Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

[Michael]

And of course there isn’t anything in Islamic teaching that provides a gateway to higher understanding of the world around us... Strange how you have picked up the doctrine of forgiveness for Christianity, but dismissed it in any other religion, including Islam.

Forgiveness of original Sin through the death of Christ on the X is the main message of Xianity. It’s of course plagiarized - - but it’s still the main message in that belief system.

What is the main message in Islam? Mohammad was the Last Prophet? Or the Qur’an is Perfect? Or what? What would you say is the central message in Islam? Is it in anyway unique?

Strange that you have still not acknowledged that the concept of Universality as presented by Islamic teaching is so beautiful and satisfying, that it is one of the best ways to reconcile people from different religions. That it brings the message of hope, peace and harmony between mankind.

How is the “Universality” in Islam different than that of Xianity? Or of evangelical Judaism?

PLEASE Explain further because maybe I'm missing something. How is Islam's concept different purely in regards to being a "Universal message"?

Also, you say Islam is Universal? Well, how do the Shinto fit into this “Universal” belief system? How do the Polytheistic Greeks fit into this Universality? How do the Hindu fit into this Universality? How do the Pagan European fit into this Universality?

They don’t seem to, to me. Your whole concept of “Universality” is no different than Xianity or Judaism - or so it seems. Which is to say anyone can become a Muslim. Whooopie Arsalan. Ever here of the Roman Empire? Anyone could and did worship ALL SORTS OF GODS. The whole name of the game was to get patrons of other gods to worship yours! They were equally as “Universal” in that anyone could join their “religion”.

Now, contrast this with the concept of Buddhism. Look at the Grecobuddhists or the Shinto-Buddhists. Buddhism is also “Universal” - anyone can become a Buddhist - but even more so because the Buddhist doctrine can accept and accommodate the validity with respect of many other beliefs and still retain its theistic structure.
(Xiantiy is also a Universal religion and it also accommodates other beleif systems - take Islam for example, Xians would simply fit your religion into their world view by saying Mohammad was possessed by Satan and you will burn in Hell Fire unless you ask for FORGIVENESS of SIN and accept Jesus as the Messiah).


Anyway, please indicate the unique form of “Universality” that Islam brings. WHAT is unique in Islamic concept of “Universality”?

Strange that you have not acknowledged other teachings of Islam, empiricism for example, which have a profound effect on our lives nowadays and are responsible for among others the modern scientific method, experimental science and experimental physics, all of which were introduced by that old friend of ours, Ibn Haytham, who, as you know, of course, attributed it to Islamic teaching, i.e. The Quran.

OMG – yes “Islamic Golden age”

I simply disagree but I completely understand why it’s “Islamic" Golden age yup, great tool of propaganda.

Can you tell us of the Xian Golden Age? How about the Zoroastrian Golden Age? Pagan Golden Age? Hindu Golden Age? Shaman Golden Age? Tao Golden Age? CoS Golden Age? No you can't because only Muslim's like to use Islam and try to squeeze Islam up next to the Great Empires - like Egypt for example. Do you call it the Pharaohs Golden Age?!?!? NO!!

But no, of course you won’t acknowledge any of those positives coming from Islamic teaching. Nope.

I do acknowledge that people who happen to be Muslim were inventive. I simply do not believe that a belief in Allah (or Xenu for that mater) brings about Scientific advancement. Actually, it doesn’t. Even as a concept it's no novel.

Tell me the greatest Muslim invention (or your favored) and then tell me how The Qur’an brought about this invention.

Then, tell me how the discovery of cement that can harden underwater, which was invented by the Romans, was influenced by which Roman religious belief. Tell me why “cement” (a remarkable invention) justifies validity in the beleif and books of some Roman God.

It’s called the ROMAN Golden Age. The GREEK Golden Age, The CHINESE Golden Age…. Oh then there’s the “Islamic Golden Age” Haaa! What great propaganda to try to elevate a religion to the status of the pinnacle of entire Empires.

Can you tell me exactly where regulated behaviour is forced on to people? Or name change? Or where does Islam try to intellectualize absurdity? I would like proof please.

Repetitive behavior like praying 5 times a day pointed in a certain direction or changing one’s name to Mohammad Ali are well known tactics used by modern day cults to make a break in the persons personality (especially the name change). Are they enforced? Not more than any other cult enforces their use of identical tactics.

Intellectualizing Absurdity = “ISLAMIC" Golden Age.

Tell me again how “Cement” is evidence of which Roman Goddess? Forget ROMAN Golden Age …. Quick drying water proof cement now shows us it’s “APHROPDITE Golden Age”

(that is exactly what you are asking us to swallow here).

Ah yes, your pathetic old argument that Islam is just a copy of Christianity. Once again, you prove that you have not picked up any of what I have said previously on this subject and you resort to your age old, tired and frankly invalid argument. You conveniently dismiss Islam’s claim of NOT being a new religion and not a revival either.

Ahhhhh Arsalan – the mythology is the same stories … Jesus is in the Qur’an. Jesus alone is evidence of some plagiarism. Not to mention all the Jewish stories that were copied. I once read the Qur’an is >70% Torah + Bible. Copying stories is called Plagiarism Arsalan.

Pretty simple concept really. I think everyone agrees to this.

Also conveniently dismissing that the Prophet was seen as a righteous and truthful man all of his life by everyone.

That is not true. Some people made fun of him (and lost their heads for it) others did revere him. But so what? Many MORE people revered General Mao during his life time.

Agreed? Well do you agree?
MANY MANY MANY MANY more people revered General Mao than Mohammad.
True or False?

Let me repeat one more time. JESUS is in your religous book. Jesus is Xian. Therefor any mention of Jesus or Mosses or anything from past religion is plagiarized. It's pretty freaken simple concept huh?

Think of this. Mohammad is in the Baha'i religous book. Did they copy it from Islam? Yes or No?


Just assume for one minute that there is no God. Now, tell me, how did Mohammad come to put the Xian and Jewish stories into his religous teachings?

HUH?
THAT'S the real million dollar question,

Michael

 

[Arsalan]

Your assignment of hatred to me is in error, and belies your claim of ability at character profiling. Your habit of reacting to other people's posts critical of Islam or its manifestations, even quite reasonable ones, by assigning them hatred, cannot be well-informed, and I am free to speculate about its basis.

The classic mistake you keep making here regarding my posts is that you seem to think that I see anyone who makes a negative post about Islam as a hater and a pro-Christianity atheist. This is not true. I have tried to explain you what kind of hate I meant, yet you don’t seem too keen on accepting or even entertaining that explanation with regard to my post, which, once again, goes to show that you are indeed not willing to entertain any ideas that might conflict with your view on where I stand. Let’s not forget, it was you who called me a fundie first, not me saying that you wear shades of hate. Not to mention ascribing to me a particularly nasty symptom of that mental illness called schizophrenia.

I will take one more shot at trying to explain to you what I mean with shades of hate. There are various kinds of hate. There is hate which results in physical violence stemming from ones inability at anger management. There’s hate which stems from racism. Then there’s the kind of hate which clouds one’s ability to see beyond the person making the statement and attacking that person on one, mostly insignificant, word or sentence and rejecting that persons argument out of hand without even looking into it. You could say it’s another form of a red herring although it differs vastly from the official and standard meaning of a red herring.

You were talking about the atheist posters on this forum "always" defending Christianity, and responding specifically to a post of Geoff's, whom you have repeatedly now used as a generalizable example of an atheist illegitimately defending Christianity and attacking Islam.

I never restricted my argument to this forum only. This may be news to you but the vast majority of Atheists do not frequent these boards. My inclusion of other sites and people who have never even visited this board should have alerted you to this, alas, it wasn’t meant to be.

