Fundamental Fundamentalism: part 2

K

KalvinB

Publicity Whore
Registered Senior Member
The first Fundamental Fundamentalism is set in stone and posted at my site if you missed it and for some reason are compelled to read it. It was just an introduction to the notion of religion and wars. This dives head long into the Koran and the concept of a Jihad.

-----------------------
Calling a duck a horse makes it no less a duck. Such tactics as redefining terms are often used to mislead a topic from focusing on the issue to arguing over the meaning of a word. According to The Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR], "jihad" doesn't mean "holy war," instead it simply means to "...strive, struggle and exert effort." A broad term that also can include war. So then "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war but it can mean holy war. It's that kind of word play that makes discussing religion sometimes a futile effort. A common one in Christianity is the word "day" in Genesis which in hebrew simply means a "period of time." Some then claim that "day" really means 1000 years or someother extended period of time. This is done by people who want to allow for evolution to fit with the Bible so they can accept both. What they fail to notice, or simply reject, is the phrase "and the evening and the morning were the first day" (KJV Genesis 1:5). What one ends up doing, if not familiar with Genesis 1, is trying to argue what the Hebrew word translated as "day" really means instead of simply pointing out that no "evening and morning" lasts 1000 years. Instead of bothering with the definition of "duck" this paper will simply focus on describing the duck.

The first step is to figure out who is the enemy of Islam that they would fight against. The answer is given throughout the Koran with the most clear verse stating plainly "...surely the unbelievers are your open enemy" (Koran 4:101). But unbelievers are not just the enemy of the believers but "...surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers." (Koran 2:98) It goes so far to say "...Allah does not love the unbelievers" (Koran 3:32). The Koran futher states in 60:13 "O you who believe! do not make friends with a people with whom Allah is wroth." Who Allah is wroth with is explained earlier in the Koran stating that he is wroth with the hypocrites, the polytheistic and those who think evil thoughts of Allah (48:6). But is not just those who Allah is wroth with that are not to be taken as friends. "Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully;" (Koran 3:28).

The next step is to figure when the enemy should be fought against. According to 2:191, "...do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them;" (Koran). When it comes to the Sacred Mosque the believers are not to fight unless provoked and "...whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)" (Koran 2:194). Muslims are to "...kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter..." (Koran 2:191). Whether or not this is cause and effect is not clear. The Muslims are able to kill the enemy wherever they are found however it may be because the enemy did something to them first or it may be simply because the enemy was found. If all it takes to be an enemy is to not believe then there may be no need to any provokation to allow a Muslim to kill them other than simply being the enemy of Allah. Disbelief may simply be provokation enough.

The big question concerns who can lead a war. "Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them" (Koran 22:39). The punishment for those who fight against Allah is quite severe as it states in chapter 5 verse 33, "...they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" (Koran). The prophet it to urge the believers to war not fearing the number of unbelievers (Koran 8:65). I would assume only the prophet can lead a war according to the Koran as the command to "urge the believers to war" is only given to the prophet. However in chapter 9 verse 23, "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)" (Koran). It could then be understood that any believer is under the authority to kill an unbeliever. According the Bible only the prophet can lead a war though it's not clear with the Koran. What is clear however is that if the unbelievers are inclined to peace then the believers should also be (Koran 8:61). With that in mind then it may be accurate to say that Muslims may not attack unless attacked first. And by that it would be a physical attack. I cannot imagine that the Koran allows disrupting emotional peace to be grounds for a war.

Another term used for holy war is "Ghazwat" where the leader of the war is the prophet himself. Muhammad himself led 19. (Bukhari 5:59:285). The use of a different term than Jihad for a war where the prophet is involved suggests that a prophet isn't necessary to have a war. According to Sheikh Ahmed Yassin the spiritual leader of the Islamic Resistance movement HAMAS, in Gaza,

"The person who announces jihad declares so on behalf of himself -- not on behalf of others. Those who are convinced of his cause -- fight with him, those who are not convinced, do not. The announcement of jihad is a personal choice. There is a misconception in the world of the meaning of the word jihad; it comes from juhud and it means effort ... I can be a teacher and be practicing jihad, I can be a builder and be practicing jihad and I can be a fighter ... therefore everything in life is jihad. All people are part of the jihad whether they know it or not ..."

Which again comes to word play with the basic point being that anyone can lead a war. It just a matter of finding people to support you. Muhammad, being the prophet, had no problem doing so. Modern leaders seem to be as divided over what to fight for as they are over the meaning of the word itself.
-------------------------------------------

If this paper comes off as confusing it wouldn't surprise me as I was confused writing it. If anyone has any sources for info on the Koran and Jihads let me know. I've found a few but it's mostly interpretation which lead to my conclusion. As far as I could tell the Koran really had no guidelines for war or prophets. If anyone can prove me wrong on that I'd greatly appreciate it.

Ben
 
Originally posted by KalvinB
[
-----------------------
**
Calling a duck a horse makes it no less a duck. Such tactics as redefining terms are often used to mislead a topic from focusing on the issue to arguing over the meaning of a word.

A broad term that also can include war. So then "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war but it can mean holy war .**


Offcourse your defination is going to be different then rest of the world. Typical Christian propaganda. Missionary approach. I like it thou.:D

** The next step is to figure when the enemy should be fought against. According to 2:191, "...do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them;" (Koran).**

First if you really like to expose the verse why don't you get your self a copy of Quran by Yusuf ali, Since it is the most proper translation of arabic to english. I am sure you used some translation either by Shakir or there are couple more who did the delibrate wrong translation of Quran. I will give you their names also.

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

Now my reply to above verse, you try your best to twist it but here it is,

What does the Qu'ran say about violence?

The word Islam, which means "surrender (to GOD)," is related to the Arabic salam, “peace.” When the Prophet Muhammad brought the revealed scripture called the Qu'ran (“recitation”) to the Arabs in the early 7th century C.E., one of his main purposes was precisely to stop the kind of indiscriminate killing we saw on September 11th.

