Islam appears to replace morals with rules. Perhaps this is why Muslims tend to blame the absence of Sharia law, or a 'prefect' Islamic state, for mistreatment of women, violence and other social problems that have undermined middle eastern communities since the collapse of the caliphate. Thus the lack of a caliphate can be seen as the proximate cause of these social problems, whereas Islam itself can be seen as the ultimate cause.

Something that would inevitably make this worse is that Islam tends to 'legislate' in favour of immoral activities, while 'moralising' the high ground. This would not normally be a problem in other cultures, but in this context it is a problem because Islam focuses on obedience rather than morals. Plus, it sets the bar very low.

For example, Islam allows slavery - even sex slaves. But it 'promotes' the freeing of slaves as the 'right thing to do' rather than demanding it. Similarly, Islam allows the marriage of an old man to many young (even pre-pubescent) girls. It combines this with medieval dress standards for women, a punishment of death by stoning for adultery, and a view on love based on a woman 'growing to love' her chosen husband, rather than falling in love with him and deciding to spend her life with him.

At least in the case of slaves it appears possible for a caliphate to ban slavery completely when conditions are suitable, though it inevitably becomes open slather if the Caliphate collapses. Even though there is a punishment for having sex with a pre-pubescent girl, the culture of oppression or women would make Sharia law a dream-come-true for paedophiles. They would be married to their victims and would be able to force them to cover up from head to toe on the occasions when they are allowed out. They would be legally allowed to acquire new ones from time to time by exchanging daughters etc with other paedophiles. Paedophile rings are difficult enough to bust at the best of times. Sharia law would make it virtually impossible.

Even behaviour that is (only technically) not paedophilia would still constitute mistreatment of women. Once the child bride hits puberty and the old man consummates the marriage, she would be bound to the old man by law and face the horrendous punishment of death by stoning if she ever cheated on him. While it is not impossible for a woman to grow to love a husband that was imposed on her in this manner, it is almost inevitable that most women would live in misery.

Adding to this problem is the allowance of polygamy. If only 5% of the population have four wives, the remaining men will outnumber women by a ratio of 3:2. Combined with harsh restrictions on the freedom of women and the rejection of romantic views on love, it is inevitable that this would result in the treatment of women as objects. It is not reasonable to expect that polygamy will only happen where it is ‘necessary’, as there will always be men who desire a new young bride as their first one ages, and little to stop them because sharia law specifically allows it. For a time the imbalance caused by polygamy could be compensated with sex slaves obtained through conquest, while at the same time providing motivation for conquest among bride-less men. However expansionism cannot last forever.

It is inevitable that obtaining a wife (or wives) would begin to appear more and more like a business pursuit rather than the pursuit of love.

Quote:

Islam appears to replace morals with rules.

Rules generally emanate from morals. You've merely not looked for the morals, and instead just seen the rules that emanate from them.

Also morals are subjective. Is adultery immoral? I'd say it is, and so would most other sane humans, and Islam definitely espouses this moral. Is stealing immoral? I'd say it is again, as would most other humans, Islam also espouses this moral.

I think this point is just nonsensical. Is it because Islam actually prescribes a punishment for disregarding the moral, that you consider it to be just based on rules rather than morals? I'm truly at a loss to see your point on this one.


Quote:

Muslims tend to blame the absence of Sharia law, or a 'prefect' Islamic state, for mistreatment of women, violence and other social problems that have undermined middle eastern communities since the collapse of the caliphate.

The collapse of the Caliphate undoubtedly led to a lot of the problems we see today,. because many of them simply didn't exist prior to it. But each inidviidual is responsible before God for his own shortcomings and "There was no caliphate" is not going to be any kind of excuse at all for mistreating anyone.

Also I don't think you've really proved any great amount of mistreatment of women in Muslim societies. All you've done is claim "They don't keep statistics, therefore it must be worse than in our society", or use things like "women have to cover more nakedness, so they must be oppressed".

When you cxan actually bring some concrete evidence on this one, we can look deeper at it, but again as I say, you're confusing apportioning blame to merely recognising that a certain historical event did result in a certain set of conditions.

Like your false claim that Muslims blame the situation of Islam today on the West, just because the decline opened the door for the West, doesn't mean we blame them. We blame ourselves, for our own failures to maintain our strength and unity, and to adapt to the changes in the world.


Quote:

Something that would inevitably make this worse is that Islam tends to 'legislate' in favour of immoral activities

Islam does not legislate immorality at all, this is garbage.


Quote:

For example, Islam allows slavery - even sex slaves.

Islam does not allow 'sex slaves'. It permitted enemies to be captured when they fought against the Caliphate, and they forfeited their freedom by this. All nations of the world did this at the time Islam was revealed, it was the norm. As has been pointed out to you so many times, the Bible also permits this (actually it permitted slavery in many different ways, far beyond what Islam did), as it was the norm. You need to accept this fact. If you'd like to argue it should be stopped in this day and age, then I can see us discussing it. But if you just want to promote the false idea that Islam alone permitted this, and nobody else did, then you're wasting your time,  I'm not interested in debating such fallacies.

The Christian West permitted even capturing of free men, not in times of war only a small number of centuries ago, when Islam abolished this over 14 centuries ago. Obviously the injunctions in the Bible were justification enough for them. Let me guess, the Catohlics did it all? The typical Christian cop-out.


Quote:

Similarly, Islam allows the marriage of an old man to many young (even pre-pubescent) girls.

Again you're not being honest here freediver. Islam does not permit marriage (as it's understood today) to a pre-pubescant girl. It permits people who've attained puberty to be married, again as did all societies up until very recently, and in fact some societies even permitted marriage (as we understand it today) to younger than pubescant people. Islam put clear rules for all these things mentioned so far, in a time when no other nation/religion/civilisation did, and for that you're condemning it? Quite ironic, since those laws were revolutionary. Yes I understand you see them as being outdated, that's fine, but to claim they were legislated out of immorality is just ridiculous.


