way as a 'human being' t o a human being that thinks the same way as Allah.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

On the contrary Bruce War IS ugly no matter who wages it one of the main differences is that no one tries to make any claims that greek or roman conquests were inspired by god. Perhaps I was assuming you beleived that islamic jihads were better than they were, sorry if I did. I have had many discussions with muslims who just refuse to see anything but good in the way muslims spread islam, even when it was with jihad, stopped posting on Bismallakuh forum because of it

You should also consider that Muslims don't view any Ruler of Muslim origin as a Muslim ruler. Muslim rulers are men that are not only proclaiming to be Muslims but are applying it. Certainly Salah-u-ddin -may Allah reward him- was great but he wasn't special or the best.


In fact the chivalery of Salah-u-ddin -may Allah reward him- can be attributed to his religious piety. His Islamic upbringing and interests testify to that as does fact that he preffered a small house near the mosque to a luxuous palace. His justice and benevolence are not that special in Muslim opinion. He simply did what had to be done.

Actually depending on the time and place they did in fact go amok. I can post many examples but lets not go there.

That might be. Again there are practicing and pious Muslims and Muslims. Saddam might be called a Muslim. He has the right to be called a Muslim because no Muslim has the authority to declare him an apostate even though he, in the opinion of many, was evil. So I urge you to take this in perspective. Note what saddam did to Muslims.

I doubt on the whole they were much better, war is hell war is ugly and peopel are people. You know that the knights templar, the warrior munks of the crusades (who were never ransomed when captured by muslim warriors) had a small mosque in their headquarters in Jerusalem for visiting muslims.

I thought they used the Al-Aqsa Mosque as a stable. Off course having witnessed Muslim civility they could but be awed and learn of it. Which is totally normal.

(who were never ransomed when captured by muslim warriors)

I don't know about that, so I cannot argue it.

Saladdin was legendary in christian europe for his chivalry, Richard the lionheart even proposed that he (Saladdin) marry his sister as a means of sealing the peace between christians and muslims.

Salah-u-ddin -may Allah reward him- was only being obediant to the teachings and spirit of his religion.

Prove what that many people were killed because of islamic jihads and warfare?

No, that the above posted verses were the reason for that. And "islamic jihads and warfare" is a rather vague term wouldn't you say. (the saddam example)

Salaam

Wa 3alayka ssalaam.

 

[path]

You should also consider that Muslims don't view any Ruler of Muslim origin as a Muslim ruler. Muslim rulers are men that are not only proclaiming to be Muslims but are applying it. Certainly Salah-u-ddin -may Allah reward him- was great but he wasn't special or the best.


In fact the chivalery of Salah-u-ddin -may Allah reward him- can be attributed to his religious piety. His Islamic upbringing and interests testify to that as does fact that he preffered a small house near the mosque to a luxuous palace. His justice and benevolence are not that special in Muslim opinion. He simply did what had to be done..

By the same token impious acts by muslim or christian or jew can't be discarded as their interpretation of their holy texts, we can't only choose the good and discount the bad.

I thought they used the Al-Aqsa Mosque as a stable. Off course having witnessed Muslim civility they could but be awed and learn of it. Which is totally normal..

It was the temple mount and they used the entire complex as their HQ. They could be awed and they could have just not been the barbarians crusaders are said to have been.



.

No, that the above posted verses were the reason for that. And "islamic jihads and warfare" is a rather vague term wouldn't you say. (the saddam example).

I believe my main point was that that verse is there and can easily be interpreted in the way modern jihadists and osama and co. interpret them.



miru mir

 

[Bruce Wayne]

dp.

Again: I don't appreciate the limit of ten charachters.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Alexander had an adjective 'the Great' also for his genlte treatment of fallen enemies. He was with no religious 'backup'.

If he didn't, good for him. But do admit that this is irrelevant.

But you are oblivious to records of non-muslim historians.

You assume that. I only dismissed the Indians because they are locked in a war against the one they were called to witness against. By default I don't trust that. Since I have a life besides sciforums I try to limit the effort for sciforums. especially since the material they offered is not usefull for me in practical.

As for the muslim accounts, you would suggest us to read again to find the correctness for ourselves however damning it is.

??

First, Saladdin was a kind-hearted man. Can you give reference to his vow to slaughter every christian in Al-Quds aka Jerusalem ?

Alas I can give only references that he vowed to avenge the three thousand prisonners that were executed by Richard coeur-de-lion. I might have been wrong in my earlier statemen. Remember I am not using any sites as back-up. I am working with memory only.