Neither have I made Geoff out to be a generalised example of an Atheist illegitimately defending Christianity while attacking Islam. I merely responded to his post regarding the cartoon. Although the part of my post regarding Atheists and their seemingly subtle defence of Christianity was not meant for him, it could apply to his reasoning behind the “incredibly picky note” he made regarding the cartoon. A note, with a bias towards Quranic verses you have once again failed to pick up.

Not all of them - just a couple hundred or so.

Ah just a couple hundred or so. Would this be a bad time to tell you that I post on 5 different boards in 2 different languages?

I see no evidence that it does, in its essentials. You take pride in it, I wouldn't, is all.

I assume your definition of a fundamentalist is along the lines of “ignorant, brainwashed person willing to attack anyone and whose vision is clouded to even entertain any other thoughts regarding the subject at hand”. Come to think of it, this could be tweaked and become a definition of the “shades of hate” in my post.

My definition of a fundamentalist vastly differs from that. I consider myself a fundamentalist in that I try my best to follow Islamic teaching. Teaching which gives me room and encourages me to get education, help others and worship among others. I don’t believe that Islam promotes ignorance but rather intellectualism. I don’t believe it brainwashes people as there is no compulsion in religion. People can accept it of their own free will. So yes, my definition probably differs from yours, especially in its essentials.

What claims, aside from the ones backed up in the past couple of posts ?

You have said that Christians accuse you of the same thing regarding Islam. I asked for a link or maybe you can tell me where I can look for something like that.

I have indeed, having seen none of that info as yet, and generally taking the assertion as unfounded at best.
If you will refer back to the post at issue, you were responding to a post of Geoff's by claiming that "atheists always" etc etc - -motivated by "hate". There is no evidence of that, and it seems especially strange in response to Geoff's posts.
I observed that such a stance seems based on common fundie delusions, about atheists in general and the ones on this forum in particular. I speculated about the origin of them, especially the likelihood of a mistaken empathy.

First of all, you can find the quote on FFI, generally bandied around there.

Wilders wanting a Christian and Jewish Leitkultur and wanting to ban Islam:

http://www.pvv.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=11

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,544347,00.html

Then there’s Hirsi Ali whose anti-Islamist comments are generally accompanied by Pro Christian and Jewish comments. You find those on the web as well. Or you can check out her Wikipedia page.

Although Irshad Manji does consider herself to be a Muslim, she has nothing but contempt for anything Islamic or Arabic and nothing but praise for anything Jewish. Any good thing the Arabs have done according to her was passed down to them by the Jews and any bad thing the Arabs have done they are the only ones to blame. It’s kind of like Michaels point of view. It is also very similar to Aesop’s Fable.

And then of course there’s Michael with this incredibly negative stance towards anything Islamic or Arabic yet he has at least some positives for Christianity and other religions and races. You see a pattern yet?

Come back when you have studied these and then tell me again you have not found any information.

Secondly, my post in reply to Geoff did not say he was motivated by hate. I said that you were wearing shades of hate which clouded your ability to see what I was saying.

You seem to have missed the point, as usual. It isn't about whether a time of war (which other commentators have assured me only refers to a specific time when a war was actually happening, rather than a general commandment for all time - then curiously reverse that position in other circumstances), but whether God is saying He'll do the job for you or whether you as a believer should do it yourself. In that respect, you missed the last half of the quote:
In other words, the believers (muslims, not angels or any immaterial beings) are being commanded to do this, with the explanation that nothing they do is their own will or fault. "You killed them not, but Allah killed them."

First of all, whether these verses are about a time of war or not is a very important first step into explaining these verses. If someone starts a war against you and wants to ethnically cleanse you, your self-defence or commands to self-defence and the actions of your enemy should be viewed under that situation. Giving the command to kill people in everyday life is very different to telling people to stand up and fight for their own survival. That is the key here yet you don’t want to see it.

And once again, you don’t attack the creator of that cartoon for not choosing a Biblical verse which is about a time of war. Moreover, in this verse God does talk to the Angels as you have clearly seen from the full, unedited verses. It’s a mix of commandments to Angel and Muslims during a time of war.
Secondly, which commentators are you talking about?

And as I asked you before, what are the laws regarding self-defence, international or otherwise? Just curious like....

What is the main message in Islam? Mohammad was the Last Prophet? Or the Qur’an is Perfect? Or what? What would you say is the central message in Islam? Is it in anyway unique?

Let me quote:

The Quran affirms that the universe is bound by law and, thus bound, is placed at the service of man. For instance, it is said:

"God is He Who created the heavens and the earth and caused water to come down from the clouds and brought forth therewith fruit for your sustenance. He has subjected to you the ships that they may sail through the sea by His command, and the rivers too has He subjected to you. He has also subjected to you the sun and the moon, both pursuing their courses constantly. He has subjected to you the night as well as the day. He gave you all that you wanted of Him. If you try to count the favors of God, you will not be able to number them." (14:33-35)

Again:

"He has constrained into service for you the night and the day, and the sun and the moon; and the stars too have been constrained into your service by His command. Surely, in that are Signs for a people who make use of their reason. He has constrained into service for you the things Me has created in the earth, of diverse hues. Surely, in that is a Sign for a people who take heed. He it is Who has subjected to you the sea, that you may take therefrom fresh flesh to eat, and the ornaments that you wear. Thou seest the ships ploughing it, that you may journey thereby, and that you may seek of His bounty, and that you may be grateful." (16:13-15)

Reference to God's Signs emphasizes the need for study and research so that the proper use of each thing may be discovered by acquiring knowledge of its properties and the laws governing them. The assurance that the whole universe is subjected to man's service, and the certainty that everything in it is governed by laws, the knowledge of which can be progressively acquired by man, throws wide open to man all avenues of knowledge which he is not only encouraged, but is repeatedly urged and exhorted, to explore unceasingly. The only limitation is imposed by another of God's laws:

That so long as man continues to make beneficent use of God's bounties, God will continue to multiply them unto man without limit, but if he misuses or abuses them, he will be called to account in respect of them, and these very bounties may become the instruments of his ruin and his destruction. (14:8)

By gaining knowledge and worshipping we gain nearness to God and increase our knowledge of the Universe, thereby fulfilling another concept, that of evolution. Relying on some mythical, magical figure to come flying from the heavens to save you is not actively encouraged. Gaining knowledge which ultimately is the way to progress and worshipping for guidance are the way forward for the human race.

How is the “Universality” in Islam different than that of Xianity? Or of evangelical Judaism?

PLEASE Explain further because maybe I'm missing something. How is Islam's concept different purely in regards to being a "Universal message"?

Christianity and Judaism teach in their core Holy Books that the message contained therein is just for them , not for anyone else. This leads to the problem that there are many different religions in this world which will then be deemed to have been inspired by Satan or what other negative force. This is in stark contrast to the Universality taught in the Quran which says that God has guided man at every stage in every part of the world i.e. gave them a Message, i.e. a Religion. Therefore Muslims do not see other religions as inspired by Satan and they accept a vast number of Prophets from all over the world and accept that the teaching they brought was indeed of divine origin. Christianity and Judaism do not accept anything like this. That is the main difference.

Also, you say Islam is Universal? Well, how do the Shinto fit into this “Universal” belief system?

As I’ve said before, Universality in Islam means that religions in various parts of the world are of Divine origin. Muslims therefore accept these religions to be to be divine and respect them and their teachings and their Prophets. In Shinto for example, the story of Izangi and Izanami, who created the Islands of Japan and then populated them and the first emperor is seen as a direct descendent of these Gods. So we have Gods but what is more important to Shinto is the Kami. And when a person is considered a Kami, well, thats the closest thing in Shinto to a Prophet. Although that is rare. At this early stage we already see that one family, namely the Emperors is seen as chosen by the Gods to lead the people. This is one of the similarities.