Quote:

At least in the case of slaves it appears possible for a caliphate to ban slavery completely when conditions are suitable, though it inevitably becomes open slather if the Caliphate collapses

You know full well slavery was only ever permitted for captives of war, and that can't happen without a Caliphate, so this statement was just a waste of your perfectly good typing skills.


Quote:

Sharia law a dream-come-true for paedophiles. They would be married to their victims

Since paedophilia is defined as an unnatural attraction to pre-pubescant children which wanes as the child approaches puberty, and then the paedophile must find a new victim, Shari'ah law does not seem like a dream come true for them at all. As they wouldn't be able to marry a girl until after she passed the age he'd have lost interest in her. Also their behaviour is predatory, and has not been observed to be long term, as marriage obviously is. Again, what another waste of valuable screen real-estate this one was.


Quote:

Paedophile rings are difficult enough to bust at the best of times. Sharia law would make it virtually impossible.

Quite ironic considering most padophiles are from European Christian societies. Yes I know, they're just not reported in Muslim societies, but obviously must be far more endemic...

Character limit..

Quote:

Is it because Islam actually prescribes a punishment for disregarding the moral, that you consider it to be just based on rules rather than morals?

It's because it (for example) prescribes death by stoning for adultery, arranged marriages for prepubescent girls and a rejection of romantic views on love. I thought I explained this in the opening post. These rules are clearly immoral. Only blindly following rules rather than thinking about morals could lead to people confusing these rules with morals.


Quote:

But each inidviidual is responsible before God for his own shortcomings and "There was no caliphate" is not going to be any kind of excuse at all for mistreating anyone.

Odd that you only seem to phrase that in the future tense. You often seem to offer up 'Islam doesn't exist' as an excuse on others' behalf.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Islam_doesn.27t_exist

This is in part where rules fall short of morals. Rules give you an excuse to not think about morals. Under Islam, they act as an excuse for not thinking about morals. When you say that individuals are responsible before God, you mean they are responsible for not following the rules, not for acting immorally. An ideology that claims rules as a substitute for morals is dangerous. As you said "Rules generally emanate from morals." That is a generalisation. It does not mean that rules are morals.


Quote:

because many of them simply didn't exist prior to it

Like homosexuality? You don't really believe that do you?


Quote:

All you've done is claim "They don't keep statistics, therefore it must be worse

Actually, I don't think I brought that up at all in my post.


Quote:

or use things like "women have to cover more nakedness, so they must be oppressed"

.

See, now that is an example of a strawman.


Quote:

Islam does not allow 'sex slaves'.

Yes it does. You just prefer to call them 'concubines' because it sounds more PC.


Quote:

All nations of the world did this at the time Islam was revealed, it was the norm.

See, this is another example of the dangers of replacing morals with rules.


Quote:

As has been pointed out to you so many times, the Bible also permits this (actually it permitted slavery in many different ways, far beyond what Islam did), as it was the norm.

If I want to know what Christianity permits, I will ask a Christian.


Quote:

If you'd like to argue it should be stopped in this day and age, then I can see us discussing it.

I think I already conceded that the last Caliphate at least tried to stamp out slavery, though it was under pressure from Great Britian to do so. It's the other rules relating to treatment of women that have me more concerned. Obviously I'm supportive of any Muslims who tries to stop people using Islam as an excuse for trading in sex slaves. Good luck. But I suppose you're too busy complaining about Israel.


Quote:

But if you just want to promote the false idea that Islam alone permitted this

Where did I say that?


Quote:

Again you're not being honest here freediver. Islam does not permit marriage (as it's understood today) to a pre-pubescant girl.

Didn't you concede that Islam permits the marriage of pre-pubescent girls? I did point out that the old man is 'expected' not to break her in till she is 'ready'.


Quote:

Islam put clear rules for all these things mentioned so far, in a time when no other nation/religion/civilisation did, and for that you're condemning it?

No, I'm condeming it for making the specific rules that seemed like a good idea 1400 years ago (to a bunch of warring tribes with no moral objection to murder or theft) permanent. I condemn it for replacing rules with morals and 'permitting' people to stop thinking about morals.


Quote:

but to claim they were legislated out of immorality is just ridiculous

That isn't exactly what I said. According to you, even Muhammed seemed to recognise that slavery was immoral, yet he still allowed it. He may have thought pedophilia was bad too, but his rules do a good job as assisiting pedophiles.


Quote:

You know full well slavery was only ever permitted for captives of war, and that can't happen without a Caliphate

So catch yourself some slaves and call your tribe a Caliphate.


Quote:

Quite ironic considering most padophiles are from European Christian societies. Yes I know, they're just not reported in Muslim societies, but obviously must be far more endemic...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence Abu. Would you expect us to believe the paedophilia did not exist in the church until law enforcement, and later the church, was brace enough to tackle it head on? Why do you set a different standard for Muslims?

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 6^th, 2008 at 8:34pm:

Quote: Islam appears to replace morals with rules. Rules generally emanate from morals. You've merely not looked for the morals, and instead just seen the rules that emanate from them. Also morals are subjective. Is adultery immoral? I'd say it is, and so would most other sane humans, and Islam definitely espouses this moral. Is stealing immoral? I'd say it is again, as would most other humans, Islam also espouses this moral.

Quote:

"Rules generally emanate from morals."

Wrong, i would suggest.

Rules generally emanate from an authority which has the power to enforce them.

Laws are about politics, power.

Laws are not necessarily about justice, or morals.

ISLAM is a system of laws.

Yet many ppl, including many ex-muslims [who have intimate knowledge of ISLAM], insist that ISLAM is an immoral philosophy.






Quote:

"....Also morals are subjective. Is adultery immoral?"

Is the rape of a woman who is an 'unbeliever' moral abu?

Why is it that some muslims believe that it is moral????





As i have asserted previously....

All things are permitted if they are permitted by Sharia......

