Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
- Thread starter tresbien
- Start date
OK, let me see if I have this correctly: I asked a direct question.
You responded:
Then we agree, CoS religous books, for some people, may be a better informed, modern and more relevant guide compared with the Qur'an.
That's what I was asking and like you said, you answered. So I'll take you at your word.
Thanks,
Michael
You responded:
Then we agree, CoS religous books, for some people, may be a better informed, modern and more relevant guide compared with the Qur'an.
That's what I was asking and like you said, you answered. So I'll take you at your word.
Thanks,
Michael
My guess is that it means specifically believing in the Allah of the Quran. If you believe in an all powerful figure, and in particular set of rules supposedly laid out by that figure, you have a strong incentive to follow the rules. Hence the importance of belief: it's a proxy for commitmnent to the rules making up the religion.Anyway, I have a couple valid points I'd like to draw all of our attentions too
1) Suggesting there is only one God, is a statement, but that's all that it is.
2) Suggesting that the "central" message in Islam is "Oneness" is fine, now explain what "oneness" means and how it is different than other Religious views of "Oneness". What's special about Islamic version of Oneness? Anything?
3) The statement:
Believing in Allah is the most important thing a human can ever do.
is no more or no less insightful then the following statement
Believing in Xenu is the most important thing a human can ever do.
unless there is a Xenu (or Allah). Then it's a valid point. But that's all it is.
Belief in Xenu, on the other hand, implies commitment to what would be seen in Islam as the wrong set of rules.
Well, that's good
I wonder just how different the rules are? I mean, socially, not religiously.
When Hubbard was still alive Scientology was pretty screwed up. A religion with a living 'prophet' is functionally a dictatorship.
I wouldn't be surprised though, if over time it evolved into the same set of vaguely humanitarian principles that most religions turn into. As far as I can tell the main difference between a religion and a cult is age.
Amen Brother
And if all of that is impossible, as it is for most serious wrongs ? Again, you are assuming a patsy - the Christian conception is more sophisticated.SAM said:
So it is vanity for the abused child in adulthood to forgive the long dead abuser ? Ot is it unimportant, unnecessary, etc. ?SAM said:
No. Again, this entire line of reaction is childish, in the Christian tradition. To accept the bill as having been paid is to recognize both the debt and the forgiveness - you yourself pointed out the difficulty of forgiving generosity, among the other difficulties.SAM said:
Christians vary. No argument from me - I am not a believer. But Islam is little different in that matter, to outside observation. Some follow, some follow differently - no one could predict what they would find as custom in a randomly selected Muslim community merely by reading the Quran.SAM said:
And there are worse sins than hypocrisy, under an intellectaul despotism.
The answers would be more persuasive if the questions had not been so clearly caged.SAM said:
It brought peace in that region for a very long time.
What promises exactly?
I don’t believe religion has brought as much or more conflict or oppression than any other political ideology, be it imperialism or revolution.
Exactly how did they wield that instead of bringing peace?
The core of my belief system is the Quran. I have provided you with what I believe to be the core message of Islam from the Holiest Book in Islam: gaining nearness to God, and thereby enlightenment, through worship and knowledge.
That’s only one of the many concepts in Islam
Not for anyone outside of the house of Israel i.e. just for the Jews. And yeah, they are preaching it in every corner of the world. Which shows that they are not following the message.
Thank you. It is nice to hear you say that.
But did they believe it was the same God as theirs?
Which is an interesting debate and for another time and place. I personally believe that Jesus went all the way to India, because that’s how far the exiled tribes of Israel were living then and it was his mission to preach to them, and he also became the Metteya for the Buddhists and therefore has been recorded in their history books. But I don’t believe that Buddhism generally speaks out on matters regarding other religions’ divinity or Divine Being.
How long have those shrines been there? And what exactly is the Shinto teaching on Universalism? Got some extracts for us?
The vast majority of Arabia accepted Islam of their own free will.
There are still some left who choose to be polytheistic.
No I don’t agree to that. You would have to ask that vile House of Saud why they are acting unIslamic and forbidding non-Muslims. I think you should be able to contact them; they are great friends of the US government and kept in power by them. Funnily enough, it’s this friendship between the US and the House of Saud which means that there are US bases in Muslim Holy Lands which is the main reason for Bin Laden’s terrorism.