At the time the Arabian Peninsula was in crisis. The tribal system was breaking down, and the various tribes were locked into a murderous cycle of vendetta and counter vendetta. For a weak tribe, or a man who lacked powerful protection, survival was nearly impossible. The Prophet himself suffered several assassination attempts, and when his religious and social message ran him afoul of the establishment of Mecca, the small Muslim community was persecuted. Things got so bad that the Muslims had to migrate to Medina, some 250 miles to the north, and there they were subject to attack by the Meccan army, the greatest power in Arabia.

For about five years, there was war and the Muslims narrowly escaped extermination. Terrible things were done on both sides. But when Muhammad sensed that the tide had just begun turn in his favor, he completely changed tack. He concentrated on building a peaceful coalition of tribes, and initiated an inspired, brave and ingenious policy of non-violence. This proved so successful that eventually Mecca opened its gates to the Muslims voluntarily, without a single drop of blood being shed.

Because the Qu'ran was revealed in the context of an all-out war, several passages deal with the conduct of armed conflict. Warfare was a desperate business in Arabia. An Arab chieftain was not expected to take prisoners; it was a given that he would simply kill everybody he could get his hands on. Muhammad knew that if the Muslims were defeated they would all be slaughtered to the last man or woman.

Sometimes the Qu'ran seems to have imbibed this spirit. Muslims are ordered by God to “slay [the enemy] wherever you find them. (4:89). Muslim extremists like Bin Laden and Christian missionarries like you KALVINB, like to quote these verses, but they do so selectively, never quoting the exhortations to peace and forbearance that in almost every case mitigate these ferocious injunctions in the verses immediately following. Thus “If they leave you alone and offer to make peace with you, God does not allow you to harm them.” (4:90)

Therefore the only war condoned by the Qu'ran is a war of self-defense. "Warfare is an awesome evil" (2:217), but sometimes it is necessary to fight in order to bring the kind of persecution suffered by the Muslims to an end [2:217] or to preserve decent values [22:40]. But Muslims may never initiate hostilities, and aggression is forbidden by God [2:190] While the fighting continues, Muslims must dedicate themselves wholly to the war in order to bring things back to normal as quickly as possible, but the second the enemy sues for peace, hostilities must cease. [2:192]

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

Now wouldn't it be nice if you would have included the rest of the verse too??. But why would you? Since it wasn't your intention or was it? :rolleyes:


** If this paper comes off as confusing it wouldn't surprise me as I was confused writing it. If anyone has any sources for info on the Koran and Jihads let me know. I've found a few but it's mostly interpretation which lead to my conclusion. As far as I could tell the Koran really had no guidelines for war or prophets. If anyone can prove me wrong on that I'd greatly appreciate it.**



It tells us everything. You were really confuse, but that is ok. It happens. Also they are your conclusions not what the facts are. I am going to break them down for you and give you reply on that. Then I would like you to prove me wrong.I would also like to prove you wrong not just once but as many time you wish for not just islam but for any other religion you like to bash about. Since you are a so called good christian it is your nature. Nothing worng with it. And offcourse there is nothing wrong with Bible right ?? It is the most human friendly book ever came to us.
This is going to be interesting.:cool:
Click to expand...
 
"Offcourse your defination is going to be different then rest of the world. "

CAIR points out it can mean Holy War. Everyone points out it can mean holy war. But when you ask they give some non-war based definition. That's what I was pointing out. It's an annoying word game. Hence "I'm going to describe the 'duck'" I'm not going to argue over a word.

"First if you really like to expose the verse why don't you get your self a copy of Quran by Yusuf ali"

I have a copy of the Koran in paperback and I think that is the translator. On my site you'll find an electronic version of the Koran which I use to find verses.

"Now wouldn't it be nice if you would have included the rest of the verse too??. But why would you? Since it wasn't your intention or was it? "

I quoted quite a bit of what you quoted. The Koran is very unclear about any given topic. That's why I posted my paper. I needed to get some more backing for my paper before I turn it in.

The Bible has nothing to do with the Koran. If you want to go of on some rant about the Bible, go ahead. Same dribble, different day. But do it in a different thread. This thread is to discuss the Koran.

Ben
 
Originally posted by KalvinB


First of all it is Quran not Koran. That tells me what kind of translation you have. Seriusly it makes a different what translation you use to conduct your research.

Quran is very clear when it comes to jihad and who do you fight and who don't. It may not be for you. I will take care of this when I get home.

Bible does have lot to do with Quran. And I was not going to start anything about so called holy book. And if you like I can start a new thread. Only if you like.

:cool:
Click to expand...
 
Good post, KalvinB

That was an excellent topic post, KalvinB; I'm going to have to break out my Riesebrodt again--I took a break for fiction last month because I needed to get away from heavy theology; you may have noticed that I'm getting cranky about God again these last couple of weeks.

But the book, which I didn't mention in the earlier topic, for not having finished it, undertakes a comparison of Protestant fundamentalism in the US in the early 20th century and Islamic fundamentalism surrounding the fall of Shah Reza Palahvi. It delves some into the psychology of fundamentalism, inasmuch as it seems possible, and, in its introductory chapters, has opened up avenues of consideration toward both fundamentalist theories.