Rape victims were harangued as 'sluts' by attackers...
"The brothers, Muslims from Pakistan, targeted mostly Anglo-Saxon Australian girls whom they would later call "sluts" as they attacked them."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/27/1069825922999.html

"....attacks on girls as young as 13.... they had no right to say “no.” They were not covering their face or wearing a headscarf, and therefore, the rapist proclaimed: “I’m not doing anything wrong.”"
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=20535&p=1



++++++++



ISLAM is always dualistic in how it approaches the issue of morality, and the behaviour of muslims.

Fellow muslims must be treated one way, under ISLAMIC morality.

'Unbelievers' are treated in a separate, different way, because of what the Koran instructs,

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.008
v. 8 - 11

rape is not permitted in shariah full stop

So if a concubine doesn't want to be a concubine she can just wlak away from her position of slavery? Or does rape not count when it is done to a non-Muslim war captive - it's just 'spoiles of war'?

freediver wrote on Nov 7^th, 2008 at 1:23pm:

So if a concubine doesn't want to be a concubine she can just wlak away from her position of slavery? Or does rape not count when it is done to a non-Muslim war captive - it's just 'spoiles of war'?

that I do not know about- I'll try and find out

Good luck.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#The_concubine_saga

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 7^th, 2008 at 1:21pm:

rape is not permitted in shariah full stop

Gaybriel,

You are mistaken.

A muslim must not rape, a muslim woman - full stop.



Muslims also, can 'take' those women their hand possess [women who are war booty, or considered war booty, or slaves].


All morality stated within muslim texts APPLY's TO FELLOW MUSLIMS - full stop.


++++++++


Who may muslim men have sex with?

"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except THOSE WHOM YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSESS:......"
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.024

"women.....whom your right hands possess" ???
= = war booty, i.e. captive women slaves.

I think that Islam's rules reflect to a large extent the conditions under which Arab tribes lived on the Arabian peninsula during Muhammed's time. They were laregly nomadic tribesmen and lead a harsh, survivalist lifestyle. Morality only extended to fellow tribesmen. Raiding other tribes was something of a 'national sport'. There was no immorality assigned to stealing from or killing those you weren't related to. There were some settled regions, which were also plundered. The nomadic tribes could easily escape into the desert where settled people could not follow them. People sometimes shifted between settled and nomadic lifestyles as conditions changed.

Muhammed seems to have adopted this amorality and extended the concept of the clan to all who adopted his ideology. He even incorporated pre-existing 'holy sites' where tradition forbade bloodshed. He thus converted them from warring tribes to a warring, expansionist empire able to take on neighbouring empires. His rules seem to be geared towards fueling this war machine, rather than correcting the amorality of the violent nomadic lifestyle.

Sex and material wealth seem to have been his main motivational tools. His social structure ensured that huge numbers of young men were denied love, or wives. So, off to battle the infidels they went. If they were killed, 72 dark eyed virgins would tickle their every fantasy in heaven. If they were unfortunate enough to survive, they had to make do with whatever infidel women they could capture, along with all of their land, farm animals and material posessions. But there was no rest for the wicked. The slaves were eventually freed and the cycle started again, except this time the battlefield was even further away.

The standard response to this is that other empires behaved the same way. This is of course true, but kind of misses the point. No-one takes the example of an ancient plundering empire and assigns it divine justification. Except of course Muslims.

Yadda,


Quote:

The two best friends were handed a Jim Beam and Coke.

Yeh really good practising Muslims weren't they... They were living according to the Australian lifestyle, not the Islamic one. Like most of the other garbage you cut and paste, this is just nonsense that has nothing to do with Islam.

Anyway I think I'm going to go back to the core of this argument, that morality and rules are completely seperate things.


Quote:

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") has three principal meanings. In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. To deny 'morality' in this sense is a position known as moral skepticism. In its third usage, 'morality' is synonymous with ethics, the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain. ... Codified morality is generally distinguished from custom, another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former's derivation from natural or universal principles. In certain religious communities, the Divine is said to provide these principles through revelation, sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the Law of Moses, or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in Islamic law. ... Moral codes are often complex definitions of right and wrong that are based upon well-defined value systems. Although some people might think that a moral code is simple, rarely is there anything simple about one's values, ethics, etc. or, for that matter, the judgment of those of others. The difficulty lies in the fact that morals are often part of a religion and more often than not about culture codes. Sometimes, moral codes give way to legal codes, which couple penalties or corrective actions with particular practices. Note that while many legal codes are merely built on a foundation of religious and/or cultural moral codes, ofttimes they are one and the same.

Wikipedia

Now if you ask me, that all sounds a lot like what the Islamic system is about, is it not?

Also Roget's Thesaurus lists moral as a synonym of rule.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 7^th, 2008 at 8:41pm:

Yadda, Quote: The two best friends were handed a Jim Beam and Coke. Yeh really good practising Muslims weren't they... They were living according to the Australian lifestyle, not the Islamic one. Like most of the other garbage you cut and paste, this is just nonsense that has nothing to do with Islam.

doesn't sound to me like they were living to any particular lifestyle- just living by their own sick and twisted desires

Well the drinking of alcohol they were doing (which is actually associated with a lot of rapes) is a staple part of the Australian lifestyle, for that reason I mentioned that they seemed to be quite obviously more engulfed in the Australian lifestyle, than the Islamic one.

But unlike Yadda, I'm not going to goto the extreme of blaming it on that lifestyle, though in this case, I think I'd have much more right to than Yadda does, since these guys were obviously closer to Australian culture than to Islamic culture.

Quote:

that morality and rules are completely seperate things

Not quite. Otherwise you couldn't replace one with the other.


Quote:

Sometimes, moral codes give way to legal codes, which couple penalties or corrective actions with particular practices. Note that while many legal codes are merely built on a foundation of religious and/or cultural moral codes, ofttimes they are one and the same.

For example Islam, which replaces morals with rules, then leaves them unchanged for 1400 years.

What exactly are you trying to argue here Abu? That they are in fact the same thing? That's what I thought at first, but I notice you didn't actually say that. Rather, you appear to be arguing that they are not 'completely separate'. But this is nothing more than the slaying of a straw man. Two things do not have to be completely separate in order to replace one with the other. The difference can seem subtle. Or it can hit you over the head like a pelted stone.

