I'm not sure, is this extremist ??

"The Prophet said, "By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya' (army-unit) setting out in Allah's Cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is!
I would love to be martyred in Al1ah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred."


Volume 4, Book 52, Number 54:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

It is not unusual for cult leaders to pretend they have the same aspirations that they wish to see their members display, at their command.

no justifications/explainations/excuses/accusations from our inhouse muslims?

I like the part how Muslims are especially chaste, yet a martyr gets his virgin boys and girls when he goes to heaven.

Still no justifications on this quote form the resident oppressive muslims ??

Why does it require a justification?

Does it appear unjustified in the first place?

one of the basics of communicating was to answer a question directly.
Do not answer a question with  a question or divert.


For your benefit, it needs justifying because it is disgusting and encourages extremism.
can you answer it now ??

Firstly,


Quote:

one of the basics of communicating was to answer a question directly

I'm not here at your beck and call, obligated to answer any ridiculous question you feel like posing. Understand this.

Secondly, if I ask for clarification or qualification of your question, accept it, or don't bother asking me any questions in future, and let me know now, so I can refrain from answering your questions.


Quote:

For your benefit, it needs justifying because it is disgusting and encourages extremism.

What's wrong with being encouraged to be courageous in battle? Don't all good leaders of armies do this?

I really can't for the life of me see how it's disgusting, or extreme, unless we subscribe to the belief that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves, this is purely a privilege reserved for Western/Christian states?

hahahha - you have given 3 questions back in answering one !!!!!!!

try again


Does your indoctrinated superiorism belief MAKE you unable to accept ANY error ??

they're called rhetorical questions mate

I think sprint knows that, gaybriel, hence his frustrations at the way abu uses them to deflect from answering the questions properly.

rhetorical questions are not always deflective- rather used to provoke thought in the person they are directed at

easel wrote on Sep 15^th, 2008 at 11:35am:

I like the part how Muslims are especially chaste, yet a martyr gets his virgin boys and girls when he goes to heaven.

more info on that

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45869&hl=virgins

Riddle me this then batman...  if a religion is so anti-"things of the flesh" and temptation and repression of what women can wear etc as they will incite sexual feelings etc...  why is their reward 72 virgins?

Do women get 72 virgins too?

BTW...  read the first page of the link...  waste of time, please provide answers...  be concise.

Quote:

Riddle me this then batman...  if a religion is so anti-"things of the flesh"

Who said it's anti-"things of the flesh"? That sounds like Christianity not Islam, boy wonder.

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 2:38am:

Riddle me this then batman...  if a religion is so anti-"things of the flesh" and temptation and repression of what women can wear etc as they will incite sexual feelings etc...  why is their reward 72 virgins? Do women get 72 virgins too? BTW...  read the first page of the link...  waste of time, please provide answers...  be concise.

read past the first page and there's more info. I don't have time to spoon feed you information

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 8:52am:

Quote: Riddle me this then batman...  if a religion is so anti-"things of the flesh" Who said it's anti-"things of the flesh"? That sounds like Christianity not Islam, boy wonder.

it doesn't sound like either to me

Actually the term 'flesh' is used quite regularly in the Christian texts and is used to represent things which are unholy or not of God. Islam on the contrary has no such concept.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 11:10am:

Actually the term 'flesh' is used quite regularly in the Christian texts and is used to represent things which are unholy or not of God. Islam on the contrary has no such concept.

isn't that merely a term used to represent the humanly realm and the temptations within it? as opposed to an aversion to sexuality?

the latter is what I thought you were suggesting, apologies if it wasn't

Texts relating to 'flesh vs spirit' are used for a lot of things in Christianity. They are the basis of the Augustinian view of sexuality and for the institution of a celibate clergy.

lol
One shouldn't confuse Christianity with Catholicism or any one particular churches practices.

Now enough of this pedantry and obfuscation address the issue for a change.

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 2:09pm:

lol One shouldn't confuse Christianity with Catholicism or any one particular churches practices. Now enough of this pedantry and obfuscation address the issue for a change.

lol...bit rich coming from you.

Quote:

One shouldn't confuse Christianity with Catholicism or any one particular churches practices.

Since the Catholic church is the oldest surviving and largest branch of Christianity, I think it's quite valid. For over 1000 years, there was no protestants, orthodox etc. Both were schisms that grew out of Catholicism.

More than half of all Christians are Catholics, ie. more Christians are Catholics than all other sects combined. There is almost as many Catholics as there are Muslims in the world. So I think using them as an example of Christian doctrine is relevant.

No it isn't valid to confuse Catholicism with Christianity at all.

Should I confuse Wahabbists with Suffi, Shia or Sunni?