In worship, a Shintoist usually visits a shrine to appease the Gods. And what do we find in that shrine? Water to perform ablution. Now, where else have we seen this? Hmm...

There are various wisdoms of Shinto. My favourite are the ones that tell their followers to pray and if your prayers don’t help then your sincerity is lacking and the other is that no one is a stranger. These I find very similar to Islamic teaching, namely that Muslims should pray and gain knowledge and pray before undertaking action, in all sincerity.

Unfortunately, the Shinto religion lacks intellectual and philosophical speculation. Moreover, it is an ethnic religion, meant only for the people of Japan. Until recently it demanded complete loyalty to the Emperor iirc. Therefore, even though there are similarities between Shinto and Islam, Shinto is a way of life more than a religion and it is very ethnic, not universal, thereby confirming what the Quran says that Messengers were sent to every people in every part of the world.

How do the Polytheistic Greeks fit into this Universality?

The Polytheistic Greeks have all but vanished, hence dispelling any attempts to write off their religion as Universal or Eternal. In my opinion, polytheism in that area resulted from the actions of various Prophets, who were then, after their deaths, elevated to the status of Gods. What I find interesting about them is that even they had the concept of a “King of the Gods”, namely a God more powerful than all the others, their leader. Even though they turned to various Gods, in their system of deities they still acknowledged the power of one God.

How do the Hindu fit into this Universality?

In the Sanatan Dharm, or Hinduism if you prefer, there is the concept of One God called Brahman. Sound familiar? Then there are the Avatars which you could call Prophets in a way, similar to Islam. But I think what you will like most is what the Hindu Holy Books say. Let me first quote something from the Quran:

And there is no people to whom a Warner has not been sent.(35:25)

And there is a guide for every people.(13:8)

And now, not the Quran:

Whenever there is decay of Dharma (i.e., religion) and there is spread of Adharma (i.e. irreligion) then for the protection of the poor and the good and for the destruction of the evil-doers, I shall appear from age to age.(Srimad Bhagrat Gita 4:7,8)

Hmm, interesting. Whoda thunk there would be similarities? But wait it doesn’t stop there. I’ll be copying stuff from a publication.

Among the four Vedas of the Hindus, Athra Veda occupies a prominent position. It is also known as Brahma Ved (i.e. Divine knowledge). It contains the following prophecy:

O people! listen to these words with reverence. A very praise-worthy person will appear among the people. He will accept him from among 60090 enemies. His means of transport would be 20 camels . His name will soar high and then return. This great Rishi will have 100 gold coins, 10 pearl necklaces, 300 Arab horses and 10,000 cows.
(Athra Ved Kantam 20-127, 70-1-3)

Here many characteristics of the Prophet have been mentioned. The Promised Rishi is called praiseworthy. The word Muhammad itself means worthy of praise. He and his companions used camels as means of transport whereas for the Rishis of India, the use of camel is forbidden (Manu Smrithi 5:8). When the Prophet appeared in Arabia, the population of the Arabs was stated as a little more than 60,000. Soaring high and returning refers to his experience of Miraj. The 100 gold coins refer to his companions who migrated twice to Abyssinia. The 10 pearl necklaces signify Ashra-Mubashera, the ten companions of the Prophet, regarding whom God gave the glad tidings of Paradise in this world itself. These are Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, Ali, Talha, Zubair, Abdur Rahman ibn Auf, Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas, Sa'ad ibn Zaid and Abu Ubaidah. The 300 Arab horses signify the 300 companions of the Holy Prophet who took part in the battle of Badr. They numbered 313. Eight of them could not participate in the battle. One of them died before the battle, and four of them were small children. Thus the actual number of people who fought in the battle of Badr together with the Holy Prophet was 300. 10,000 cows signify the ten thousand holy people who entered Mecca triumphantly with him on his return. It is worthy of note that the number 10,000 is also mentioned in the Bible.

Bhavisyath Puran also contains a prophecy regarding the advent of the Prophet. Maharishi Vyas Muni occupies an emminent position among the Hindus because of his vast knowledge and wisdom, and God-given capabilities. In addition to other religious literature, he has written 18 Puranas such as Brahma Puran, Bhagath Puran. The 18th Puran is named Bhavisyath Puran. It contains prophecies pertaining to the future. According to the beliefs of the Hindus this book contains Divine revelations and prophecies. This Bhavisyath Puran contains the following prophecy regarding the Prophet:

A spiritual reformer will come from a foreign land with his disciples. His name will be Mahamad. He will dwell in a desert.(Bhavisyath Purana 3:5-8)

Hmm... His name will be Mahamad and he will dwell in a desert. I vaguely remember someone like that. Do you?

Maharishi Vyas Muni has mentioned the following qualities of this Mahamad Rishi and his followers:

His followers will perform circumcision. They will not keep their hair in the form of Choti as the Brahmans do. They will keep beard. They will bring about a revolution. They will call with a loud voice (i.e., instead of using a bell to call the people for prayer, they will call people to prayer in a loud voice by 'Azan'). They will eat meat of animals other than that of swine. They will attain purity through Jihad. Their civilization will be called Muslay (Muslim).(Bhavishyat Puran Vol. 3 verse:3)
Without any interpretation, all these characteristics agree completely with the characteristics of the Prophet and his followers. In short, all the prophecies of the divine books of the Hindu religion have been fulfilled in the person of the Prophet of Islam.

This is a good example of the Universality of Islam. Islam accepts the Hindu Avatars as Prophets. It accepts their teachings as coming from Divine origin. Islam and the Prophet are mentioned in the Hindu Holy Books. And this is the same in the Bible. That is why you’re claim that the Prophet merely copied stories from the Bible and Torah is false, because he is mentioned in the Bible and Torah much like he is in the Hindu Holy Books.

How do the Pagan European fit into this Universality?

Paganism is just another word for a religion different from yours, a person who does not acknowledge your religion or God is a pagan. Christians refer to them as heathens iirc. I tend to agree with Dumezil that paganism that was prevalent in Europe was part of a pan-Indo-European expression of spiritual ideas as a whole. I believe there is that connection between Paganism and the Eastern religions and ways of life, hence bringing even these under the umbrella of Universality.

Now, contrast this with the concept of Buddhism. Look at the Grecobuddhists or the Shinto-Buddhists. Buddhism is also “Universal” - anyone can become a Buddhist - but even more so because the Buddhist doctrine can accept and accommodate the validity with respect of many other beliefs and still retain its theistic structure.

Universality does not mean that anyone can become whatever they want. Being able to accept or denounce a religion goes without saying and is part of Islamic teaching. No, that is not the concept I am talking about. I’m talking about a Messenger being sent to every people in every part of the world. From the Inuits to the Hindu Avatars. And Muslims accept these teachers as Prophets because of the Islamic teaching of Universality.

Buddhism was basically just a reform movement in Hinduism but as time went on Buddha became more and more revered and ultimately he was portrayed as a celestial being. Remind you of anyone?

Anyway, Buddhism lacks a well developed spiritual philosophy, partly, in my opinion, because it turned itself away from the religion it was trying to reform, i.e. Hinduism. The reason that Buddhism spread so much was that as time went on it absorbed and merged with many teachings of the various religions and lifestyles in the area. That’s why were talking about Shinto-Buddhists etc. So basically, you should be denouncing Buddha for copying Hinduism and Buddhism in general for copying the religions and ways of life of the areas it spread into while being portrayed as a new religion. But we won’t see you do that now will we

Buddhism does not say all religions are one and are true. It doesn’t even try to answer or guide people on issues like that unlike Islam which says that Messengers, including Buddha, were sent to every people. In my opinion this is because Buddhism was never meant to be a stand-alone teaching, rather a reformation of Hinduism. The main teaching in Buddhism is to respect other lifeforms iirc. This is also the main defunct in Buddhism. It only encompasses one concept while not saying anything about other concepts. And when you consider that that one concept is part of the 3 Abrahamic religions as well and that they also encompass other concepts, then you see the limitation and deficiencies of the Buddhist theology, which lead it to being merged with or needing to absorb other religions and ways of life to survive in some areas and spread into others. In my opinion Buddha was for Hinduism what Jesus was for Judaism, i.e. a Reformer.