Islam is about performative action. It is about demonstrating that you are following the rules. Do not think, above all, do not argue, do everything as it is prescribed. Perform your submission. No-one is interested in what is in your heart, your morals.

Judaism is about hearing the small, still voice and heeding it. Christianity is about the transformed heart, of being called out of your pagan ethnicity into election (judaism) for all. Morality is at the heart of both.

Soren wrote on Nov 7^th, 2008 at 11:33pm:

Islam is about performative action. It is about demonstrating that you are following the rules. Do not think, above all, do not argue, do everything as it is prescribed. Perform your submission. No-one is interested in what is in your heart, your morals. Judaism is about hearing the small, still voice and heeding it. Christianity is about the transformed heart, of being called out of your pagan ethnicity into election (judaism) for all. Morality is at the heart of both.

Are there not 615 laws in the Torah?

Quote:

Are there not 615 laws in the Torah?

Yes the mitzvot. Not only that, but if soren (and all his bible bashing buddies) actually bothered to read their NT, they'd find the Jews were criticised and considered on the wrong path exactly for this same reason they're trying to criticise Islam for, "Following the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of it". But now all of a sudden in the 20th. century and beyond, Judaism is not the target anymore, Islam is, so Judaism has now become all moral and fuzzy wuzzy, and only Islam is legalistic...

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 8^th, 2008 at 10:24am:

Soren wrote on Nov 7th, 2008 at 11:33pm: Islam is about performative action. It is about demonstrating that you are following the rules. Do not think, above all, do not argue, do everything as it is prescribed. Perform your submission. No-one is interested in what is in your heart, your morals. Judaism is about hearing the small, still voice and heeding it. Christianity is about the transformed heart, of being called out of your pagan ethnicity into election (judaism) for all. Morality is at the heart of both. Are there not 615 laws in the Torah?

Don't knoww about 615 (or 2 or 789). Yes and only minority of jews follow them - yet they remain jews.
Every religion has rituals. The point is, you are a jew or a Christian in your heart. Allah, on the other hand, will judge you only by your performance.
The five pillars of Islam and the commandments of love (of god and neighbour) are pointing to different essentials.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 8^th, 2008 at 10:34am:

Quote: Are there not 615 laws in the Torah? Yes the mitzvot. Not only that, but if soren (and all his bible bashing buddies) actually bothered to read their NT, they'd find the Jews were criticised and considered on the wrong path exactly for this same reason they're trying to criticise Islam for, "Following the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of it". But now all of a sudden in the 20th. century and beyond, Judaism is not the target anymore, Islam is, so Judaism has now become all moral and fuzzy wuzzy, and only Islam is legalistic...

Reform judaism is not  hung up on the letter of the law as orthodox judaism - it has heeded the warning. And still - the jews do not blow each other up over dogma, like the Mohammedans. Not even secular jews are blown up, as they go about their daily lives, by the orthodox. A jew is a jew in his heart and mind (and his trousers). the rest is between him and god to arover. yes, a jew will argue with god.
The world is a cooperative effort between man and god. The Christians have learned tha from the jews , but the Mohammedans, having misunderstood judaism, haven't and now it is too late for them to learn it.
So the nature of the relationship for jew and christian is personal, of the heart. For the mohammedan, the relationship is of the slave and the potentate in the law courts of the poteentate.

Yes the mitzvot. Not only that, but if soren (and all his bible bashing buddies) actually bothered to read their NT, they'd find the Jews were criticised and considered on the wrong path exactly for this same reason they're trying to criticise Islam for, "Following the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of it". But now all of a sudden in the 20th. century and beyond, Judaism is not the target anymore, Islam is, so Judaism has now become all moral and fuzzy wuzzy, and only Islam is legalistic...

Abu this has nothing to do with Judaism. Just because you can see similar flaws in Judaism does not mean those flaws don't exist in Islam. In fact you should be more able to acknowledge them, not less. If the Jews start blowing each other up, citing the Torah as motivation, or stoning people to death, or chopping off people's hands, or marrying prepubescent girls, people will start criticising it. I am happy to let Muslims define what Islam is, but I'm not going to let them define other religions.

By deflecting the criticism, does that mean you acknowledge the flaws in Islam? If not, you have a very strange way of defending it.

Soren wrote on Nov 7^th, 2008 at 11:33pm:

Islam is about performative action. It is about demonstrating that you are following the rules. Do not think, above all, do not argue, do everything as it is prescribed. Perform your submission. No-one is interested in what is in your heart, your morals. Judaism is about hearing the small, still voice and heeding it. Christianity is about the transformed heart, of being called out of your pagan ethnicity into election (judaism) for all. Morality is at the heart of both.

"Christianity is about the transformed heart, of being called out of your pagan ethnicity into election (judaism) for all."


Soren,

I believe you are correct.

I see the purpose of Christianity in the same way.


The experiences and the stories in the OT [& NT] were all given to mankind as spiritual parables [i believe].

All those who come to walk in God's way, are, and become, the children of Israel.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 6^th, 2008 at 8:34pm:

Quote: Islam appears to replace morals with rules. Rules generally emanate from morals.

abu,

Surely there is a vast gulf between laws and morals.

Differing societies determine, through debate and consensus, what laws they will adopt, and enforce.



Morals come from the inner man.

And, a man can break a bad law, and still be acting morally.

e.g.
Rape victim, 13, stoned to death in stadium
......Amnesty said: "Inside the stadium, militia members opened fire when some of the witnesses to the killing attempted to save her life, and shot dead a boy who was a bystander."
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225800482



A person who abandons his morals, becomes an immoral person.

And it is possible to obey societal laws, and possible to be acting within societal norms, and yet, still be acting immorally.
....and this is what often outrages our moral sensitivity, when we see this occurring.
....e.g. the story above.


I think that this highlights a difference between the 'moral compass' of muslims, and many non-muslims.

Many non-muslims will challenge, and will not accept, what they see as an immoral [or unjust] SOCIETAL LAW.

Muslims cannot challenge, what they see as an immoral ISLAMIC LAW.