Anyway, for the time being, just a couple of issues worth raising:
If this paper comes off as confusing it wouldn't surprise me as I was confused writing it. If anyone has any sources for info on the Koran and Jihads let me know. I've found a few but it's mostly interpretation which lead to my conclusion. As far as I could tell the Koran really had no guidelines for war or prophets. If anyone can prove me wrong on that I'd greatly appreciate it
Click to expand...
This is a widespread problem with religion. As an ironic juxtaposition, I wonder of all the times that Christian posters refused to address questions of faith with the answer, "Read the Bible". Mere irony ... I'm not picking fault with it, for such are the methods of learning. In the meantime, might I point officially toward Pious Passions by Riesbrodt. Beyond reading the essential Koran and Hadith, and comparing that to Islamic academic interpretations, this is the quickest way to dive in I can think of aside from throwing a Molotov cocktail at someone.
The Koran is very unclear about any given topic. That's why I posted my paper. I needed to get some more backing for my paper before I turn it in.
Click to expand...
Here I would ask you to employ a specific sympathy: you, too, believe in God. To many infidels the Bible is "very unclear about any given topic". Markx has pointed out the incompleteness of certain citations--well, that's part of what any theological conundrum has to work around: perspective.

We've had some debates about the clarity of the Bible before; might I present the idea that many of the resolutions Christians offer to those will be offered up by faithful Muslims in defense of their own faith. Where you see vagary, the Muslim might see an exacting principle. It'll take me a few days, if I try, to pull those points out of the debates, and frankly I'm not anxious to. But go ahead and make a few speculations if you want; I've found that if you seek the best in people and their reasons, you can often find a sympathy to express before they quantify it. It's part of the reason I call Christians predictable. At its worst, I wouldn't even bother because I would assume Christians too stupid to understand the issues of their own faith. At its best, I always hope to point out the ugly result of a bad principle. But I try not to assume malice until such is unavoidable. (Consider Mabon; I condemn the man not because of his faith but because he has chosen to make that faith a constant weapon against society.) Even as such, one must consider the possibility that the disagreement is a mere misunderstanding of positions.

Mind you, I'm not advocating casting off "official" sources and advisements. But why does God call Mabon to eradicate homosexuality? Why does God call Schlafly and Robertson and Falwell to strive for human denigration? And why, then, did God call the not-yet-canonized Santa Teresa to bring compassion?

It's all about interpretation; does Teresa go to hell because she suffered a witch to live?

I would point you toward Sufism as a possible source, but Sufism is mystical and not the best source of clearly-stated principles; besides, despite the Islamic association, a Sufi who has attained abandons religious practices.

Nonetheless, even the Sufis have their "violent" tales, including a Dervish story which, in some forms, asserts that Abraham was rejected by a Sufi master for his impatience. In the story, the student (Abraham) follows the master around; in a poor community, the master sink the only seaworthy fishing boat; on the street, the master kills a young boy; at the edge of the community, the master knocks down a wall. The student continually asks why, and this impatience is the reason for his dismissal. But the master points out what God had shown him: A tyrant was coming, and would steal the fishing boat to make war upon the community itself; the young man would become a murderer; there was a treasure under the wall, and the poor boy who inherited it from his father will find the treasure when repairing the wall.

As such, it should be noted that Sufis do not make a habit of walking around tearing up towns and killing people; but even within their system, God is the Supreme and that will is what happens.

An impatient man shoots a traveler in the back and a withered tree blossoms; the glory of God is fulfilled; the impatient man having been sent to the pass to give comfort to travelers. The voice of God (I can't recall which aspect) explained that the man was a murderer on the way to the worst crime of his career, and that his death should serve the Will of God.

There is a long history of justification of violence in religions; Sufism, despite its Islamic associations claims to predate even Abraham.

Actually, I'll dig up Ryszard Kapuscinski, who wrote [i|Shah of Shahs[/i]. One day in Qom, a million fundamentalists dressed in white and marched, unarmed, against the Shah's armies, and eventually won the day. There's another point about fundamentalists and death: only their overwhelming numbers won the day; the army saw them coming and, predictably, just started shooting. Men, women, and children alike stood for God that day and got mowed down. Talk about a fundamental conviction ....

I'll check in with my Riesbrodt, though, and see if I can't come up with anything better on the origins of fundamentalism in Islam; we know what the idea involves, but its historical development is rather mysterious to me. I cannot say that in Islam we have a definitive doctrinal foundation such as we find in 1920's fundamentalist Protestantism. But I'll see if I can find one.
The Bible has nothing to do with the Koran
Click to expand...
And the New Testament has what to do with the Old? Only that a prophet says so? Why should we give any greater credibility to Jesus than we do Muhammed? To the other, won't we all feel stupid if Joseph Smith really did converse with an angel of God?

As a light point and silly analogy: Sequel syndrome. Think of Hollywood: the Jews didn't like the sequel--Christianity. The Christians didn't like the next sequel--Islam. Nobody seems to like the next sequel, Mormonism. I mean, think about sequels in Hollywood. To the other, I will skip the analogy that the first and third films usually outshine the second and fourth (besides, the exception to the rule--Star Trek II--is far too apparent).

That last bit actually has little to do with it, but if you think Muhammed wasn't aware of Christians and interacting with them on some level, I must disagree. The Bible has everything to do with the Koran; they're part of the same process. It's like saying A New Hope has nothing to do with Return of the Jedi.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Last edited:
"First of all it is Quran not Koran. That tells me what kind of translation you have."

Exactly. Stupid word games just like that.

I have the MH Shakir translation in print. Not sure what my on-line translation is though which I'm actually quoting.

I found a comparative site here
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

Ben
 
Word games and alphabet soup

Exactly. Stupid word games just like that.
Click to expand...
The only thing I wanted to point out here is that when considering Islam and Christianity, we're dealing with different alphabets; depending on where in the Islamic world you come from, either spelling suffices. It is difficult to account for dialects and accents when you have no exact reproduction of letters. Consider Judaism; one of the only reason Judaic words are fairly standardized in the United States is because of their social presence and influence. Most Americans, when you get down to it, have difficulty still spelling words they know how to pronounce.

Personally, I consider Koran a westernization of Qu'ran.