Universality is a central message in Islam. The actions of some governments of some countries do not make that message null and void.
I don’t recall putting Christianity to any test except saying that the message in their core Holy Books is that the Message sent to them was not meant for anyone outside of the House/Tribe of Israel. The Quran on the other hand claims that its Message is for everyone, not just the Arabs or any particular group. It also claims that, as prophesied in the Torah and Bible, it is the final message.
Mr. Hubbard taught a message that was completely alien to the vast majority of religious messages in this world. Furthermore, his message is completely separate from any message by the Abrahamic Prophets. As a Muslim I believe that, as Prophesied in various earlier Holy Books and religious songs around the world, the Quran contains the final message for mankind. Therefore, I don’t believe he was a real prophet but being a Muslim I respect him, his followers and their religion.
In my eyes, Mormonism is part of Christianity and its teachings and since the Quran confirms Jesus as a Prophet.... Furthermore, since the Torah and Bible had prophesied that they were not the final message but rather that that message would be brought by someone in Faran (Region in Arabia where the Prophet of Islam comes from), whose name in the Hebrew version of the Song of Solomon is Muhammad-im and the Quran teaches that it is the final and universal message, not the Bible or Torah, I don’t believe in him as a Prophet but being a Muslim I respect him, his followers and their religion.
I myself am an Ahmadi. I believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the Mujaddid (As is recognized by the vast majority of Muslims) and I also believe he was the Promised Messiah and Mahdi. I believe this because Islamic teaching says that the Promised Messiah, the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ, will be from the Ummah of the Prophet of Islam and follow his teachings. But that’s another debate.
Bahaism is a part of Shia Islam. And since Bahá'u'lláh laid claim to divinity and tried to write a whole new Sharia, something totally against any Islamic teaching, I don’t believe he was a real prophet. But, being a Muslim, I respect him, his followers and their religion.
I do believe Prophets will continue to come. But I believe that they will come from the Muslim Ummah. That doesn’t make the message of Universality void as I believe that the core of the teachings by for example Joesph Smith was the Bible and therefore from Divine Origin.
Strange that isn’t it?
The vast majority of people in that list aren’t actually worshipped as Gods you know.
Grecoe-Buddhism spread from what are now India, Pakistan and Afghanistan to the East. It had no connection or influence to the area Jesus lived in. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that a young boy would know anything about it, let alone leave for India alone and then come back.
Actually, I say and accept both.
It’s not pure propaganda. The reason it’s called the Islamic Golden Age is because it spanned over an extremely large region which included numerous countries, cultures and races. Their sole connection being that they were Muslim. Whether you were on the far east side of the Muslim Empire or in Spain, the one thing that connected these people were that they were Muslims. You say that it’s called the Chinese Golden Age and not the Shamanistic Golden Age. The reason is because that was just one country. Granted, it was divided up into various little kingdoms and what not, but it was still one country. You cannot compare China to the Muslim Empire which stretched far and wide, including many races, not just the Arabs.
Furthermore, since people don’t have any trouble calling terrorism Islamic terrorism or Islamic militancy and terrorists as Muslims or Islamists, regardless of whether the terrorists are actually Arabs, Chinese, Moroccan, American or English, they shouldn’t have any trouble calling it the Islamic Golden Age. Let me put it this way: a certain Ibn Haytham, born in Spain, blows himself up in a train. He is Muslim. Now, does the world call him a Spanish terrorist or a Muslim terrorist?
Hmm, ok then, I pick.............. the Scientific Method
What if they themselves attribute it to religion?
I’m not saying you’re being hateful, just picky. And besides, I’m not an ancient Polytheistic Greek so I wouldn’t know if it is offensive. On the other hand I am a Muslim and know what offends me.
Or concentration. But seriously, if stuff like this brainwashes people, then Marx was right about education and work, and so does keeping a schedule, and voting and bla and bla....
Some people say that yes but when asked for proof they go silent. Even the staunchest critics of Islam acknowledge that he didn’t kill anyone who stood in his way just so he could bring about a “revolution”.