You may disagree.




So should we encourage a society of laws [such as ISLAM],
OR,
should we [and society] instead seek to enhance our own, individual, internal 'moral compass', and that internal 'moral compass' of other individuals?



Should we be 'in bondage', to the law, to that which is external to us [such as with ISLAM]???

Or should we seek to learn a proper morality, and encourage, and seek to internalise a moral behaviour within our children???



A person who has an internal moral compass, is a moral person.

The person who looks to laws, for guidance, is the slave of those who enforce those laws [whether those laws are moral, or not].



+++++++++


"And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good - need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"
Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance
Robert M Pirsig

soren,


Quote:

Don't knoww about 615 (or 2 or 789).

It's actually 613, the word "Mitzvah" means command. So they ARE commanded to follow 613 rules, and this is what Judaism is about.


Quote:

Yes and only minority of jews follow them - yet they remain jews.

Actually the majority of believing Jews identify as either Orthodox or Conservative both groups follow the Mitzvot. Reform and Reconstructionist Jews are the minority, unless you wanted to count them with atheistic/secular Jews who generally don't even believe in God or religion at all anyway.

Regardless, it's part of their religious teachings and doctrines, and that's what we're discussing here, not peoples adherence or lack thereof. I really don't understand why you're so intent on proving the Jews are like Christians (and unlike Muslims) for most of your history you persecuted and murdered them and considered them to be an absolute abomination as far as their religious teachings were concerned. Why change now?


Quote:

The point is, you are a jew or a Christian in your heart

A Muslim is not a Muslim in his heart? What kind of nonsense is this...


Quote:

Allah, on the other hand, will judge you only by your performance.

Your idea of Islam is extremely skewed. Judaism is, according to Christian doctrine, a works-based religion, and Christianity reacted and claimed to be faith-only based. Islam is the perfect union of the two, as we believe the original teachings of both religions once were, and that is best understand from one of the most oft-repeated verses of the Qur'an, "Those who believe AND work righteous deeds".


Quote:

The five pillars of Islam and the commandments of love (of god and neighbour) are pointing to different essentials.

What are the five pillars of Islam? what is the first and most important one?

Also note that Jews have 6 special Mitzvot, which are considered the fundamental commands, and one of them is to fear God. Do you fear God soren? Or do you believe we should fear God? Another of them is to affirm the ABSOLUTE oneness of God, do you believe we should do that soren? Is that more compatible with Christianity? Or with Islam?


Quote:

Reform judaism is not  hung up on the letter of the law as orthodox judaism - it has heeded the warning

Heeded the warning and ordained gay Rabbis?  ;D

Reform Judaism is a joke, it's Judaism without the Judaism. The "Clayton's Judaism".


Quote:

And still - the jews do not blow each other up over dogma, like the Mohammedans.

Tell that to Yitzak Rabin, or to the Jewish historian who recently had his house bombed by Jewish extremists, because he wrote that Zionism had dispossessed the Palestinians of their land, rather than spewing out the propaganda line that it was terra nullius (land without a people for a people without a land).

Your one-eyed view of Islam and more worryingly of Christianity and Judaism is based on nothing but whimsical fantasy soren. But if you close your eyes and wish hard enough, maybe you'll wake up and it'll be true...


Quote:

For the mohammedan, the relationship is of the slave and the potentate in the law courts of the poteentate.

The word that's sometimes translated as slave is wrong. It actually means worshipper, and comes from the Semitic root ع ب د ('abada) which means "he worshipped, sanctified". A Jewish temple for instance is called a M'abad in Arabic meaning "place that worship takes place". It can mean 'to serve' as one serves the God he worships. Do you not 'serve' God soren? Or are you constantly in disobedience to God?

This same word is used in the Bible (1 Chronicles 5:15) in the name Abdiel, meaning "servent/worshipper of God (El)", and is cognate with the Islamic name Abdullah, having the exact same meaning.

freediver,


Quote:

Abu this has nothing to do with Judaism

Perhaps you'd be best directing that statement to soren: "Judaism is about hearing the small, still voice and heeding it.". If somebody brings Judaism into the discussion, especially in the context he did, then I'm quite right in using it to refute his points. If I had introduced Judaism into the discussion, then I'd see your point, which would be valid.


Quote:

Just because you can see similar flaws in Judaism does not mean those flaws don't exist in Islam.

Nowhere did I say it's a flaw though, strawman...

I merely pointed out that soren's claim that Islam is based around rules and Judaism isn't, was incorrect. Nowhere did I say either is flawed for having rules, as I simply don't believe it's a flaw to have rules. A religion without rules isn't really a religion, it's just a feel good philosophy that can be moulded to suit anyone's desires or wishes.

Quote:

for most of your history you persecuted and murdered

I didn't persecute or murder anyone. I don't think Yadda did either. We don't hold you personally responsible for every immoral act ever committed by Muslims. Why do you attempt the same?


Quote:

Judaism is, according to Christian doctrine

Abu, we are kind enough to defer to you and other Muslims on questions of Islamic doctrine. Why can you not do the same? Who cares how Christian doctrine defines Judaism? It's how Jews define it that matters.


Quote:

as I simply don't believe it's a flaw to have rules

My criticism was not based on the presence of rules, but on the absence of morals. I can appreciate both rules and morals, but not the replacement of morals with rules.

freediver,


Quote:

What exactly are you trying to argue here Abu? That they are in fact the same thing?

They are basically the same thing. As I already stated, rules emanate from morals. Humans hold the moral that stealing is wrong, so a society comes together and formulates the rule "Whoever steals, get's punched in the nose". You cannot replace the moral by the rule, because the rule emanates from the moral, no moral, no rule. Or are you just trying to peddle more of your nonsense that Islam is some far out wacko idea that's completely alien to all other religions that doesn't believe stealing is wrong, it just makes the rule because they're sadists and love chopping people's hands off?

How about you do the honours and explain clearly what you meant by moral and what you meant by rule in your original post, since you made the original statement. Let us be crystal clear about what we're discussing here. You made the statement, so obviously you had a clear understanding of the terminology used when you made it.

freediver,


Quote:

I didn't persecute or murder anyone. I don't think Yadda did either.