Ogham, Hebrew, Arabic--when we cross alphabetic boundaries, we're bound to see some confusion in terms. My own copy of the Koran is NJ Dawood's translation for Penguin, ca. 1956 w/corrections. It suffices; if I ever undertake Islam so seriously as to require a better translation, I will. I would not, for instance, undertake Christianity with a Good News Bible.

In the meantime, remember that there are fourteen English-language spellings of Moammar Khadaffi, four ways to abuse the name Saddam Hussein, at least two spellings for Muhammed (though history has employed about six), ad nauseam. In the meantime, please recall that in America, people have no real respect for the "original". In New York, your own Yankee catcher doesn't deserved the respect of his name: Jorge Posada becomes George Posedo; a Mariners' fan mailed several felt squiggles (what's that line called?) for the "n" in Raul Ibanez's (ee-BAHN-yez, not EYE-buh-nez) name on his jersey; our closer, Kazuhiro Sasaki is always called Suzuki, and our Ichiro (EE-chee-roh) Suzuki becomes Ichiro (ee-CHEE-roh) because it fits the rhythmic template of play-by-play better. After a while, though, they stopped printing Suzuki and Sasaki's names in English; on television their names are written in Japanese now, and the last time I saw Ibanez play, they put the squiggly thing above the N.

When it comes to spellings in translated religious documents, though, anyone who is familiar with any ancient text ought to be familiar with phonetic conflicts. I don't think of it as a word game; and we're not supposed to if it's not Muslims playing it. After all, how many theological disputes at Sciforums have included the idea that the person has read the wrong translation of the Bible? Is it just word games? I doubt either one of us think so.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Well......

Originally posted by KalvinB
"First of all it is Quran not Koran. That tells me what kind of translation you have."

Exactly. Stupid word games just like that.

I have the MH Shakir translation in print. Not sure what my on-line translation is though which I'm actually quoting.

I found a comparative site here
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

Ben
Click to expand...


Thanks for the site Ben. But this stupid word game played a very vital role in transformation of Bible and modern chrsitianity. It is very important that things remains in their original form. Other wise Quran would be just like Bible.


By the way Tiassa, very nice post. I will dig up some info when I get home.
 
"It is very important that things remains in their original form. Other wise Quran would be just like Bible."

I assume you've never heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls then. The Koran is nothing like the Bible. If I hadn't studied Mormonism your attempts at trashing the Bible which your own book claims to support would surprise me. Actually there's quite a bit more I'd be tempted to look into if I hadn't studied Mormonism. But since I did study Mormonism, I have no interest outside the realm of the paper.

I'm not going to argue with you. The more I get into this the more I realize why I stopped debating religion with any sort of ferver.

Tiassa:
"Personally, I consider Koran a westernization of Qu'ran. "

So do I. It's a phonetic spelling. Claiming it's not the same book is a stupid word game. Calling a duck a horse makes it no less a duck.

"Muhammed"

It's "Muhammad" and it's just another duck named horse.

"After all, how many theological disputes at Sciforums have included the idea that the person has read the wrong translation of the Bible"

I've never used that argument. Neither has Tony. Taken used it once that I'm aware of but it was just a stupid "Bible idolatry" comment. The only religions that claim the Bible is mistranslated are pseudo Christian spin offs that only use their support for the Bible as a lure and then proceed to trash it once you're a member.

By trash it, I mean without regard to translation. The KJV is looked upon as the definitive translation most true to the source. The Bible before it (Luther's original translation) is also sought after but quite pricey.

The basic line comes do to, "we support the Bible, just not that fucked up translation you have." In other words, they don't support anything you could actually put your hands on. Which is quite convenient when they want to do things the Bible you can put your hands on won't allow.

"well the Bible you can't put your hands on says it's okay."

Sure it does buddy. I'm gonna walk over there now.

Ben
 
My bad ...

"After all, how many theological disputes at Sciforums have included the idea that the person has read the wrong translation of the Bible"

I've never used that argument. Neither has Tony. Taken used it once that I'm aware of but it was just a stupid "Bible idolatry" comment.
Click to expand...
My bad for not being more specific. There are also a number of occasions on which posters have asserted that the English language version has it wrong, and begin seeking the Hebrew references to make their point.

Now, this, you might disclaim yourself from, as well, and that's well and fine. But you'd be amazed at how vital that argument is in defense of Biblical accuracy. And, rather than cite that part of your post directly, let me merely mention that, from every direction I've ever heard--and not just the fringe groups--the KJV is a poor translation written to the ego of its patron. Mind you, I prefer it to the GNB, but I've never heard it called definitive except--and I'm not borrowing it from you--stump preachers and conservative churches of the southern US, whom I consider just a little ... unbalanced. But toward that note, I forget ... does the KJV include Maccabees and other books expunged by the Protestants? Ah ... I see that it does not, including even a note that those at blueletterbible.org do not feel those books to have any divine authority. It does not speak well toward its definitive aspects to be an expunged unit.
The only religions that claim the Bible is mistranslated are pseudo Christian spin offs that only use their support for the Bible as a lure and then proceed to trash it once you're a member.

By trash it, I mean without regard to translation.
Click to expand...
If hopping across paragraphs is wrong, let me know, but that's how it reads to me. In what way do what spinoffs trash the Bible after luring you with it?
The basic line comes do to, "we support the Bible, just not that fucked up translation you have." In other words, they don't support anything you could actually put your hands on. Which is quite convenient when they want to do things the Bible you can put your hands on won't allow.
Click to expand...
In other words:

* It comes down to We're right and you're wrong, so there!
* It comes down to people not following the Bible.
* It comes down to extraneous justifications for extrabiblical faith points.

I'm sorry, KalvinB, but I honestly don't see the difference between "them" and the other "them"; that is, 'twixt the spin-offs and the Christians.

Who are the spinoffs?

