What If Everybody Became Muslim? (but of different sects)

[path]

Would there be enough virgins for everyone?

This is form the article I linked to in the "stucture in the quran" thread

Q. – Let’s come to the misunderstandings. One of the most glaring errors you cite is that of the virgins promised, in the Islamic paradise, to the suicide bombers.

A. – “We begin from the term ‘huri,’ for which the Arabic commentators could not find any meaning other than those heavenly virgins. But if one keeps in mind the derivations from Syro-Aramaic, that expression indicated ‘white grapes,’ which is one of the symbolic elements of the Christian paradise, recalled in the Last Supper of Jesus. There’s another Koranic expression, falsely interpreted as ‘the children’ or ‘the youths’ of paradise: in Aramaic: it designates the fruit of the vine, which in the Koran is compared to pearls. As for the symbols of paradise, these interpretive errors are probably connected to the male monopoly in Koranic commentary and interpretation.”

From an interview with Christophe Luxenberg islamicist scholar at saarland Uni in Germany

 

[Bells]

You may also go to hell bikini flores...

How do you know she's going to go to hell for wearing a bikini? Are you the one deciding who goes through the pearly gates? Did God lean down and whisper in your ear.. 'psssst PM.. Flores is going to hell for wearing a bikini'..? For all you know, Flores may go to heaven while you go to hell. After all, you're daring to take God's place by passing judgement... one would think that the big daddy upstairs might take a bit of offence to that... wouldn't you think?

 

[Paula]

Tiassa,

"However, if it's a superficial conversion such as those popular at present in American Christianity, it doesn't really matter one way or another."

What's with all the shots all the time? Christian religious observance is up to the same levels it was in the 1960's in the US. Hardly a fad.

 

[mustafhakofi]

Tiassa,

"However, if it's a superficial conversion such as those popular at present in American Christianity, it doesn't really matter one way or another."

What's with all the shots all the time? Christian religious observance is up to the same levels it was in the 1960's in the US. Hardly a fad.

not a good thing then

 

[Rappaccini]

You may also go to hell bikini flores...

Nice fear tactic, cretin.

 

[Tiassa]

Christian religious observance is up to the same levels it was in the 1960's in the US.

In and of itself, that means nothing.

Listen to people's conversion stories. They're hollow, superficial, and largely archetypal.

Someone lives with human troubles, decides they can't cope, chooses a hopeful myth, and pretends things get better.

In the meantime, born-again Christians have shown higher divorce rates over the last few years, Christian churches are remarrying divorced people, and silly political issues like the gender of one's sexual partner have been consistently brought to the fore by Christians.

What's with all the shots all the time?

I know, I know. It's nice to consider Christians inhumanly perfect, but it doesn't reflect reality.

Or you might pause to consider that it might have something to do with Americans, who are generally spiritually hollow.

George W. Bush, for example ... look ... God did not tell him to invade Iraq, no matter what the hell he says.

Is the parable of the talents really a commission to gather and hoard extraneous wealth? Is the evangelical mission to crush opponents? Is "equality" the granting of special privileges to one group of people? Does the choice of apathy toward faith indicate the strength of Christianity?

But you're right. Superficial and dangerous religion are, unfortunately, not a fad.

 

[Tiassa]

From an interview with Christophe Luxenberg islamicist scholar at saarland Uni in Germany

Isn't that part of the new translation of the Quran that is almost guaranteed to displease, as it makes basic lingual assertions about the book that are virtually untenable in modern Islam?

Of course, if the Aramaic bit is demonstrated convincingly ... that will be something.

 

[StarOfEight]

Someone lives with human troubles, decides they can't cope, chooses a hopeful myth, and pretends things get better.

How is that any different than people who convert to Islam while in prison?

 

[Neildo]

If everyone were a Moslem, it would be no different than things are right now with various religions. There are already different sects between each religion that disagree with one another so they'd still be arguing and warring with one another. And this is no different for any other religion besides Islam.

Each mainstream religious base isn't enough agreement for one another. Peace would only happen if everyone had the same beliefs of each sect of a certain religion. And that would only last a short while until, as was done in the past to create the religions we have today, one realizes the contradictions in their religion, the corruption that may be going on, and tries to improve and update their current religion and way of thought and lifestyle which then forms a new religion. Round and round we go..