That post was directed at someone, and  I'll give you a hint, it wasn't you, nor Yadda. how about you read the first word of the post?

Either way, no matter who I was addressing, I was quite clearly spekaing about Christianity as a whole, which both Yadda and soren have indicated they represent. You have not (to my knowledge), so you can consider it not aimed at you.


Quote:

Abu, we are kind enough to defer to you and other Muslims on questions of Islamic doctrine.

Again, soren initially began trying to define Jewish doctrine as it relates to this subject, so take it up with him, it's nothing to do with me. I simply responded to his claims.

If it bugs you, then address it, with him. If it doesn't, and you're just trying to score points from every point I've made, try addressing the ones that relate to you first, then worry about assisting soren in the damage control for his fanciful posts.

Quote:

How about you do the honours and explain clearly what you meant by moral and what you meant by rule in your original post, since you made the original statement. Let us be crystal clear about what we're discussing here. You made the statement, so obviously you had a clear understanding of the terminology used when you made it.

The example you gave makes it pretty clear:


Quote:

Humans hold the moral that stealing is wrong, so a society comes together and formulates the rule "Whoever steals, get's punched in the nose".

Now if you change that and say his hand must be chopped off, you are clearly outside the bounds of morality.

Or, to make the distinction even clearer, "stealing is wrong" is a moral claim, whereas "the earth rotates around the sun" or "drop your pants when the band plays the eagle rock" are rules.


Quote:

You cannot replace the moral by the rule, because the rule emanates from the moral

This is a non-sequitor.


Quote:

Either way, no matter who I was addressing, I was quite clearly spekaing about Christianity as a whole

Yet if we 'spoke about Islam as a whole' when voicing our objection to 9/11, you'd object, right?


Quote:

which both Yadda and soren have indicated they represent

I don't think they indicated that they represent all the foul deeds committed by self declared Christians though the ages, just as you don't represent Islamic terrorists.

Quote:

Now if you change that and say his hand must be chopped off, you are clearly outside the bounds of morality.

So this is all about you holding that physical punishments are immoral? Is Indonesia immoral for executing the Bali bombers?

Also, I don't live in a Caliphate, if I steal, my hand won't be chopped off, yet I am still not permitted by Islam to steal. The rule is no longer active, so what's preventing me from stealing? Also in times of famine, the punishment for stealing is suspended, yet stealing is still not permitted... on what basis??

Wouldn't be an underlying moral that stealing is wrong, would it? Nah... Islam couldn't be moral could it??


Quote:

Or, to make the distinction even clearer, "stealing is wrong" is a moral claim, whereas "the earth rotates around the sun" or "drop your pants when the band plays the eagle rock" are rules.

Ok, so Islam has both the moral and the rule.


Quote:

You cannot replace the moral by the rule, because the rule emanates from the moral [quote] This is a non-sequitor.

[/quote]

Non-sequitur perhaps? Since I consider that all the rules of Islam emanate from morals, then yes it is a logical conclusion that you can't replace the morals with the rules, because the rules only exist as an extension of the moral, and therefore can't exist without it.


Quote:

Yet if we 'spoke about Islam as a whole' when voicing our objection to 9/11, you'd object, right?

If you took away people's 'right' to attack Islam as a whole everytime a Muslim did something wrong, this forum wouldn't even exist. It'd just be you and a coupla white supremacists bickering with one another and a looney Christian ranting along to the chorus. Don't bite the hand that fills your forum.


Quote:

I don't think they indicated that they represent all the foul deeds committed by self declared Christians though the ages, just as you don't represent Islamic terrorists.

They represent Christianity as Christians. They regularly attack Islam based on the actions of Muslims, yet if I do the same back, you're going to jump down my throat?? Where's the even hand here?

You're really proving yourself to be quite a joke freediver.

Quote:

So this is all about you holding that physical punishments are immoral?

No. I'm saying that Islam replaces morals with rules.


Quote:

Is Indonesia immoral for executing the Bali bombers?

Many people think so, including families of victims.


Quote:

Wouldn't be an underlying moral that stealing is wrong, would it? Nah... Islam couldn't be moral could it??

I'm not saying there is no morals behind the rules. But chopping off someone's hand is still wrong.


Quote:

Since I consider that all the rules of Islam emanate from morals, then yes it is a logical conclusion that you can't replace the morals with the rules, because the rules only exist as an extension of the moral, and therefore can't exist without it.

The claim that rules cannot exist without morals is dubious enough, but it is not logical to conclude from this that you can't replace morals with rules.


Quote:

If you took away people's 'right' to attack Islam as a whole everytime a Muslim did something wrong, this forum wouldn't even exist.

I seem to be having trouble following your logic.


Quote:

They represent Christianity as Christians. They regularly attack Islam based on the actions of Muslims, yet if I do the same back, you're going to jump down my throat?? Where's the even hand here?

Only to the extent that those actions reflect on Islamic doctrine. Representing Christianity, and representing the actions of all who claim or have in the past claimed to be Christians are not the same thing. I don't think anyone here tried to associate you personally with 9/11, yet you associated other members with the murder of Jews:


Quote:

you persecuted and murdered them and considered them to be an absolute abomination

If a member here personally subscribed to a religious ideology that supported the murder of Jews, I would criticise them for it. Likewise if a member here subscribes to a religious ideology that calls for stoning people to death, amputation, whipping, the denial of freedom of religion, democracy and personal choice etc, I would criticise that also. I don't see how that makes my hand uneven.

I do think Christianity or Judaism are better than Islam. This does not mean I represent either. I do think islam is a massive misunderstanding of judaism especially,  and that islam is fuelled by Mohammed's hatred of the jews after his new religion, Islam, was rejected by them.

Mohammed perceiveed that the jews were cohesive and successful and thought that 'borrowing' from them would be beneficial for the pagan rabble that the Arabs were by comparison. Hence his courting of the jews, and hence his turn to murderous resentment when he was not hailed by them. He was laaughed at because to the jews islam was a laughable mish-mash of half-comprehended, half-invented parody of Judaism.