Second, the Muslim Scholars. I don't know who could be called a Muslim Scholar ? Anyone who is well 'versed' with the Quran, hadiths, Sharia etc (irrespective of how much they understood) ?

I this case men that have been judged as references in the time. Men that have proved themselfs of worthiness. Even if well 'versed' in the deepest of the teachings of Islam theyare not Muslim scholars. Muslim scholars prove themselfs by their knowledge, by its implimentation, by their stances and by the way they lead their lives. Also Muslim scholars are not holy or immune to wrong. Everyone can challenge their opinions if he backs his challenge up with Islamic scriptures.

On the contrary, whenever the conquerers indulged in slaughter where were these muslim scholars ? These rulers also had their own 'muslim scholars' who could quote quran,hadiths, sharia at any time of the day and also could tell only what the rulers wanted to hear.

Any ruler needs someone to validate him. When a bad ruler fails in winning the support of the scholars he succeeds in buying men that know little of their religion or are corrupt at heart. Alas this is happening a lot in our time. But to us Muslims and to history scholars are true scholars and the courtiers are judged as mercenaries and hippocrites. To unenlightened or malicious men both the "scholars" are the same. Here these people are limited by names.

Ali, ibn-u-Abi-taleb, may allah be pleased with him was said:

"Knowledge/truth is not known through men. Men are known through knowledge/truth". Since English again fails in capturing the Arabic clairity here follows the clarification. Something is not true because a certain man has said it. The man is known as frank because he said the truth.

:m:

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Are we talking about muslims in general ?

Yes. There are of course "Muslims" that view that God is existence and such beliefs. Obviously I don't see them as Muslim -should be.

How else they go about doing that ? This belief itself is flawed for 2 things.
1) They are not Allah. 2) They don't succeed in that if the enemy could instill more terror in return !. History and present tells that. Remember Chenghiz ? Israel ? Bush ?

As I said before. Muslims don't emulate Allah Himself. For He is not to be emulated.
As to these men, whomever they are (I can only guess that bay them you mean the the bogey men of al-qeada or the image of Muslims you have and that you think they embody.), they try to scare off their enemy. If they don't succeed in that, that doesn't mean that the maxim is wrong, that means thay are not succeeding and should do better.
Genghis is gone as is his legacy. The have been sentenced to existence in books. The same goes for the crusaders. Bush and the colony in the levant will manifest how history repeat its self. (think Genghis and the crusaders.)

From the beginning i was talking about the same verse. It contains both and taken literally as a way by the proponents of terror.

That is true. You came in a little later.

Is the pragmatic choice preferred because religion does not give any 'suitable' choice ?

It is because they are impatient. Islam is complete.

What is the meaning of "Inshallah" often heared from them ? Is Allah allowed to reconsider His own Will in addition/contradiction to what has already been expressed against these things in Quran ?

Alas, here again, you need to be corrected. Insha'allah means by Allah's will. So they say may that what we are trying to do, whatever that is, be conform the pre-knowledge and pre-destination of Allah. You have explained it as May God rethink what he decreed. There is no logic in you deduction.

But the genuine and scholarly voices don't have strong enough audience to confirm the sanctiity of the religion.

:bugeye:

I am not finding fault with Islam or its scriptures.

So I keep being told..

I myself is interested in Sufis' view of Allah and a comparision with other philosophical views of other religions, like buddhism, hinduism and some gnostic christian writings, gives an interesting insight into Mohammad's Allah. I feel all point to the same supreme entity.

A pity. But as long as you are searching... I hope you find that which is good.

May peace be upon you.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

By the same token impious acts by muslim or christian or jew can't be discarded as their interpretation of their holy texts, we can't only choose the good and discount the bad.

I do understand your bjection. Yet that is simply the way it is. You can't attribute to religion what is from men.

It was the temple mount and they used the entire complex as their HQ.

Now you do understand if I don't agree with that statement. Funny how they used "holy ground" as stables for their horses.

Also I hope you understand that this someway speaks quite badly of their civility. Because you ought to remember that when the great Omar odn-ul-Khattab - May Allah be pleased with him and reward him- took over Al-Quds he didn't destroy the churches or even touched. Instead he cleaned the holy mount with his own hands.

I hope you noticed how the Muslims twice liberated the holy city in a glorious manner. The first was under the Omar and the second under Salah-u-ddin -may Allah be pleased with them both. It is as if Allah wanted to clear their names in history as befit obedient and pious Muslims.