Part of the question that arises when you note the trashing of the Bible is that these groups are apparently on par with the rest of Christianity, in the US at least. At present, I cannot identify the segregation you're suggesting.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
My basic rule for debate way back when I took on the LDS church was that I wouldn't use any source that wasn't commonly available. Most people don't read Greek and/or Hebrew so I never used it. Most times when people use it to form a point, the point could have easily been made simply by reading the English. One kid tried to prove Godhood to me using the hebrew. I looked at him and said "'And you shall die like men.' Real Gods don't die." He never discussed doctrine with me again.

Like "day" in Genesis. The only one I know of that isn't explained in scripture is "mansion" (my house has many mansions) which to us means large house but in the original language and culture it means "apartment" which when you think about it, it makes sense. A house inside a house is an apartment. So yes, it has it's place but it's a very small place.

I have the Apocrypha but I havn't read it yet. It's generally not accepted because it contradicts the rest of the Bible. The Bible is enough to keep me busy for several years anyway.

"Who are the spinoffs?"

The obvious ones are the ones which claim to accept the Bible and yet trash it. The not so obvious ones are only seen by understanding the Bible. Seeing where they obviously go against scripture. Like forbidding you to marry or eat meat ect ect. Things that are spelled out in plain english. There are other big clues as well usually stored in how it all started. Prophets, angels, talking (two-way) to God are usually red lights.

If you don't believe that Christ really proved his authority ("by whose authority do you do this?" was a direct question by the Jews) then I don't except you to accept the Bible. I don't believe any modern day prophet has proven their authority so I don't buy their story. There's really nothing you can do to change that since well they're dead now and since they skipped taking the test while they were alive they can't very well do it now.

No prophecy, no miracles; no authority. Period.

Ben
 
I believe I see what you're after

The obvious ones are the ones which claim to accept the Bible and yet trash it. The not so obvious ones are only seen by understanding the Bible. Seeing where they obviously go against scripture. Like forbidding you to marry or eat meat ect ect. Things that are spelled out in plain english. There are other big clues as well usually stored in how it all started. Prophets, angels, talking (two-way) to God are usually red lights.
Click to expand...
I would start making a list of organizations that meet those criteria, but again, I'm afraid I can't tell the difference. I must admit that to me that sounds like the whole of Christianity. Admittedly, Lutherans are not "prophetically inspired" as, say SDA's are, but both pretty much trample scripture.

I mean, on both the individual and institutional levels, I get what you're after. But ... I'm not seeing a huge difference. Rather ... as opposed to what?

The idyll may be written definitively within the pages of the Bible, but even that is subjective.

As to the rest of it, the Bible reeks of much worse well before we get to the justification of Christ's authority. If he's building his authority on sand ....

So, yeah ... you summed it up pretty well: No prophecy, no miracles; no authority. Period.

And, being that this is, truly, tangential, I'll try to haul in the Kapuscinski bits I mentioned, at least.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
well..........

Originally posted by KalvinB
"It is very important that things remains in their original form. Other wise Quran would be just like Bible."

I assume you've never heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls then. The Koran is nothing like the Bible. If I hadn't studied Mormonism your attempts at trashing the Bible which your own book claims to support would surprise me. Actually there's quite a bit more I'd be tempted to look into if I hadn't studied Mormonism. But since I did study Mormonism, I have no interest outside the realm of the paper.

I'm not going to argue with you. The more I get into this the more I realize why I stopped debating religion with any sort of ferver.

Tiassa:
"Personally, I consider Koran a westernization of Qu'ran. "

So do I. It's a phonetic spelling. Claiming it's not the same book is a stupid word game. Calling a duck a horse makes it no less a duck.

"Ben
Click to expand...


Does the dead sea scrolls makes bible true or in it's orginal form? Did they fix any thing in the book?Did you ever heard of Gospels of Barnabas? Oh I am sorry that's not suppose to be in bible correct?. Well like you said earlier it is not the bible thread so I leave it alone. We will discuss the orginal topic here.

I don't know why you are refering to moronism so much or what is your affection with their book. Also where did you get the idea or who said that calling Koran or Quran would change the book or it's contents. Again you assume things, you try to think what's in writer's mind. That's where things get messed up when you start predicting what other's are trying to say.



I will try to simply give you a defination of Jihad and I believe that's what the post is about. So here it is, from The Institute of Islamic Information & Education.





JIHAD EXPLAINED


In the linguistic sense, the Arabic word "jihad" means struggling or striving and applies to any effort exerted by anyone. In this sense, a student struggles and strives to get an education and pass course work; an employee strives to fulfill his/her job and maintain good relations with his/her employer; a politician strives to maintain or increase his(1) popularity with his constituents and so on. The term strive or struggle may be used for/by Muslims as well as non-Muslims; for example, Allah, the One and Only True God says in the Qur'an:

"We have enjoined on people kindness to parents; but if they strive (Jahadaka) to make you ascribe partners with Me that of which you have no knowledge, then obey them not..."
(The Holy Quran, 29:8; also see 31:15)

In the above two verses of the Qur'an , it is non-Muslim parents who strive (jahadaka) to convert their Muslim child back to their religion. In the West, "jihad" is generally translated as "holy war," a usage the media has popularized. According to Islamic teachings, it is unholy to instigate or start war; however, some wars are inevitable and justifiable.

If we translate the words "holy war" back into Arabic, we find "harbun muqaddasatu," or for "the holy war," "al-harbu al-muqaddasatu." We challenge any researcher or scholar to find the meaning of "jihad" as holy war in the Qur'an or authentic Hadith collections or in early Islamic literature. Unfortunately, some Muslim writers and translators of the Qur'an, the Hadith and other Islamic literature translate the term "jihad" as "holy war," due to the influence of centuries-old Western propaganda.

This could be a reflection of the Christian use of the term "Holy War" to refer to the Crusades of a thousand years ago. However, the Arabic words for "war" are "harb" or "qital," which are found in the Qur'an and Hadith.