I think I messed up with the quoting function there
Actually no, no religious script did I think. If it did, then the Muslims would act like the Christians and Buddhists in Afghanistan and India who converted to Islam and convert to Scientology.
I don’t think its tripe tbh. I have seen too many things being foretold in the Holy Books, not just small prophecies or prophecies that can be taken to mean anything, but particular and specific prophecies which have come true, to believe it’s all tripe and man-made. When a religious Book over 2500 years old foretells the coming of a certain Muhammad-im in Faran (A part of Arabia) who would have 10000 people with him (The number that came to Mecca at the Conquest of Mecca) etc. then I don’t believe it is a coincidence. When a religious Song over 5000 year old foretells the coming of a certain Mahammad who would dwell in a desert and bring a great message, I don’t believe it is a coincidence. Nor do I believe it is a coincidence when it says that his followers would be known for keeping the beard.
That sounds interesting. Could you ask him for the verses? Tnx in advance.
I would have to know which verses before I can answer this question.
Not really. Islam, not Mohammadanisn, is part of the same Abrahamic family though and a fulfilment of the prophecies of Christianity and Judaism.
Nope they don’t, but the ones that do and or did converted to and still convert to Islam. Hence the vast majority of Arabia becoming Muslim in a very small period of time. Hence the areas of Afghanistan converting to Islam.
Nah, I’m not going to do this again. If you want the main message, it’s in my old post. If you want to debate it, please use what I posted there.
It means that these Messengers, Buddha or Jesus were real Prophets of God who brought a divine message.
Plus the acceptance that they are from the same God as yours.
I never said that. I only said that their own teachings say that the Message was not to be eternal and that another Message was to be revealed which was to be both eternal and universal.
And yet, he would always connect them with the Gods he knew and always acknowledge 1 God as the King of Gods.
And Muslims believe that it is the same God as theirs.
Wrong. I’ve only ever seen Muslims use the religious Books and teachings of other religions to point out that it mentions Islam. That doesn’t mean it’s being disrespectful to them and saying to them your religion is wrong. Muslims place great importance on the Message of a religion instead of focusing all their attention to who brought it and why they aren’t real. And if a religion teaches that it is not eternal ,and that another Messenger will come with the final Message, and the followers of that religion do not follow these teachings, what do you call them? Are they staying true to their religion or have they now abandoned that teaching and made up their own?
Look at it another way: Muslims are questioning religion. If they see that the message of another religion tells something and its followers aren’t following that message, surely they are allowed to question as to why? Isn’t that what you are doing here? Questioning religion? Shouldn’t people do that? Or should we all just behave as the fictional polytheistic Greek in your fable and not question any religion or teaching whatsoever?
In what way? In its origin or in eternal message? Shintoism is an extremely ethnic religion at its core. Comparing that religion, or rather a way of life, to a religion which teaches complete Universality is a fallacy in itself.
I see where you are trying to go with this. It’s something I’ve seen over and over again when I bring up Universality. It stems from a misunderstanding which itself stems from a lack of knowledge about the Ahle Kitab, i.e. People of the Book. People seem to assume that with the People of the Book the Quran just means Christians and Jews. Unfortunately, those people don’t read what the great scholars of Islam have to say on the subject, although you in particular could be forgiven since that literature is in Arabic. In short: The Ahle Kitab (People of the Book) includes Jews and Christians but also includes Buddhists, Hindus and Confucists among others.
Don’t worry, I couldn’t give a rats’ anymore whether you respond or not. My point has been proven.
Funny this, ever since that post of mine you have not once looked at the evidence I have laid before you. Instead, you keep going on and on about me being a fundie. Let’s get the facts straight here:
1) You called me a fundie before I accused you of wearing shades of hate
2) You ascribed to me a symptom of schizophrenia before I said you were wearing shades of hate
3) I have told you the difference between hatred, which I didn’t attribute to you, and shades of hate
4) I replied to Geoff about the cartoon and after that I started a new paragraph where I wrote about Atheists defending Christianity while attacking Islam. In case you still don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, and I have a strong suspicion you don’t, let me quote what WordNet says:
If you would kindly go back to the particular post that seems a bit too complex for your understanding, you will see that I begun a whole new paragraph, according to the rules, where I said that Atheists attack Islam while defending Christianity. The only other option for me would have been to make a whole new post and since I have already been warned for making too many posts which can be fitted in one post, I am not going to make a new post just so I can satisfy you.