They could be awed and they could have just not been the barbarians crusaders are said to have been.

I think it is the second though. The other alternative is purely wishfull thinking.

I believe my main point was that that verse is there...

Doesn't really need proving, eh genius?

...and can easily be interpreted in the way modern jihadists and osama and co. interpret them.

You still haven't done that.

miru mir

Wa 3alayka Ssalaam. (= And may peace be upon you. The greeting/incoming Muslims says Assalaamu 3alaykum/ Peace be upon you. The replying Muslim then says Wa 3alayka Ssalaam)

 

[slotty]

chiiiiilll winston :m: . i dont stare at my comouter screen all day ,everyday, its the weekend.

now, i dont really understand how this applies to women because no one really asked that one before. i will get the answer for you in a couple of days. until then, one must understand that life in the afterlife is different. we are not the beings we are here. are male/female as we are here ....i dont know.

if remember correctly, women have the choice to be with her spouse in heaven (assuming he made it too). or she may choose to live her eternal life with someone else. here is the vague part, can she choose to live with another human being that ended up in heaven or are there creations for women in heaven should she choose to stay away from those there.

nor sure, but i will try to get an answer with docementation.

peace.

Cheers dude.I always wondered what was in it for the women. It still seems a bit of a raw deal for them.

 

[everneo]

You assume that. I only dismissed the Indians because they are locked in a war against the one they were called to witness against. By default I don't trust that.

It is you who is assuming much ! Slaughter and brutalities in medival India has anything to do with Pakistan now ? Man, there are more muslims in India than in Pakistan, and Indian Prez is a muslim !! Many historical references of these historians were compiled before partition. I still don't get how do you get the idea of assessing historians with their relation to Pakistan. Anyway, Pak-India relations are improving. Soon you would be ready to read the accounts of indian historians !

 

[everneo]

Yes. There are of course "Muslims" that view that God is existence and such beliefs. Obviously I don't see them as Muslim -should be.

I don't get what you are saying here. I meant by 'they/them' only the terror-jihadists. Not muslims in general.

As I said before. Muslims don't emulate Allah Himself. For he is not to be emulated.

As a i and you said a couple of pages back, i don't mean muslims in general.

As to these men, whomever they are (I can only guess that bay them you mean the the bogey men of al-qeada or the image of Muslims you have and that you think they embody.), they try to scare off their enemy. If they don't succeed in that, that doesn't mean that the maxim is wrong, that means thay are not succeeding and should do better.

Osama & Jawahiri need a consultant, would you mind trying.?

Alas, here again, you need to be corrected. Insha'allah means by Allah's will. So they say may that what we are trying to do, whatever that is, be conform the pre-knowledge and pre-destination of Allah. You have explained it as May God rethink what he decreed. There is no logic in you deduction.

After taking a prgamatic stance contradictary to quran they invoke Allah's name. If it seems to logical to you then i have nothing to discuss.

So I keep being told..

Sorry, do you want me to take that back..??!!

A pity. But as long as you are searching... I hope you find that which is good.

In fact, i pity those who are trapped in dogmas. Peace.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It is you who is assuming much !

...

Slaughter and brutalities in medival India has anything to do with Pakistan now ? Man, there are more muslims in India than in Pakistan, and Indian Prez is a muslim !! Many historical references of these historians were compiled before partition. I still don't get how do you get the idea of assessing historians with their relation to Pakistan. Anyway, Pak-India relations are improving. Soon you would be ready to read the accounts of indian historians !

I simply said that I could not take the account of the (for me) obscure historians that some poster came with for granted. I did not say that all indians -even now- are lying. Read my earlier posts.

may peace be upon you.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I don't get what you are saying here. I meant by 'they/them' only the terror-jihadists. Not muslims in general.

There are sects that claim to be Muslims. These say that God and creation are one. I believe that sufi has made clear that he is one of these. Now i wouldn't be surprised that these people try to emulate God or contend that they are Godly. (Many people join for this reason, they like to believe that they are Godly and that they don't have to do anything to be in God' grace). Muslims however, per definition, don't think of emulating Allah. They try to emulate, as they have been told, the prophet -peace be upon him. They can go beyond him. No Muslim thinks he is better than Muhammad -peace be upon him. It would be absurd if someone contended that they try to emulate their Creator.

As a i and you said a couple of pages back, i don't mean muslims in general.

As I just said that is untrue. In this case, even the 1% everyone hinds behind is useless as it can not be applied in this situation.