For Muslims the term Jihad is applied to all forms of striving and has developed some special meanings over time. The sources of this development are the Qur'an (the Word of God revealed to Prophet Muhammad(S) [(S) denotes Sall-Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam, meaning peace and blessings of Allah be upon him]. The Qur'an and the Hadith use the word "jihad" in several different contexts which are given below:

1. RECOGNIZING THE CREATOR AND LOVING HIM MOST:
====================================================

It is human nature to love what is seen with the eyes and felt with the senses more than the unseen reality. The Creator of the Universe and the One God is Allah. He is the Unseen Reality which we tend to ignore and not recognize. The Qur'an addresses those who claim to be believers:

"O you who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for protectors if they love disbelief over belief; whoever of you takes them for protectors, such are wrong-doers. Say: if your fathers, and your children, and your brethren, and your spouses, and your tribe, and the wealth you have acquired, and business for which you fear shrinkage, and houses you are pleased with are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger and striving in His way: then wait till Allah brings His command to pass. Allah does not guide disobedient folk."
(The Holy Quran 9:23, 24)

It is indeed a struggle to put Allah ahead of our loved ones, our wealth, our worldly ambitions and our own lives. Especially for a non-Muslim who embraces Islam, it may be a tough struggle due to the opposition of his family, peers and society.


3. STAYING ON THE STRAIGHT PATH STEADFASTLY:
==============================================

Allah says in the Qur'an:

"And strive (Jadihu) for Allah with the endeavor (Jihadihi) which is His right. He has chosen you and has not laid upon you in the deen (religion) any hardship..."
(The Holy Quran, 22:78)

"And whosoever strives (Jahada), strives (yujahidu) only for himself, for lo! Allah is altogether independent of the universe."
(The Holy Quran, 29:6)

As for those who strive and struggle to live as true Muslims whose lives are made difficult due to persecution by their opponents, they are advised to migrate to a more peaceful and tolerant land and continue with their struggle in the cause of Allah. Allah says in the Qur'an:

"Lo! As for those whom the angels take (in death) while they wronged themselves, (the angels) will ask: 'In what you were engaged?' They will way: 'We were oppressed in the land.' (The angels) will say: 'Was not Allah's earth spacious that you could have migrated therein?'"
(The Holy Quran, 4:97)

"Lo! Those who believe, and those who emigrate (to escape persecution) and strive (Jahadu) in the way of Allah, these have hope of Allah's mercy..."
(The Holy Quran, 2:218)

Allah tests the believers in their faith and their steadfastness:

"Or did you think that you would enter Paradise while yet Allah knows not those of you who really strive (Jahadu), nor knows those (of you) who are steadfast."
(The Holy Quran, 3:142)

"And surely We shall try you with something of fear and hunger, and loss of wealth and lives and fruits; but give tidings to the steadfast."
(The Holy Quran, 2:155)

We find that the Prophet Muhammad(S) and his clan were boycotted socially and economically for three years to force him to stop his message and compromise with the pagans but he resisted and realized a moral victory(2).

4. STRIVING FOR RIGHTEOUS DEEDS:
==================================

Allah declares in the Qur'an:

"As for those who strive (Jahadu) in Us (the cause of Allah), We surely guide them to Our paths, and lo! Allah is with the good doers."
(The Holy Quran, 29:69)

When we are faced with two competing interests, it becomes jihad to choose the right one, as the following Hadith exemplify:

"Aisha, wife of the Prophet(S) asked, 'O Messenger of Allah, we see jihad as the best of deeds, so shouldn't we join it?' He replied, 'But the best of jihad is a perfect Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah).'"
(Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 2784)

At another occasion, a man asked the Prophet Muhammad(S):

"'Should I join the jihad?' He asked, 'Do you have parents?' The man said, 'Yes!' The Prophet(S) said, 'Then strive by serving them!'"
(Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 5972)

Yet another man asked the Messenger of Allah(S):

"'What kind of jihad is better?' He replied, 'A word of truth in front of an oppressive ruler!'" (Sunan Al-Nasa'i , No. 4209)
The Messenger of Allah(S) said:

"...the Mujahid (one who carries out jihad) is he who strives against himself for the sake of Allah, and the Muhajir (one who emigrates) is he who abandons evil deeds and sin."
(Sahih Ibn Hibbanm, No. 4862)

5. HAVING COURAGE AND STEADFASTNESS TO CONVEY THE MESSAGE OF ISLAM:
==================================================================

The Qur'an narrates the experiences of a large number of Prophets and good people who suffered a great deal trying to convey the message of Allah to mankind. For examples, see the Qur'an 26:1-190, 36:13-32. In the Qur'an, Allah specifically praises those who strive to convey His message:

"Who is better in speech than one who calls (other people) to Allah, works righteous, and declares that he is from the Muslims." (The Holy Quran, 41:33)

Under adverse conditions it takes great courage to remain a Muslim, declare oneself to be a Muslim and call others to Islam. We read in the Qur'an:

"The (true) believers are only those who believe in Allah and his messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their selves for the cause of Allah. Such are the truthful." (The Holy Quran, 49:15)

6. DEFENDING ISLAM AND THE COMMUNITY:
=========================================

Allah declares in the Qur'an:

"To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to defend themselves), because they are wronged - and verily, Allah is Most Powerful to give them victory - (they are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right - (for no cause) except that they say, 'Our Lord is Allah'..."
(The Holy Quran, 22:39-40)

The Qur'an permits fighting to defend the religion of Islam and the Muslims. This permission includes fighting in self-defense and for the protection of family and property. The early Muslims fought many battles against their enemies under the leadership of the Prophet Muhammad(S) or his representatives. For example, when the pagans of Quraysh brought armies against Prophet Muhammad(S), the Muslims fought to defend their faith and community(3). The Qur'an adds:

"Fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress limits. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors. ...And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against transgressors."
(The Holy Quran, 2:190, 193)

7. HELPING ALLIED PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT BE MUSLIM:
==================================================

In the late period of the Prophet Muhammad's(S) life, the tribe of Banu Khuza'ah became his ally. They were living near Makkah which was under the rule of the pagan Quraysh, Prophet Muhammad's(S) own tribe. The tribe of Banu Bakr, an ally of Quraysh, with the help of some elements of Quraysh, attacked Banu Khuza'ah invoked the treaty and demanded Prophet Muhammad(S) to come to their help and punish Quraysh. The Prophet Muhammad(S) organized a campaign against Quraysh of Makkah which resulted in the conquest of Makkah which occurred without any battle(4).