And hence the constant refernce to the jews by Mohammedans. The jews are the eternal thorn in the side of Islam, and until barely two minutes ago in historic terms, of the Christians.

The infinite advantage of Christianity over Islam in this regard is that Jesus was a rabbi. He DID know his onions, unlike
Mohammed.  It is in this regard, by the way, that i think Mohammedan (follower of Mohammed) is a better name that muslim. It also mirrors Christian - follower of Christ. Mohammedan is a reminder of Islam's origins as the interpretation of an Arab of his trances and visions.

I think Christians would be better Christians if they were more like the Jews - after all christianity IS judaism for gentile. And Mohammedans would be infinitely better off if they were a little bit more like the Jews. The palestinian Arabs, for example,  should count their blessings to have the jews on hand to help them and work with them. It is only the monstrous and original resentment that prevents them, as Muslims, to see the luck they have been dealt.

All the Jewish and all the Christian rules are there to remind people of the relationship with god. Same with Islamic rules. And from the fiffereences we can see plainly the differnet conceptions of not only god but man as well.

This goes to the roots of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of reconciling judeo-christian conceepts of god and god-man relationship on the onee hand with the concepts of allah and muslim-allah relationship.
And hence the furphy of the 'three' great monotheisms.i

.

soren,


Quote:

Mohammed perceiveed that the jews were cohesive and successful and thought that 'borrowing' from them would be beneficial for the pagan rabble that the Arabs were by comparison. Hence his courting of the jews, and hence his turn to murderous resentment when he was not hailed by them.

That might mean something, if it actually had some historical basis. A few historical points that tend to render it nothing but whimsical fantasy follow:

1) There were no Jews in Makkah, where Muhammad (pbuh) preached Islam for the first 13 years of his mission (ie. the vast majority of his time).

2) When Muhammad (pbuh) migrated to Madinah, which had Jews, the leader of the Jews embraced Islam (Abdullah ibn Salam).

3) Even after the Jews had clearly rejected Muhammad's (pbuh) teachings, he still made treaties with them, and let them live peacefully in Madinah. It wasn't until they assisted the invading Makkans in invading Madinah, that he turned against them.

4) For most of Islamic history, Jews were treated just fine. There's no innate hatred for Jews in Islam, this is just nonsense.


Quote:

The jews are the eternal thorn in the side of Islam

Again historical fact begs to differ. For most of our history, they were our allies and friends. They lived amongst us, they were part of our civilisation, they prospered and were well looked after. Their golden age (self-described) was under Islam.


Quote:

It is in this regard, by the way, that i think Mohammedan (follower of Mohammed) is a better name that muslim. It also mirrors Christian - follower of Christ.

It is a misnomer. As is "Christian" which is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Jesus (pbuh) never called his followers "Christians". But if you like to persist in fallacy and error, then so be it, who am I to stop you?


Quote:

I think Christians would be better Christians if they were more like the Jews - after all christianity IS judaism for gentile.

I agree on this one, finally.


Quote:

And Mohammedans would be infinitely better off if they were a little bit more like the Jews.

We consider both Judaism and Christianity to be corruptions of the original pure message of monotheism, why would be want to turn back to one of those deviated paths, when we have the clear path? I have a feeling you're basing this 'advice' purely on the political/ecnomic situation that exists right now. which would indicate your advice is flawed, and for the 1000 years of Islamic political/economic dominance, you would've been of those advising the Christians and Jews to be more like the Muslims? Doctrines, beliefs and ideologies do not all of a sudden become better/worse, just because the political/economic fortunes of their adherents all of a sudden change.


Quote:

The palestinian Arabs, for example,  should count their blessings to have the jews on hand to help them and work with them.

Just like you should count your blessings if China ever invades Australia and turfs you into a refugee camp and rolls tanks down your streets and blows your apartment building to pieces... Count those blessings you will, so blessed will you be if that happens.


Quote:

All the Jewish and all the Christian rules are there to remind people of the relationship with god. Same with Islamic rules.

Same with Islam? Are you sure? Isn't  Islam some bizarre monstrosity that is nothing like Judaism or Christianity?


Quote:

This goes to the roots of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of reconciling judeo-christian conceepts of god and god-man relationship on the onee hand with the concepts of allah and muslim-allah relationship.

Anybody who objectively studied the 3 religions, as  I did prior to embracing Islam (in fact Messianic Judaism was probably the religion I was most interested in) before I decided on Islam, would quite clearly see that Islam and Judaism have a lot more in common than either do with Christianity. And in fact Christianity probably has more in common with Islam than with Judaism. If you like, we can go through this point by point, and you'll see for yourself the simple facts about this. Your "Judaeo-Christian" myth doesn't really mean much when we examine the 3 religions critiically. That is why I think I found both Messianic Judaism and Islam the most appealing, because of their similarities.


Quote:

And hence the furphy of the 'three' great monotheisms.

Agreed. it should be 1 great monotheism, 1 corrupted monotheism, and 1 semi-pagan tritheism.

You speak reasonably, with only an underlying tone of the commissar.
There would be much fruit if Mohamedans could discusss such matters without hinting at or resorting to violence (which you have evidently not done,  so I am not bollocking you here)

The Mohammedan doctrine of corrupted jewish and christian texts (to remove references to mohammed and the coming of islam)  are such lame and stupid ideas that it is amazing to hear bearded men uttering them. These ideas are advanced precisely because mohamedans can't bear the notion that islam, to jewish and christian minds,  is just a load of ill-conceived invention by an Arab merchant. Speaking of corrupted texts is th Muslim way of basking in the reflected glory of these very texts

What i mean by muslims and Christians being better by being more 'jewish' is this very thing - an argument, a shouting match even, even with god, BUT with no violence lurking behind the scenes. But that violence is islam's political modus operandi, whether becaause of the current geopolitical  line up or otherwise, i do not know. I am convinced that reasonableneess is not an impossibility for a mohamedan.