- N

 

[StarOfEight]

Even if people were united in a belief, I doubt they would stay united in that belief. Joseph Smith's teaching of continuing revelation spawned dozens of LDS splinter sects, most notably the RLDS. As soon as Mohammed died, Islam split over the issue of succession. The history of the early Christian Church is a history of division and redivision.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Even if people were united in a belief, I doubt they would stay united in that belief. Joseph Smith's teaching of continuing revelation spawned dozens of LDS splinter sects, most notably the RLDS. As soon as Mohammed died, Islam split over the issue of succession. The history of the early Christian Church is a history of division and redivision.

<*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
M*W: Which goes to show you that religion doesn't "unite" people, it "divides" people. The only indivisive part of life is the belief in the One Body of Humanity which is the One Spirit of God.

 

[Neildo]

The history of the early Christian Church is a history of division and redivision.

That's the history of religion period. Every single religion that we have today has been an updated one of the previous mainstream ones.

Starting with Hinduism in India came Buddhism and Jainism once those prophets realized the contradictions in that religion and wanted to improve everyone's life as a whole because of caste systems and the like.

Then nearby further east came Confucionism and Taoism all for the same reasons that the other prophets of Buddhism and Jainism did.

And then in Persia started Zoroastrianism which was started to improve their way of life as well. Oh, and all the above listed religions sprout out in the same century. That was basically the century of reform, 6th BC.

And now combining the beliefs of the nomadic tribes of Canaan and the beliefs of Zoroastrianism came another set of laws of Judaism. And then later since Judaism was basically only laws, Christianity sprout to preach love. And from all that came Mohammedanism. And many years later once Christianity became the dominant religion, more reforms began to happen within itself but sticking mostly to their main religion of Christianity. And now today we have even more reformation as we get more technologically advanced into what is called New Age religions, heh.

So as you see, religion period is just all one big chunk of reformation. Since religion is old and people change through the years, a select few questioned their old beliefs in regards to their current way of life and sprouted new ideas and created a new religion. Rinse and repeat. It's just a never-ending cycle: Question the current reformed religion with current lifestyle and form new religions. Fun, eh?

So as whacky of an idea as a New Age religion may sound, try and remember that all the religions we have today went through the exact same thing. It was blasphemous and they were cults until it turned into a large following. Note to sensitive Christians: for those that spout heresy on them, it's no different than those of the past that said the same about Jesus and had him crucified (as I said in another thread). The only difference between now and then is that now we're much more aware and aren't so gullible.

- N

 

[Neildo]

M*W: Which goes to show you that religion doesn't "unite" people, it "divides" people. The only indivisive part of life is the belief in the One Body of Humanity which is the One Spirit of God.

That, and the Golden Rule -- which unfortunately many don't follow.

- N

 

[Tiassa]

Ask me again when Islam is the predominant religion in the United States of America

How is that any different than people who convert to Islam while in prison?

Generally, it isn't.

Like I said originally: superficial.

The number of born-again Christians in this country reasonably supports the idea that superficial conversions to Christianity are popular.

The number of born-again Muslims does not support the idea that superficial conversions to Islam are popular.

Which leads me to a simple question: Why is the comparison important to you in the first place?

 

[Yazan]

I don't want to answer this question because
in order to ask such a question or even answer it, you must first be aware of Islam and all the others quite well. How can you know what's going to happen since you don't know all about Islam or even fair enough about it?

 

[rainbow__princess_4]

If I became Muslim I'd be sure to secretly worship the Muslim version of death-harpies by night. Death to organisation.

 

[invert_nexus]

Isn't that part of the new translation of the Quran that is almost guaranteed to displease, as it makes basic lingual assertions about the book that are virtually untenable in modern Islam?

Indeed, a professor in Palestine was tossed out a window by his students for attempting to teach about it.

 

[alain]

lol, everyone needs someone to hate/fight. the differences between the different sects of muslims would grow bigger, until more wars started

 

[path]

Isn't that part of the new translation of the Quran that is almost guaranteed to displease, as it makes basic lingual assertions about the book that are virtually untenable in modern Islam?

Of course, if the Aramaic bit is demonstrated convincingly ... that will be something.

I haven't seen any new translations of the quran do you have anymore info o0n that?
Those articles have really peaked my curiosity I am looking forward to the book being rereleased hopefully in languages besides German since that isn't in my repetoire

 

[StarOfEight]

Generally, it isn't.

Like I said originally: superficial.

The number of born-again Christians in this country reasonably supports the idea that superficial conversions to Christianity are popular.

The number of born-again Muslims does not support the idea that superficial conversions to Islam are popular.

Which leads me to a simple question: Why is the comparison important to you in the first place?

Because, it seemed as if you were making a distinction between conversions to Christianity as being inherently superficial, and conversions to Islam as being more spiritual. Apparently, that wasn't the case. My apologies.