5) I have given you proof, including links, supporting my view. If you want it again, kindly go back a few pages and check it out yourself. Although I highly doubt you will considering your history of evading the issue in this regard.
6) You claimed that Christians claim the same thing. I asked for proof. You have still not provided me with proof.
It is quite clear that you are not in the least interested in finding out the truth. Rather, when a religious person makes a point which you disagree with, you just call him a fundie and keep calling him a fundie in the hope that this repetition will make others see that person as a fundie as well. You can call me whatever you want, I have given you links to Wilder’s words, told you about Hirsi Ali, about FFI.com and Manji. Anyone interested in finding the truth would go to those links and look up the stuff and either try to prove me wrong or acknowledge that what I said was true. You did neither which leads me to believe you have not even bothered and probably never will.
If you want to, start a poll and ask people to go over our posts and pick out the person who is evading the issue. One thing is clear to everyone now; you are not bothered about my post or my argument. The only thing you are bothered about is that a religious person is saying something against Atheists. The only recourse available to you? Call him a fundie. Simple.
arsalan said:
So your comments about how atheists always do this or that were not in reference to the posters or posts in this thread including the one just then quoted, and my direct replies to the specific quotes of yours I included are to be taken as paying no attention to your arguments or links, and your use of personal attacks in lieu of argument - not unique to this thread, btw, or to you as representative fundie, a comment at least as relevant as anything Wilder says - is to be ascribed to others.
We can include your attacks on people such as Hirsti Ali, from whom you could learn a lot about honesty in argument.
The whole illustrates the instigating paragraph, IMHO:
me said:
Last edited:
Let me refer you back to this post of mine. Either reply regarding the evidence I have posted or dont reply at all. And it is you who keeps calling me fundie, once again, proving that the only response you have to me is calling me names
The sign of the intelligent argumentYour continual mistaking of those kinds of empty assertion, baseless accusation, and striking inability to recognize the invalidity of your own presumptions, for evidence of anything except your own state of mind, is what earned you the label you don't like.arsalan said:
And that is my third reply regarding the "evidence" of that post of yours. The following is repetition, in other words, and I'll keep it brief:
Any time you want to stop making invalid and unwarranted assumptions, and basing your replies on them, would not be too soon.arsalan said:
If you can.
A:
1. Peace? the Arab expansion lasted from 632 to 711, conquered most of Middle East, all of N Africa, Spain, Portugal, Persia.
Peace, but it was on their terms. so sure, its nice to be a conquering army, convert your former enemies, then go a-conquering, again, native people became "arabized" or "marginalized" as dhimmis because of Islam, the sword was the caliphs friend, "Peace"?, is that what you mean by "peace" when you say "Salaam alakim" or "pbuh"?
2. personal belief is not proof, why would a carpenter go to India, not enough wood-carvers there? Jesus mission did not start until he was 30 years old, the Bible only says that He went to Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Egypt, Nazareth when He was a kid.
3. force of arms let to Islam in Arabia, read more history, after Mohamed's death, they tried leaving, read about the Ridda Wars, I did. Peace, I like that word
4. "vile"? why "vile"?, is it because they have US help that they are "vile"? would Saddam Hussein be better? or Ahmadejinad? or who would be better & why? because they are like any other royal family, England didn't do better
4a. if its true we had such access, I'm glad that its helping out on gas & oil prices now.
5. why are "Muslim" holy lands "defiled" by non-Muslims presence, yet Muslims are all over Israel & West Bank? it wasn't a problem for Arab & Turk armies, why the difference? should we have let Kuwait under Saddam, is the Middle East defiled because we protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq or Iran?
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Neither God nor Muhammed need protection. Boycotts and expressed anger are just fine. They are natural reactions to things that upset you. Anything beyond that is assuming that God or the prophet needs your protection.
iceaura said:
You're kidding right? Hirsi Ali and honesty? She's pure politician.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ver-claims-she-lied-to-win-asylum-478265.html