Osama & Jawahiri need a consultant, would you mind trying.?

I mind. But what about this reply? run out of arguments??!

After taking a prgamatic stance contradictary to quran they invoke Allah's name. If it seems to logical to you then i have nothing to discuss.

It is not logical to me. It is logical. It is also evident.

Sorry, do you want me to take that back..??!!

If you didn't mean it, I think it would be the honorable thing to do. If you did mean it, why change of opinion because of something I said. Anyways you should make up your mind without being influenced by my posts. I said that because many claim that and yet go on posting anything they think is going to make Islam look bad.

In fact, i pity those who are trapped in dogmas.

My apologies if I made you think I mean your person or that I think low of you. It is pity, since these religions –IMO- are mutually exclusive. You would be cherry picking instead of really choosing one religion. Now, you might think that that is not a problem but I think that if one of them is true, it is to be followed completely.

Dogmas… I believe in One God. I believe that he sent us many prophets –may peace be upon them all. Many of their followers went astray which lead to many of the nowadays present religions. I believe Islam is the last one of these messages and I believe it. Therefore I believe in it completely. I don’t say, I like this so I am going to do it and I don’t like this so I don’t believe it. This takes character. It takes character to submit to truth and not follow what you happen to like, what is not too difficult or what doesn’t hold you off from having fun.

Peace.

Peace upon you to, son of Adam.

 

[everneo]

I mind. But what about this reply? run out of arguments??!

Is there anything left to argue ? Its strange that you keep on detailing in defence of the extremists' stand on terror with a last line saying you don't agree with them. or is it agreeing with them ? You sound yes when you say no. Whereas other muslims like knife & surenderer had the guts/clarity to call a spade a spade.

It is not logical to me. It is logical. It is also evident.

I'm lost.

It is pity, since these religions –IMO- are mutually exclusive. You would be cherry picking instead of really choosing one religion. Now, you might think that that is not a problem but I think that if one of them is true, it is to be followed completely.

Dogmas… I believe in One God. I believe that he sent us many prophets –may peace be upon them all. Many of their followers went astray which lead to many of the nowadays present religions. I believe Islam is the last one of these messages and I believe it. Therefore I believe in it completely. I don’t say, I like this so I am going to do it and I don’t like this so I don’t believe it. This takes character. It takes character to submit to truth and not follow what you happen to like, what is not too difficult or what doesn’t hold you off from having fun.

Hmm.. it takes soul-searching not to follow blindly an 'omerta' like code and not to follow rigid ready-made solutions on the question of God. Viewing others as sub-humans for their non-conformity to our religions (or our views) which we believe to be the 'truth', is a sin. Truth is not a monopoly of any religious group.

Peace upon you to, son of Adam.

I believe i am son of my dad.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Is there anything left to argue ?

So if there is nothing to argue about you resort to "namecalling"... quite the mature thing to do.

Its strange that you keep on detailing in defence of the extremists' stand on terror with a last line saying you don't agree with them. or is it agreeing with them ? You sound yes when you say no. Whereas other muslims like knife & surenderer had the guts/clarity to call a spade a spade.

Now those are quite some accusations there, wouldn't you say? I say no and I mean no. If you read my other posts you will see that I don't refrain from telling it as it is.

Now as for the bogey man called Al-Quaeda, which I happen to view as a myth. I do not agree with them. Plain as that. I think they are simple-minded because I have seen nothing from them that really showed any intelligence or wisdom. Instead they go about killing innocents and making enemies left and right.

As for clarifying the logic that is attributed to them, it is simply a matter of being open. I could do the same for sharon and Bush (another idiot with too much power). In fact I do, often. I don't hind behind the "oh they are so bad! I can't imagine how they could act like that!"-line. I am able to see how human think. And I am not afraid that if I started thinking I would change my opinion.

Hmm.. it takes soul-searching not to follow blindly an 'omerta' like code and not to follow rigid ready-made solutions on the question of God.

I take soul searching to think it over. Soul searching could lead both ways in this instance and is thus irrelevant.

Viewing others as sub-humans for their non-conformity to our religions (or our views) which we believe to be the 'truth', is a sin.

I intentionnaly called you son of Adam in order to highlight that you and I ultimately have one father, i.e; that we are all human brothers. Too bad it was wasted on you. Also do note that I did not say I pitied you. I said I thought it was a pity, i.e; too bad.

Truth is not a monopoly of any religious group.

How can you say that if you do not know Truth. (note I am not caliming to know it either)

Again, may peace be upon you.