Let’s talk some more about Buddha and Jesus. I take it you have read Notovitch’s The Unknown Life of Jesus? And or Plattner’s Christian India? They mention Buddhist scrolls talking about the life of a certain Issa, a preacher who came from Palestine and preached to them and was much revered among the various groups. But these scrolls do present this Issa as having left Palestine to go and learn the teachings of the Buddha at a very early age. Now this is strange because Buddhism was hardly heard of during the time of Jesus in Palestine and there was no need for him to go anywhere as the sayings of Jesus on the importance of home prove. My conclusion therefore is that Jesus, or Issa, did indeed go to India and preached. The Buddhist priests who made a record of these could not deny his going there. But in my opinion they changed the story a bit. It seems highly unlikely that a 13 year old Jesus went to India to learn the Buddhist teachings. So I think that they ascribed some of the teachings of Jesus to Buddha to preserve the greatness of Buddha yet they still mentioned this Issa and his preaching in historic scrolls. Was this done consciously or unconsciously, I don’t know. But it is strange that the life of Buddha had not been recorded until the time of Jesus.
When Jesus went to India, he was seen as the expected Messiah by the Buddhist priests and since his teachings were so similar to Buddha’s, they could have seen him as Buddha or a reincarnation. According to Buddha his teachings would not last more than 500 years and that at the decline of his teachings the “Metteya” would come and re-establish his teachings. Jesus is often referred to as the Messiah. In the Pali language, Messiah would become Metteya. This because transferring a word from one language to another will see the word changed a bit, read Sacred Books of the East for more info on this.

Well, I don’t want to go on and on about that. Maybe some other time.

(Xiantiy is also a Universal religion and it also accommodates other beleif systems - take Islam for example, Xians would simply fit your religion into their world view by saying Mohammad was possessed by Satan and you will burn in Hell Fire unless you ask for FORGIVENESS of SIN and accept Jesus as the Messiah).

Yes but that’s just the thing: Muslims don’t say that! Muslims accept Jesus and his teaching! That is what I am saying.

OMG – yes “Islamic Golden age”
I simply disagree but I completely understand why it’s “Islamic" Golden age yup, great tool of propaganda.
Can you tell us of the Xian Golden Age? How about the Zoroastrian Golden Age? Pagan Golden Age? Hindu Golden Age? Shaman Golden Age? Tao Golden Age? CoS Golden Age? No you can't because only Muslim's like to use Islam and try to squeeze Islam up next to the Great Empires - like Egypt for example. Do you call it the Pharaohs Golden Age?!?!? NO!!

Haha! Your complete and utter hatred for anything positive that Islam brought forth is once again for everyone to see. No I will not talk about all those other religions and ways of lives and their golden ages. Why? There’s no need for me to. Anyone can take a history book and look for themselves what great and not so great empires they were and how much progress they made or didn’t make. The Islamic Golden Age is simply a period in time when Islam and Muslims brought forth great progress in the world. Positive progress in all areas. But, yet again, instead of reading history and acknowledging this, your show your utter contempt for fathers of modern science/chemistry/algebra/medicine/whatever whose work you won’t recognize and praise simply because of their religion and or race. Now, what is the word used to call someone like that? Hmm...

I do acknowledge that people who happen to be Muslim were inventive. I simply do not believe that a belief in Allah (or Xenu for that mater) brings about Scientific advancement. Actually, it doesn’t. Even as a concept it's no novel.

Let’s see, who to believe, the Muslims who actually made that progress and attributed it purely to Islamic teaching or you... Man, that’s a tough choice... /sarcasm

Tell me the greatest Muslim invention (or your favored) and then tell me how The Qur’an brought about this invention.

There are too many inventions, discoveries and books written for me to just pick one.

Then, tell me how the discovery of cement that can harden underwater, which was invented by the Romans, was influenced by which Roman religious belief. Tell me why “cement” (a remarkable invention) justifies validity in the beleif and books of some Roman God.
It’s called the ROMAN Golden Age. The GREEK Golden Age, The CHINESE Golden Age…. Oh then there’s the “Islamic Golden Age” Haaa! What great propaganda to try to elevate a religion to the status of the pinnacle of entire Empires.

First of all, here you acknowledge a Roman invention and call it “remarkable”! Yes, what a brilliant invention. Yet you will not show this same kind of admiration for anything done by Islamic scholars, scientists and thinkers. I wonder why?

Secondly, let me tell you how in my opinion religion does play a role in the Islamic Golden Age. Let’s take Ibn Haytham for example (I just love him ^^). He introduced us to the modern scientific method, something you should be very familiar with. Among other things, he also gave the first working description of a camera and made a rough one and he talked about laws which Newton would eventually end up putting in his theory. Now this man attributes all his research and education and thinking to Islamic teaching which according to him encourages people to study nature. If he had not grown up in an Islamic house, an Islamic surrounding where he was taught that education was important and he wasn’t guided in any way whatsoever, would he have bothered to study all these things? Let me put it another way: a young footballer with great potential can stay with a crap club or not join any club whatsoever. But it is until he joins a club with great coaches and a great training environment that he will fulfil his potential. Otherwise he will just stay crap all of his life, never achieving the greatness he is capable of. The same thing goes with the Islamic Golden Age. Suddenly, the Arabs, who had, for the vast majority, no interest whatsoever in education or studying or thinking and all that the vast majority did was drink, have intercourse and fight, became so knowledgeable that people from all over the world came to their universities to learn. It’s a perfect example of what a change of environment can bring about and it is exactly that change of environment coupled with the Islamic teachings of study, study, study which brought about the Islamic Golden Age, full of great scientists and scholars whose work became the foundation of many modern endeavours.

But hey, I don’t expect you to acknowledge any of this. After all, if you did, what would you have to say to Reza? That you suddenly saw some light in Islam? That you saw that even when Islam was the dominant force in those lands great progress was made? That there must be some other reason for the slowdown of progress and some turbulence in Muslim countries? Of course you can’t say that to Reza. I find Reza intriguing though, someone who spends his life in a Muslim country, yet never bothers to actually read about his religion or go to the various Imams for info. Much like that wannabe-Atheist running FFI.

Repetitive behavior like praying 5 times a day pointed in a certain direction or changing one’s name to Mohammad Ali are well known tactics used by modern day cults to make a break in the persons personality (especially the name change). Are they enforced? Not more than any other cult enforces their use of identical tactics.

So praying is breaking someone’s personality? Well then, so is meditating. And what about those Buddhists that pray? Or Shintoists that go to a temple and pray. What total bullshit.

Firstly, praying in Islam is not just done for the sake of it. It is a moment of peace, of refreshment. See it as meditating. You can clear your mind, recharge your spiritual levels, and find nearness to God. That is what praying is about. If you don’t pray for those reasons but pray just for the sake of it, then that’s completely worthless. So what you’re saying about praying is bullshit and leads me to believe you don’t know the first thing about prayer in Islam.

Secondly, changing ones name is not a prerequisite. Although new converts, or reverts as some call them, like to change their name to show that they have begun a new life as it were, changing ones name is not required to become Muslim. And you pick Muhammad Ali as your reasoning for this? Man, that’s just low. You know perfectly well why Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali changed their names. I’ll give you a hint: skin colour...

So you see these changes, including changing ones name are not enforced. They are just a choice the new converts/reverts make to show that they have left their old life behind and have begun a new one. I have not yet met 1 single convert who was forced to change his or her name, no one even mentioned it to them!