Quote:

No it isn't valid to confuse Catholicism with Christianity at all.

The simple fact is most Christians are Catholics, using a Catholic belief as an example of Christianity is perfectly valid as they are in fact the mainstream Christians. Just because you might not belong to them is irrelevant. It would be like if you mentioned a belief/practise of mainstream Muslims, then someone from some tiny sect came in and said that's for the mainstream Muslims only, not for my tiny little sect....


Quote:

Should I confuse Wahabbists with Suffi, Shia or Sunni?

You obviously are confused about something, because Wahabi and Sufi are both Sunni...

Ah yes but they are sub-sects of it...  tsk, tsk, tsk...  just as Catholicism is a sub-set of Christianity...  and other churches are break-aways from Catholicism.

You'll have to try harder.

Quote:

Ah yes but they are sub-sects of it.

No they're not sub-sects, nor sects. They're just groups. There's no such thing for instance as a Wahabi mosque or a Sufi mosque, as there is with Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodox etc. In fact even different protestants and different orthodox and to a lesser extent different catholics have completely different churches that they attend.

Please don't embaress yourself further, go, learn, return, debate.


Quote:

just as Catholicism is a sub-se[c]t of Christianity

Catholicism is the mainstream of Christianity, it is the bulk of Christians, and has been since the earliest days of organised Christianity. You can keep debating all you like, the fact is it was a relevant point to make, as the vast majority of Christiands DO accept celibacy vows for clergy, and most Christians, even non-Catholics DO accept the Augustinian view of sexuality. Please stop bickering over minor issue like this, [mod: personal attack]

Lol
I'm not embarassed I'm not the pedant trying to worm his way with semantic...  btw sub-sects was a typo...

rotflmao

now how about addressing the issues.

No?

How unusual.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 9:22pm:

Quote: Ah yes but they are sub-sects of it. No they're not sub-sects, nor sects. They're just groups. There's no such thing for instance as a Wahabi mosque or a Sufi mosque, as there is with Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodox etc. In fact even different protestants and different orthodox and to a lesser extent different catholics have completely different churches that they attend. Please don't embaress yourself further, go, learn, return, debate. [quote] just as Catholicism is a sub-se[c]t of Christianity

Catholicism is the mainstream of Christianity, it is the bulk of Christians, and has been since the earliest days of organised Christianity. You can keep debating all you like, the fact is it was a relevant point to make, as the vast majority of Christiands DO accept celibacy vows for clergy, and most Christians, even non-Catholics DO accept the Augustinian view of sexuality. Please stop bickering over minor issue like this, it just indicates you don't have a very broad intellect.[/quote]

Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that the Orthodox Church is the authentic and original Christian Church established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles. As such, the Eastern Orthodox Church views its role as the preserver of the teachings and traditions given to the Early Christians by the Apostles nearly 2,000 years ago and the developer of conciliar interpretations which expand and illuminate the original teachings.

But Catholics are Christians nevertheless as all other christian denominations are.

I see we have an Eastern Orthodox Christian in the room, thanks for that tallowood.

I'm sure that statement would work equally well for all denominations:


Quote:

<My Denomination> Christians believe that the <My Denomination> Church is the authentic and original Christian Church established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles. As such, the <My Denomination> Church views its role as the preserver of the teachings and traditions given to the Early Christians by the Apostles nearly 2,000 years ago and the developer of conciliar interpretations which expand and illuminate the original teachings.

Likewise all denominations probably consider themselves to be the true Catholics (with the exception of the Lutherans), as it's a clearly stated part of the Nicene creed, which pretty much all denominations adopt.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 19^th, 2008 at 6:34am:

I see we have an Eastern Orthodox Christian in the room, thanks for that tallowood. Likewise all denominations probably consider themselves to be the true Catholics (with the exception of the Lutherans), as it's a clearly stated part of the Nicene creed, which pretty much all denominations adopt.

Catholic simply means universal, hence its inclusion in the creed of the council of Nicea and accepted by many denominations.

What you are referring to as catholics are the Roman Catholics. Tallowood's clarification is quite right, don't sneer at it.

The first significant schism in the universal catholic church was between the eastern and the western churches, now known as Eastern or Greek Orthodox (originally of Constantinopolis , the capital of the Eastern empire, now Istambul) and Roman Catholics, respectively.

Lestat wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 3:46pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2008 at 2:09pm: lol One shouldn't confuse Christianity with Catholicism or any one particular churches practices. Now enough of this pedantry and obfuscation address the issue for a change. lol...bit rich coming from you.

lestat- comments like this aren't helpful

this is a warning to everyone to keep things as constructive as possible.

if people want to keep talking about christianity and catholicism etc etc can they please make another thread.

time to get back to the topic or leave it be.