8. REMOVING TREACHEROUS PEOPLE FROM POWER:
================================================

Allah orders the Muslims in the Qur'an:

"If you fear treachery from any group, throw back (their treaty) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms. Lo! Allah loves not the treacherous."
(The Holy Quran, 8:58)

Prophet Muhammad(S) undertook a number of armed campaigns to remove treacherous people from power and their lodgings. He had entered into pacts with several tribes, however, some of them proved themselves treacherous. Prophet Muhammad(S) launched armed campaigns against these tribes, defeated and exiled them from Medina and its surroundings(5).

9. DEFENDING THROUGH PREEMPTIVE STRIKES:
============================================

Indeed, it is difficult to mobilize people to fight when they see no invaders in their territory; however, those who are charged with responsibility see dangers ahead of time and must provide leadership. The Messenger of Allah, Muhammad(S), had the responsibility to protect his people and the religion he established in Arabia. Whenever he received intelligence reports about enemies gathering near his borders he carried out preemptive strikes, broke their power and dispersed them(6). Allah ordered Muslims in the Qur'an:

"Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it may happen that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. And Allah knows and you know not."
(The Holy Quran, 2:216)


10. GAINING FREEDOM TO INFORM, EDUCATE AND CONVEY THE MESSAGE OF ISLAM IN AN OPEN AND FREE ENVIRONMENT:
===================================================================

Allah declares in the Qur'an:

"They ask you (Muhammad) concerning fighting in the Sacred Month. Say, 'Fighting therein is a grave (offense) but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its inhabitants. Persecution is worse than killing. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith, if they can..."
(The Holy Quran, 2:217)

"And those who, when an oppressive wrong is inflicted on them, (are not cowed but) fight back."
(The Holy Quran, 42:39)

To gain this freedom, Prophet Muhammad(S) said:

"Strive (Jahidu) against the disbelievers with your hands and tongues."
(Sahih Ibn Hibban, No. 4708)

The life of the Prophet Muhammad(S) was full of striving to gain the freedom to inform and convey the message of Islam. During his stay in Makkah he used non-violent methods and after the establishment of his government in Madinah, by the permission of Allah, he used armed struggle against his enemies whenever he found it inevitable.

11. FREEING PEOPLE FROM TYRANNY:
===================================

Allah admonishes Muslims in the Qur'an:

"And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? - Men, women, and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You, one who will protect; and raise for us from You, one who will help.'"
(The Holy Quran, 4:75)

The mission of the Prophet Muhammad(S) was to free people from tyranny and exploitation by oppressive systems. Once free, individuals in the society were then free to chose Islam or not. Prophet Muhammad's(S) successors continued in his footsteps and went to help oppressed people. For example, after the repeated call by the oppressed people of Spain to the Muslims for help, Spain was liberated by Muslim forces and the tyrant rulers removed. After the conquest of Syria and Iraq by the Muslims, the Christian population of Hims reportedly said to the Muslims:

"We like your rule and justice far better than the state of oppression and tyranny under which we have been living."(7)
The defeated rulers of Syria were Roman Christians, and Iraq was ruled by Zoarastrian Persians.

WHAT SHOULD MUSLIMS DO WHEN THEY ARE VICTORIOUS?
=======================================================

Muslims should remove tyranny, treachery, bigotry, and ignorance and replace them with justice and equity. We should provide truthful knowledge and free people from the bondage of 'associationism' (Shirk, or multiple gods), prejudice, superstition and mythology. Muslims remove immorality, fear, crime, exploitation and replace them with divine morality, peace and education. The Qur'an declares:

"Lo! Allah commands you that you restore deposits to their owners, and if you judge between mankind that you judge justly. Lo! It is proper that Allah admonishes you. Lo! Allah is ever Hearer, Seer."
(The Holy Quran, 4:58)


"O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah's witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to Piety and fear Allah. And Allah is well acquainted with all that you do."
(The Holy Quran, 5:8)

"And of those whom We have created there is a nation who guides with the Truth and establishes justice with it."
(The Holy Quran, 7:181)

"Lo! Allah enjoins justice and kindness, and giving to kinsfolk, and forbids lewdness and abomination and wickedness. He exhorts you in order that you may take heed."
(The Holy Quran, 16:90)

"Those who, if We give them power in the land, establish prescribed prayers (salah) and pay the poor-due (zakah) and enjoin right conduct and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the end (and decision) of (all) affairs."
(The Holy Quran, 22:41)

DID ISLAM SPREAD BY FORCE, SWORDS OR GUNS?
==============================================

The unequivocal and emphatic answer is No! The Qur'an declares:

"Let there be no compulsion (or coercion) in the religion (Islam). The right direction is distinctly clear from error."
(The Holy Quran, 2:256)


Here is a good study of the question of the spread of Islam by a Christian missionary, T. W. Arnold:

"...of any organized attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years. The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christiandom throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that the very survival of these Churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of Mohammedan [sic] governments towards them"(8).

Islam does not teach, nor do Muslims desire, conversion of any people for fear, greed, marriage or any other form of coercion.

In conclusion, jihad in Islam is striving in the way of Allah by pen, tongue, hand, media and, if inevitable, with arms. However, jihad in Islam does not include striving for individual or national power, dominance, glory, wealth, prestige or pride.