Intellectualizing Absurdity = “ISLAMIC" Golden Age.

Ah yes, so Da Vinci and all the other great modern scientists were inspired by some people who lived during the Islamic Golden Age and were intellectualizing absurdity... yea right...

Tell me again how “Cement” is evidence of which Roman Goddess? Forget ROMAN Golden Age …. Quick drying water proof cement now shows us it’s “APHROPDITE Golden Age”

During the Islamic Golden Age, there wasn’t just 1 invention done or idea hatched. Your argument is a fallacy.

Ahhhhh Arsalan – the mythology is the same stories … Jesus is in the Qur’an. Jesus alone is evidence of some plagiarism. Not to mention all the Jewish stories that were copied. I once read the Qur’an is >70% Torah + Bible. Copying stories is called Plagiarism Arsalan.
Pretty simple concept really. I think everyone agrees to this.

If you see those 3 religions as completely different religions then yes, but that’s not the case here! Islam never claims to be a new religion, completely different from the message of Moses and Jesus. That’s the point you don’t seem to understand. I’ve explained this so many times and now I’m beginning to think you are just trolling.

Islam is the religion that was prophesied in the Torah and the Bible, foretold by Moses and Jesus. Even the Prophet’s name is in the Bible! Does that mean that the Bible is plagiarised? His name is also in the Vedas! Does that mean the Vedas is plagiarised? No. Islam is just a fulfilment of a Prophecy in the message of Moses and Jesus and of various other prophets.

Thinking about it now, I understand why you won’t accept this: if you did you’d be a Muslim And we can’t have that now can we...

That is not true. Some people made fun of him (and lost their heads for it) others did revere him. But so what? Many MORE people revered General Mao during his life time.

The people of Mecca, before he told them he was a Prophet, revered him and appointed him the Judge in many instances. They turned to him for advice because of his honesty. He was seen as a perfect role model. If you don’t believe me you can also find this in Muirs book, which was, ironically, written by Muir on command of a priest in India who wanted to use the book and portray the Prophet as a vile person so he could convert Muslims to Christians. And they didn’t lose their heads. Even when they threw stones on him, chased him out of town and when he returned with a large following, those people who had beaten him and his followers were forgiven. They didn’t lose their heads.

And about General Mao: he was a vicious dictator who killed anyone who stood in his way. Well over 40 million people were killed. That is not the way the Prophet worked.

Agreed? Well do you agree?
MANY MANY MANY MANY more people revered General Mao than Mohammad.

How many people were there in Arabia at the time of the Prophet and how many people in China at the time of Dictator Mao? And was Dictator Mao seen as all the things the Prophet was before he got in power? No. So to answer your next question:

True or False?

False.

Let me repeat one more time. JESUS is in your religous book. Jesus is Xian. Therefor any mention of Jesus or Mosses or anything from past religion is plagiarized. It's pretty freaken simple concept huh?

Jesus is Jewish. And no it’s not. Why? Because the Bible and the Torah mention the Prophet by name and foretell his and Islams coming. Pretty simple concept huh?

Think of this. Mohammad is in the Baha'i religous book. Did they copy it from Islam? Yes or No?

Bahaiism is an offshoot of a specific sect of Shia Islam. The reason they were not acknowledged by the rest of the Muslims is because of the Bahai’s claim to divinity: Muslims don’t believe God is a person.

 

[iceaura]

The classic mistake you keep making here regarding my posts is that you seem to think I see anyone who makes a negative post about Islam as a hater and a pro-Christianity atheist

I have been assuming that when you post replies to a particular quote or poster that you refer to that poster and those quotes in your reply.

I will take one more shot at explaining to you what I mean with shades of hate

You have been quite clear about assigning shades of hate to this or that poster, including me, specifically mentioned in your replies, used as examples, etc. No further clarification is necessary, nor will repetition mitigate your offensiveness in making such assumptions.

I never restricted my argument to this forum only

Lacking clues as to what you are talking about elsewhere, I will continue to assume you are replying to the posts you quote and the posters you use as examples right here.

I post on 5 different boards in 2 different languages

Then maybe you get confused, and post arguments intended for others or reply to things unseen here. Then as simple apology would suffice, and more careful attention in the future. Meanwhile, on this forum you are a fundie accusing people of hatred and closemindedness, for not allowing for your widespread interests elsewhere.

I assume your definition of a fundmentalist is along the lines of

You make a lot of assumptions like that. That's a fundie trait, and creates the impression that you feel your beliefs are especially and unfairly abused compared with others - another fundie trait. Note I label not my assumptions, but the pattern of your posts and reactions here. You could be anyone up to and including a paid representative of an evangelical Islamic group combatting misapprehensions on the internet, with nothing but charitable motives and an honest cause.

You see a pattern yet ?
Come back when you have studied these and then tell me again you have not found any information.

Yes. I see a pattern of you misreading stuff, mistaking theists for atheists, taking things out of context, illegitimately generalizing from non-representative examples, twisting arguments and using personal attack as a tactic, and feeling like most fundies that your particular beliefs are especially abused in the wide world.

Secondly, my post in reply to Geoff did not say he was motivated by hate. I said that you were wearing shades of hate which clouded your ability to see what I was saying.

Something which I observed to be characteristic fundie error, as mentioned above (where you were denying doing that).

Believe it or not, it is possible to see what you are saying and still regard it as deeply confused in a familiar, stereotypical way. Fundies are not sparse on the ground, rare and seldom met beings.

 

[Arsalan]

I have been assuming that when you post replies to a particular quote or poster that you refer to that poster and those quotes in your reply. You have been quite clear about assigning shades of hate to this or that poster, including me, specifically mentioned in your replies, used as examples, etc. No further clarification is necessary, nor will repetition mitigate your offensiveness in making such assumptions. Lacking clues as to what you are talking about elsewhere, I will continue to assume you are replying to the posts you quote and the posters you use as examples right here. Then maybe you get confused, and post arguments intended for others or reply to things unseen here. Then as simple apology would suffice, and more careful attention in the future. Meanwhile, on this forum you are a fundie accusing people of hatred and closemindedness, for not allowing for your widespread interests elsewhere. You make a lot of assumptions like that. That's a fundie trait, and creates the impression that you feel your beliefs are especially and unfairly abused compared with others - another fundie trait. Note I label not my assumptions, but the pattern of your posts and reactions here. You could be anyone up to and including a paid representative of an evangelical Islamic group combatting misapprehensions on the internet, with nothing but charitable motives and an honest cause. Yes. I see a pattern of you misreading stuff, mistaking theists for atheists, taking things out of context, illegitimately generalizing from non-representative examples, twisting arguments and using personal attack as a tactic, and feeling like most fundies that your particular beliefs are especially abused in the wide world.

Something which I observed to be characteristic fundie error, as mentioned above (where you were denying doing that).

Believe it or not, it is possible to see what you are saying and still regard it as deeply confused in a familiar, stereotypical way. Fundies are not sparse on the ground, rare and seldom met beings.

:roflmao: Theres simply no point in trying to talk to you is there? You just want to have the last word, regardless of whether youre wrong or not. You think a reply on this forum just means a reply to the post quoted? Didnt you see the new alinea beginning? :bugeye: Didnt you see that I included in my 2nd post the names of atheists and atheist sites that have nothing to do with this board? Dont you see it was you who assigned a negative connotation with my post first? You still have not explained to me what you take as the definition for a fundie.You still have not acknowledged that the atheists I provided you with indeed do make anti-Islamists and pro-Christian comments, thereby showing their double standards or maybe more ....

But hey dont worry, I dont expect you to answer any of these. Any reasonably objective person can see you are trying to avoid the argument by calling me fundie and trying to dismiss my post as pure hatred for anything anti-Islamic.

Keep up the good work /sarcasm

 

[Vkothii]

A question: If the religion of Islam is the answer, if it's a "perfect system" that is both a way of worship and a way of life, i.e. a religio-political system much like the Judaic tradition, why hasn't it brought peace to those countries that are avowedly Islamic, e.g. Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, India, the Balkans, etc, etc?

Why do you personally believe Islam is the "true" answer, when it has failed to deliver on its promises, just like every other organised religion has, e.g. Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc?

When something like religious belief is held up as "the answer", do you think it's OK to question it, seeing as how throughout history no religion has ever brought peace, but rather more conflict, oppression, opportunism and so on - all the things religion is supposed to be against?

A religious leader (Mohammed, say, or Buddha or Jesus) usually has a willing mob behind them, so wields social and political influence, and they do seem keen to leverage that influence instead of "bringing peace" - check out the lots of historical examples.

 

[Michael]

The Quran affirms that the universe is bound by law and, thus bound, is placed at the service of man.

So the “main” message is what exactly? I’m not asking for verses from the Qur’an, I’m asking you to please tell me in you words what you take to be the central message of your belief system.


Is it this:
A Messenger being sent to every people in every part of the world?

Christianity and Judaism teach in their core Holy Books that the message contained therein is just for them, not for anyone else.

What do you mean “not for anyone else”? There are Xians preaching the “Word” in every corner of the gloabe.

I guess I don’t exactly get your point.

thereby confirming what the Quran says that Messengers were sent to every people in every part of the world.

RE: Shinto.

Islam (according to you) is definitely different than traditional Xian teaching. Christians usually go for suggesting the Shinto are deceived by the Devil (although some modern Xianity has evolved past this). In your sense of the Islamic interpretation I will agree it is a much more enlightened point of view.

But, two things
1) I do not think that it is necessarily unique/novel.
2) I do not think it says as much of contemporary religions.

Think about this, ancient Greek Polytheists respected the Gods of other peoples. So they could, in this sense, be considered “Universal-ists” for their time (a time when polytheism was natural).

Buddhists also accept the divinity of other religions (many Buddhists say Jesus was an enlightened person, maybe even a Buddha). Again, we have many examples of “Universal” acceptance of other people’s religions as divine.

Even Shinto accepted that Gods existed in other lands. There are Shinto Shrines in San Francisco and Hawaii. So, again, it seems this notion of “Universality” was well and truly common place way before Islam.


I also wonder:

That said, IF Islam respects other beliefs what happened to the polytheistic Arabs? Is it still possible to be a Polytheistic Arab in Muslim countries? Why is it against the law to be a Xian and enter Mecca? What about a Hindu or Shinto? I mean, you just said they were divinely inspired religions – so why the restrictions on their worship in Muslim nations? It seems to me that your idea of Universal acceptance is NOT a central message because Islamic nations are some of the most INTOLLERENT of other belief systems on Planet Earth. I KNOW you agree to this. The most Islamic the more intolerant. Just like Medieval Xiainity.

This is in stark contrast to the Universality taught in the Quran which says that God has guided man at every stage in every part of the world i.e. gave them a Message, i.e. a Religion. Therefore Muslims do not see other religions as inspired by Satan and they accept a vast number of Prophets from all over the world and accept that the teaching they brought was indeed of divine origin. Christianity and Judaism do not accept anything like this. That is the main difference

Again, I’d say this is a MAIN difference in Islam and Christianity.

This brings me to my next point. WHAT about religious belief AFTER Islam. Now we can but your notion of Universality to the same test that you put Xiaitniy to.

1) What are your views on Scientology? Was Ron Hubbard a Divinely inspired and a Prophet?

2) What are your views on Mormons? Was Joseph Smith the Last Prophet? What do you think about Joseph Smith?

3) What are your views on Ahmadiyya? Was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad the Mujaddid as well as the Messiah, Mahdi and the Second Coming of Christ? What are your ideas on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?

4) What about the Baha’i faith? Was Bahá'u'lláh a New Prophet?

In worship, a Shintoist usually visits a shrine to appease the Gods. And what do we find in that shrine? Water to perform ablution. Now, where else have we seen this? Hmm...

Haaa I suddenly remembered that YouTube of Cameron and his mentor talking about the Banana and why it’s proof of God existence.

Yes, water was used in pretty much every single religion on the planet earth.

“King of the Gods”, namely a God more powerful than all the others, their leader.

I often think the same about God and Angels – actually, it IS the same.

Buddhism was basically just a reform movement in Hinduism but as time went on Buddha became more and more revered and ultimately he was portrayed as a celestial being. Remind you of anyone?

Zoroaster , Hercules, Alexander, Julius, Augustus, Jesus, Mohammad, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Bahá'u'lláh, Joseph Smith, Ron Hubbard, …. Who knows, 200 years from now Schwarzeneggerians will be worshipping the True Last of the Last Prophets Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Well… it would not surprise me one bit!

Anyway, Buddhism lacks a well developed spiritual philosophy, partly, in my opinion, because it turned itself away from the religion it was trying to reform, i.e. Hinduism. The reason that Buddhism spread so much was that as time went on it absorbed and merged with many teachings of the various religions and lifestyles in the area. That’s why were talking about Shinto-Buddhists etc. So basically, you should be denouncing Buddha for copying Hinduism and Buddhism in general for copying the religions and ways of life of the areas it spread into while being portrayed as a new religion. But we won’t see you do that now will we

Buddhism is a TOTAL copy of Hinduism – as far as I can tell he was a Hindu. If he lived MAYBE he developed a new sitting position of meditation, that’s it.

Now this is strange because Buddhism was hardly heard of during the time of Jesus in Palestine

Actually, centuries before Xianity Greek Philosophers traveled to India (after the conquest) and Greco-Buddhism emerged. We also know it was mainly Greek Jews who made Christianity. So, I think there is a lot of room for an overlap of religious mythos.

But it is strange that the life of Buddha had not been recorded until the time of Jesus.

I don’t think this is true.

Your complete and utter hatred for anything positive that Islam brought forth is once again for everyone to see.

Let me just ask you this. Do you say “Egyptian” Golden Age or Pharaoh Golden Age? Now, we BOTH know that the idea of kingship and the divinity of the pharaoh were central to Egyptian society. CENTRAL. But, we say Egyptian Golden Age.

Now, after China was conquered and ruled by Shamanistic Mongols – the Chinese entered a period called the “Chinese” Golden Age. Not the Shaman Golden Age.

The only period named after a religion is Islam and it’s pure propaganda. I’d ever argue that pharaoh worship was MORE important to Egyptians than the Qur’an was to people of the Middle East in the 8th century.

There are too many inventions, discoveries and books written for me to just pick one.

Just pick one.

Yet you will not show this same kind of admiration for anything done by Islamic scholars, scientists and thinkers. I wonder why?

I will tell you why by asking you a question.

Tell me the difference between Science and Islamic Science.

Tell me the difference between Math and Islamic Math.

Because I’ll tell you right now that just because Newton was a Xian fruit cake does NOT qualify Calculus as being called Christian Math.

DO you agree with me? Or do you call it “Christian” Calculus?

To me, saying Christian Math is absurd.

Ibn Haytham for example (I just love him ^^). He introduced us to the modern scientific method, something you should be very familiar with. Among other things, he also gave the first working description of a camera and made a rough one and he talked about laws which Newton would eventually end up putting in his theory. Now this man attributes all his research and education and thinking to Islamic teaching which according to him encourages people to study nature.

Firstly I’m going to say this. One
YES this man was brilliant.

If you know any mathematicians you’ll know they are born that way, religion has nothing to do with anything that pops into their heads. What? You going to argue the validity of Greek Polytheism because Archimedes (considered by many the greatest mathematician of all time) was born into a culture where that was the prevalent belief system?