REFERENCES:
==============

1-For the sake of simplicity and easy reading, masculine pronouns have been used throughout this brochure. No exclusion of females is intended.

2-Haykal, M. H., The Life of Muhammad, Tr. Ismail R. Faruqi, American Trust Publications, 1976, p. 132.

3-Haykal, pp. 216, 242, 299 and 414 for the Battles of Badr, Uhud, Al-Khandaq and Hunayn, respectively.

4-Haykal, p. 395 for the conquest of Makkah.

5-Haykal, pp. 245, 277, 311 and 326 for campaigns against the tribes of Banu Qaynuqa', Banu Al-Nadir, Banu Qurayzah and Banu Lihyan, respectively. Also, see p. 283 for the Battle of Dhat Al-Riqa'.

6-Haykal, pp. 284, 327, 366, 387, 393, 443 and 515 for the Battles of Dawmat Al-Jandal, Banu Al-Mustaliq, Khayber, Mu'tah, Dhat Al-Salasil, Tabuk and the Campaign of Usama Ibn Zayd, respectively.

7-Hitti, Philip K., History of the Arabs, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1970, p. 153.

8-Arnold, Sir Thomas W., The Preaching of Islam, a History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith, Westminister A. Constable & Co., London, 1896, p. 80.

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

I hope it explains you a some concept of Jihad. Again Jihad is not the HOLY WAR. It is Striving in the name of GOD and I think Quran is pretty clear about it.
 
You obviously know nothing about the dead sea scrolls so your opinion of the accuracy of the modern Bible is worthless.

"I hope it explains you a some concept of Jihad. Again Jihad is not the HOLY WAR. It is Striving in the name of GOD and I think Quran is pretty clear about it."

You're just arguing a word. Who cares? According to your own post section 6 it can mean holy war. So why are you trying to tell me it doesn't mean holy war?

It's blatently deceitful.

What matters is that the Koran condons the killing of unbelievers and doesn't really care who does it. It has no concept of authority whatsoever.

Ben
 
Originally posted by KalvinB
You obviously know nothing about the dead sea scrolls so your opinion of the accuracy of the modern Bible is worthless.

"I hope it explains you a some concept of Jihad. Again Jihad is not the HOLY WAR. It is Striving in the name of GOD and I think Quran is pretty clear about it."

You're just arguing a word. Who cares? According to your own post section 6 it can mean holy war. So why are you trying to tell me it doesn't mean holy war?

It's blatently deceitful.

What matters is that the Koran condons the killing of unbelievers and doesn't really care who does it. It has no concept of authority whatsoever.

Ben
Click to expand...

Well your ignorance is obvious. Nothing new. I am not arguing word the but it's meaning.

**

"To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to defend themselves), because they are wronged - and verily, Allah is Most Powerful to give them victory - (they are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right - (for no cause) except that they say, 'Our Lord is Allah'..."
(The Holy Quran, 22:39-40)

The Qur'an permits fighting to defend the religion of Islam and the Muslims. This permission includes fighting in self-defense and for the protection of family and property. The early Muslims fought many battles against their enemies under the leadership of the Prophet Muhammad(S) or his representatives. For example, when the pagans of Quraysh brought armies against Prophet Muhammad(S), the Muslims fought to defend their faith and community(3). The Qur'an adds:

"Fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress limits. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors. ...And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against transgressors." **



I don't see any problem with above statement. Kill unbelilvers when they rage war against you. What did it say? something wrong? Offcurse in your mind every thing is wrong but christianity. I won't defend anything which I disagree.

I think you miss every thing from the whole post and whine and cry about no-6, even thou it doesn't say anything different then rest of the post. Purpose for all those explainations was to clear the concept and the meaning of Jihad for people ignorant to arabic like yourself. Who take it what they see on tv or they like to do keyword searches. I don't blame you, it has been the missionary approach for many centuries and it is against any religion, in this case it happened to be Islam. No hard feelings.
:eek:
 
I havn't missed anything.

"I am not arguing word the but it's meaning"

You're basically arguing that Jihad doesn't mean holy war but it can mean holy war. In other words, you agree with my conclusion in that regard.

And exactly, the Koran has no concept of authority.

If an unbeliever does something you don't like you have permission to crucify them. You don't have to answer to anyone. God doesn't love them. You aren't even supposed to be friends with them. So if they piss you off, you can kill them.

The Koran would have to be incredibly disorganized for chapter 20 to finally get around to pointing out when it's okay to kill unbelievers considering it starts going off on killing unbelievers in chapter 5. It starts going off on shunning them even sooner.

Ben
 
002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

Which is it? Transgressors or Aggressors? Or is the Arabic word the same for both? And if so, what is it's real meaning?

002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out

002.193
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

What constitutes persecution? Considering it's grounds for killing people it might be a good idea to elaborate on that.

Ben
 
Two cents

002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

Which is it? Transgressors or Aggressors? Or is the Arabic word the same for both? And if so, what is it's real meaning?
Click to expand...
This one I'll take a stab at; it seems easy to field.

I would suggest it is the English dialect of the translators. What I'm seeing here is easy enough: Muslims are to defend themselves. To instigate aggression is to exceed the basic limit of warfare. Allah does not love those who start wars; or strike without cause. The eventual object being that nobody will have cause and wars will cease to be--this last, of course, by my own extension of logic, and not any notion I recall getting from Islam itself, so I can't actually speak for the conclusion. It just seems that's the eventual object.

As to 02.193, I'm not even going to take a stab. Like I say, economy and education: the Islamic world, given a chance to advance and participate according to its needs, will eventually do what the Christian world did, and find something more valuable than God. At that time, they, too, will start to logically abandon such quandaries as you have posed here. After all, how many times does the Bible say to kill someone that, in the US, we just won't let happen? It's a matter of making God second fiddle, that's all.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top