Just stop and think for a minute.

TWO
AM I being HATEFUL of Greek Polytheism for saying this? No I am not. But, because you are Muslim you think I’m being hateful when I make the similar point about a Muslim mathematician.

Are you getting it yet? Or am I “hateful” of ancient Greek religion?

It’s a perfect example of what a change of environment can bring about

I agree that change does this but that’s as far as I will go. I certainly don’t think Mongolian Shamanism had anything to do with the Chinese Golden Age – but I’m sure the change the Mongolians brought when they conquered the place – YES, that had a big effect.

And what about those Buddhists that pray? Or Shintoists that go to a temple and pray. What total bullshit.

Yes, even for Buddhists or Shinto – they are exactly the same if they have a daily repetitive behavior. But, if they go once a month then probably not. But yes, daily reparative turning of a prayer wheel while facilitate brainwashing.



OK< I have to run, I will get to the rest later


Michael

 

[Michael]

And about General Mao: he was a vicious dictator who killed anyone who stood in his way. Well over 40 million people were killed. That is not the way the Prophet worked.

Some people say pretty much the same things about Mohammad.

They have one thing in common - people died in the name of their "revolution".

How many people were there in Arabia at the time of the Prophet and how many people in China at the time of Dictator Mao? And was Dictator Mao seen as all the things the Prophet was before he got in power? No. So to answer your next question:
“
True or False?
”
False.

Arsalan, if you want to answer you own questions go for it, but don't reword my question and then answer your own question - that's very annoying.

Jesus is Jewish. And no it’s not. Why? Because the Bible and the Torah mention the Prophet by name and foretell his and Islams coming. Pretty simple concept huh?

And the Qur'an foretold of the coming of the great Ron Hubbard ...

Please Arsalan. These religous books are full of so much tripe anyone can make any of them mean anything.

I have seriously had Baha'i tell me that the Qur'an foretells of Bahá'u'lláh and one only needs to look at the corrupt Middle East to see a new message is needed for the new age.

Well Arsalan, do you agree with the Bahai and think that the Qur'an tells of the coming of Bahá'u'lláh OR do you agree with me and think that religous books are full of so much tripe anyone can make any of them mean anything?

Well?

Bahaiism is an offshoot of a specific sect of Shia Islam. The reason they were not acknowledged by the rest of the Muslims is because of the Bahai’s claim to divinity: Muslims don’t believe God is a person.

Mohammadism is an offshoot of Christian-Judaism. The reason they were not acknowledged by the rest of the Christian-Judaism is because of the Mohammad's claim to be connected to the divinity: Christian-Judaismists don’t believe Mohammad was a Prophet.

 

[Michael]

RE: Main message of Islam.

Let's converge on two subjects - When you get a chance, please specifically and in detail (in your own words) tell us the main central message of Islam.


RE: Universality

Is this your definition of "Islamic" Universality:
A Messenger being sent to every people in every part of the world?

What does this mean?

Universal understanding of the FACT that there are other people and other peoples worship different Gods.

So Islam explains this by suggesting that the One God sent them a messenger, BUT, then in the same breath you say they are corrupted from the truth? Gee, how endearing.

For thousands of years before Islam people of ALL walks of life from Japan to Greece to Egypt to the Aztecs believed that the Gods sent messengers, prophets and sometimes came down themselves and intervened in the lives of humans. Imagine a Greek that had traveled to India, it would be perfectly acceptable for him to accept that the people over there in India had real Gods and real Prophets - this would fit perfectly in his world view. Obviously so, as there were many different God for many different people.

BUT, this seems to be the difference. The Greek accepts the other's religion. He can do this because he has his set of Gods and they have theirs. When he is in their part of the world, he'll probably make sure he doesn't piss of those people's gods. Not so the monotheists. THEY can not truely respect the Hindu or Shinto Gods as the Greek polytheist can. Their very first and most base assumption is that these Hindu or Shinto have a corrupted beleif system. Either it's not correct because of mans screwing up the original message and it's deviated from the original Prophet's message (Islamic Universality) or they're message has been influenced by the devil (Xian Universality). Take your pick. To me each are saying the exact same thing. My message is right, you're may have been but now its wrong.

Just to make this point about the Xians, lets not forget they believe everyone comes from Adam (including the Japanese) and so if Japanese are worshiping a different way, it's because at some point in the past they deviated from the word of God. Now, "Islamic" Universality seems to be saying pretty much the exact same thing. Only you're saying that since the time of Adam, they got a messenger or two to straighten them out, but since then deviated from the true word of God (which only the Qur'an contains).

Is this correct?

Or Are you saying that the SHINTO religion is as equally valid as Islam?

If this is the case I think you'd be in the minority of Muslims who have said as much. But, it's be good to hear it One must wonder how the polytheistic Korean would see Shinto religion in Japan. He'd probably have a great respect for it. He'd probably think, yes, in these lands are these Gods and I respect them. Is that what you saying Arsalan? Are you going to say YES the Shinto religion is equally as valid as Islam? The one beleif system is no better, no more correct and no more wrong than the other?



When the people who wrote the Qur'an wrote of "the People of the Book" what did they mean? Why did they need to segregate People of the Book from People Not of the Book? Who are these "People of the Book"? Where do the Japanese Shinto fit into these "People of the Book"?

It seems to me that IF you are going to even try to suggest the Islamic central message is Universality and respect for other people's beleif, then you'll have to explain why so QUICKLY we have segregation into People of the Book and those that are not. If Mohammad started out with a good message then I'd say that in the trials of life he quickly hopped down from the moral high ground and choose instead to try and validate his religion by making it an exstention of Judaism and Xianity. Sad really. And, perhaps too bad too.

It does seem he tried, at least in the beginning, I'll give you that much.

Michael

 

[iceaura]

But hey dont worry, I dont expect you to answer any of these

True, I won't bother. It's dishonest in its attempt to evade responsibility for your assertions about all atheists, made in response to quoted posts and named posters on this forum, and your specific accusations directed at me among others.

This kind of evasion is typical of fundies of all religions. You accuse directly, and in error, then weasel around about it. You accused Geoff of being another instance of an atheist defending Christianity while attacking Islam for similar faults, for example. You accused me of hatred for Islam, for example. Then came weaseling about "shades" of hatred, then crap about Hirsti Ali being the actual subject of your comments. BS.

You think a reply on this forum just means a reply to the post quoted?

I think a reply to a quoted post refers to that quote of that post, at least. And if it talks about posters and arguers, that poster and that arguer are included in its reference.

I think that is why posts are quoted.

Any reasonably objective person can see you are trying to avoid the argument by calling me fundie and trying to dismiss my post as pure hatred for anything anti-Islamic.

Again with the hatred. The word comes so easily to you. Now it's somebody accusing you of "pure hatred" - is that supposed to contrast with your mere accusation of "shades" of hatred, as you allegedly intended by your use of "hatred" in disparaging earlier ?

I have nowhere even attempted to dismiss any post of yours as a product of "pure hatred". That accusation, like your others here, is false. If you really intended it for Hirsti Ali, it's still probably false. That kind of deliberately inflammatory language, especially the use of "hatred", is typical of fundies. I point to it as another example in support of my labeling of your postings here.

 

[S.A.M.]

The Greek accepts the other's religion. He can do this because he has his set of Gods and they have theirs. When he is in their part of the world, he'll probably make sure he doesn't piss of those people's gods.l

What happened to Socrates?

Even Shinto accepted that Gods existed in other lands

Really? Thats strange considering that the Japanese have historically been intolerant of foreign influences. On what do you base this? Certainly not this, I presume:

Japan embarked on a war of aggression against Asian countries in 1937 and against the United States and their allies 1941. The wartime regime was built upon the foundation of pure religious statism. This was made possible by elevating State Shinto to the position of the "only religion" which provided a spiritual basis for Japanese ultranationalism. The emperor was vested with both sovereignty and divinity, and the entire country was forcibly converted. All other religions were either persecuted or subordinated to the cult of emperor worship.

So guess how the Americans solved this problem? About the religious intolerance, I mean? They outlawed it.

 

[iceaura]

What happened to Socrates?

He was convicted of atheism, sentenced to death.

 

[S.A.M.]

I thought he was convicted of believing in different gods? By those who rejected his beliefs?

 

[iceaura]

I thought he was convicted of believing in different gods? By those who rejected his beliefs?

The contention of the chief accuser, Meletus, was that he believed in no Gods, and was corrupting the young with his questioning of the beliefs of others.

 

[Michael]

What happened to Socrates?

Was he even real?

I'm thinking around 100AD - a time of a multicultural empire, something akin to our modern world. Well, if that's something good. What were the polytheists like at this time? It seems they were pretty open minded, going from one Temple to another. One Gods Temple could sit here at one end and another right next to it.

What happened to the Temples post-Xianity? The same exact thing that happened to the Temples in Mecca. Even you once said (and I quote) They were polytheists. As if this somehow justified smashing the place up.

I mean, it makes sense if you REALLY believe they desecrated "Gods" house with "idol" worship. Maybe you have changed your mind? Perhaps now you think it was fine they worshiped their moon gods in Mecca? Do you?

Really? Thats strange considering that the Japanese have historically been intolerant of foreign influences. On what do you base this? Certainly not this, I presume:

The Buddhists seemed to fit in well. It really seems to matter which time period you are speaking about. The Japanese at certain times really looked towards China as the center of the civilized world. Also, Nobunaga seemed to think Western influence was fine, when some Japanese questioned his open attitude he supposedly said something along the lines of Let the Japanese people taste it and what they like they can eat and what they don't they can spit out. AKA: I'm really not that fussed about it.

Anyway, during the period you are speaking about the government outlawed Buddhism as a "foreign" influence and it was the Shinto Priests that complained to have Buddhism reinstated. Which it was. So if anything it seems they were open to this other "foreign" religion.

Now, did the Muslims do this for the Zoroastrians? The polytheistic Arabs? The Hindus? The Buddhists? Well? Where are all those people of multitudes of beliefs in the ME? Probably their Gods went the way of Thor. Hacked up by religous zealots.

Is it all that common? Does it happen all that much? Or is it more an anamoly in the quest for a One world under God and liberty and justice for all

Anyway, I'm 100% positive that the typical polytheist (Not Plato or some philosopher) but your typical guy on the street believed that other peoples had other Gods. It was probably pretty natural for him to accept that as fact. When in Egypt he probably thought there were Egyptian Gods looking over the place? Likewise elsewhere.



So? I'm curious, what do you think is the central message in Islam?
What is the Islamic notion of Universality?

 

[Michael]

My point about polytheists isn't about polytheists way back when they lived in little isolated communities. They may as well have been monotheists for all it mattered. It's more about how polytheists interpret other peoples religous beleif AFTER they've reached the point of living in the civilized multicultural society. To me, it seems, that the Hindus had gotten to such a point and developed their religous beliefs accordingly.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems near impossible to teach people to think:

My God is the ONLY real God.
My Book is the ONLY true book.
My religous Prophets are the ONLY real Prophets
etc... .... ....

And still somehow expect these people to treat people of different beliefs as equal to their own. It simply isn't going to happen. History shows this time and again.

 

[DiamondHearts]

A question: If the religion of Islam is the answer, if it's a "perfect system" that is both a way of worship and a way of life, i.e. a religio-political system much like the Judaic tradition, why hasn't it brought peace to those countries that are avowedly Islamic, e.g. Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, India, the Balkans, etc, etc?

You must take into account the history of colonization of these regions for the past 200 years by European powers. Many of the nations you listed gained independence through a revolution or contract with a weakened European power whereby secular rulers achieved preeminience. Egypt, Iran, Indonesia were secular states at independence with large Muslim populations, but their governments were not based on Islamic criteria.

There is no monolithic form of Islamic government, all Muslim people have their own method of interpreting the Islamic laws in the Quran and Sunnat. Islamic law is a guideline which must be followed for an Islamic country to be able to justify the Islamic criteria. No country in the present era is based on Islamic law, although they may have shallow clauses in their constitutions to support the opposite. There has been a 200 year vacuum of rule of law, self-governance, and especially religious law in much of the Muslim world because of European conquest and colonization. Muslims in the post-imperial era are still trying to find their identity which has been suppressed for two centuries.

Through much of the Muslim world, Islamic politicians and revolutionary parties have been oppressed and forced out of government, abetted by Western influence on the secular governments of the modern Muslim world. Islamic guidelines have not been respected and the dominant form of government in Muslim countries continues to be secular dictatorship, secular kingdoms, or secular representative democracy.

Why do you personally believe Islam is the "true" answer, when it has failed to deliver on its promises, just like every other organised religion has, e.g. Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc?

Islamic law has not been put into practice in the modern era. All "Muslim" governments today are either overtly secular or not representative of dominant Islamic practices (such as Saudi Arabia, Iran).

Islamic law is an ideal. That ideal was in practice 1400 years ago, but since then many factors (mostly human greed, injustice, and lust for power) have been the undoing of the purest Islamic form of government.

When something like religious belief is held up as "the answer", do you think it's OK to question it, seeing as how throughout history no religion has ever brought peace, but rather more conflict, oppression, opportunism and so on - all the things religion is supposed to be against?

Yes, it is very fair to question it. You much have knowledge first about the system of law which you are attempting to question however. Please do further research of Islamic law as in the Quran and Sunnat, esp from the Hadith of how Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) established the first Islamic state. Hadith books Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim may help you in this regard. please avoid hate sites designed by extremist Republicans, Christians, Jews, and Hindus (no offense to either of these groups).

A religious leader (Mohammed, say, or Buddha or Jesus) usually has a willing mob behind them, so wields social and political influence, and they do seem keen to leverage that influence instead of "bringing peace" - check out the lots of historical examples.

Please read Hadith and Quran for this information. Unfortunately, it is quite easy to be misled by deceivers who which to portray Islam in negative light even by lieing. They will make themselves known by their ridiculous statements (some of these people are even on this forum). If you genuinely want to learn, I can help you. Please PM me for more information.

 

[S.A.M.]

Anyway, I'm 100% positive that the typical polytheist (Not Plato or some philosopher) but your typical guy on the street believed that other peoples had other Gods.

Where I come from, most people are not really polytheists even though they are so designated. So I wonder how much of history is interpretation. Also most so called polytheists do not accept people have other gods, most of them believe that they are all addressing different aspects of the same entity, or that they are just addressing the same entity in different ways. So again, I wonder how much of history is interpretation. But then again, I am basing my opinion on my interpretation of Western representation of Islamic and Indian societies.

Was he even real?

The concept of heresy certainly was.

The Buddhists seemed to fit in well

In Japan? Only after an emperor/empress adopted it. Like Shia Islam in Iran. Except they probably considered the emperor/empress as divine and considered it his/her bidding.

 

[NDS]

I don't have any input on this issue. I just wanted to post to be a part of one the biggest threads ever. Thanks.

 

[Michael]

S.A.M.,

Just like monotheism, polytheistic beliefs evolve. Certainly Hindu beleif would have to be the most evolved as it is the oldest continuing beleif system.

I was thinking the other day about Akhenaten and the Egyptian concept of monotheism. It didn't seem to take for them - I wonder why? What sort of environment must one be in, to switch from polytheism to monotheism?

 

[Michael]

Oh yeah, what is the "central" message in Islam?

The "take-home" message, if you will.