Jews living under islam 'just fine' begs the question of 'what about ddhimmitude' but as we both know the answer, I will take 'just fine' as a rhetorical overreach. There is no advantage to you in discussing dhimmitude.

Palestinians - well, call it heroic if you must find a positive. I think they are complete nutters. excitable, self-deluding and most of all self-defeating. It has to be the culture or the religion (you tell me) that makes them so abolutely unable to think beyond the next 30 bloody seconds. They don't even have the excuse of being a country (and so to have an American puppet regime like the rest of the muslim neighbourhood)   yet they had that old drooling old shirtlifter Arafat the Fraud as their representative for 30 years. Who can take them seriously after that?

You choosing between Judaism and Islam -  what can I say? You chose strife with nations over being light to nations. Must have been your temperament and age.

Quote:

Anybody who objectively studied the 3 religions, as  I did prior to embracing Islam (in fact Messianic Judaism was probably the religion I was most interested in) before I decided on Islam, would quite clearly see that Islam and Judaism have a lot more in common than either do with Christianity. And in fact Christianity probably has more in common with Islam than with Judaism. If you like, we can go through this point by point, and you'll see for yourself the simple facts about this

.

I'd be interested in seeing that.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 8^th, 2008 at 8:53pm:

Quote: Anybody who objectively studied the 3 religions, as  I did prior to embracing Islam (in fact Messianic Judaism was probably the religion I was most interested in) before I decided on Islam, would quite clearly see that Islam and Judaism have a lot more in common than either do with Christianity. And in fact Christianity probably has more in common with Islam than with Judaism..... Christianity is the blood, the sacrifice, and the atonement of a man's sins. The ISLAMIC jesus spilt no blood. The ISLAMIC jesus made no sacrifice. The ISLAMIC jesus made no atonement for sin. ISLAM and Christianity are as far apart, .....as liberty and bondage. [quote] [.....the furphy of the 'three' great monotheisms] ...... it should be 1 great monotheism, 1 corrupted monotheism, and 1 semi-pagan tritheism.

Typical.

You are a good muslim abu.

You have learnt your bondage well.



When muslims are unable to reconcile, or confront a truth, they always redefine what the 'truth' really is,
.....in ISLAMIC terms.

ISLAM / muslims always do this.





THE GREAT ISLAMIC 'TRUTH'.

What is within ISLAM is good.

What is external to ISLAM is bad.

ISLAM, good.
Everyone else, bad.



SADLY FOR ISLAM.....
Israel is redeemed.

Whether this is palatable to ISLAM / muslims, or not....

Psalms 2:1
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3  Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4  He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.


Psalms 83:1
Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God.
2  For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head.
3  They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones.
4  They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.


Psalms 135:4
For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.


The TRUTH is.....
....that the truth is very sad for ISLAM / muslims.


Therefore ISLAM redefines truth, and what is good or evil, or anything else, within ISLAMIC terms.


BLACK IS WHITE, AND WHITE IS BLACK.
UP IS DOWN, AND DOWN IS UP.


WITHIN ISLAMIC 'TRUTH'.....

There is no redemption of mankind.
And Israel is cursed by Allah.


++++++


Of course these Bible quotes [above] are of no consequence to a muslim.

Because muslims deride all non-ISLAMIC scripture, as in error, and corrupted.

i.e.
This is yet another example of how,

'When muslims cannot confront a truth, they always redefine what the 'truth' really is, in ISLAMIC terms.'

This is self deception.


++++


ISLAM's approach to the concept of TRUTH....

Does new discovered information external to ISLAM, confirm, or sit beside ISLAMIC knowledge / doctrine, without contention?

If yes, this information will be exploited, and absorbed [exploited], by ISLAM.

If no, this information will be declared false, and as such, redefined [or totally discarded].



This process is like how ISLAM approaches the concept of,
....PEACE.

ISLAM is a war faring philosophy.

But peace as a concept, is desirable, virtuous.

So, peace must become part of ISLAM.

But,
ISLAM is not peace[ful],
.....so ISLAM redefines 'peace', within the 'boundaries' of its own philosophy.

'Peace' becomes, that 'place' is where Sharia justice has authority.
....[even if the laws of Sharia are unjust, and tyrannical]

See,
.....ISLAM is peace.

Taking this one step further, I think that Islam creates followers that are easier to decieve. Rather than a spiritual journey, Islam is a bunch of rules and only those who learn Arabic can read the rules. Muslims are indoctrinated into following rules and rituals. The focus on rules rather than morals creates a culture of obedience. Under Caliphate this works OK because the establishment tells everyone what to think. But once the caliphate is gone, Muslims are cut adrift. All that remains is the culture of blind obedience. Muslims look to the nearest cleric to tell them what the rules are, right down to how to wipe their arse. That may go a long way to explaining why such lunatics seem to keep rising to positions of leadership in the Muslim community. Like the Indonesian cleric who openly married a 12 yo girl, till the authorities caught up with him. Or like the Bali bombers who even in their death are drawing huge crowds of violent supporters, arrogant enough to drive the police off the road.

My sentiments entirely.

Time for some retaliatory cartoons!! That'll teach them to drive the police off the road. Yeah!

soren,


Quote:

You speak reasonably, with only an underlying tone of the commissar.

Couldn't just stop at 'reasonably' could you? Well, I know stubborness is hard to shed, so I'll just let it go.


Quote:

There would be much fruit if Mohamedans could discusss such matters without hinting at or resorting to violence

Just to make it clear for you, although I'm sure you're fully aware of the correct terminology. We are Muslims (those who've surrendered their will to God). This is our religion, and it was the original form of your religion and of the religion the Hebrews adhered to. They were of those who surrendered to the commands of God, instead of to their own whims and desires, or to idols and pantheons (from 3 to 300 and beyond) of false deities.

Most of the discussion between Muslims and non-Muslims is violent and hostile from the side of the non-Muslims, not the Muslims. Just have a look at all the dialogue on this forum as a quick example. All of the hostility and mindless hate is coming from the side of non-Muslims. You've all given a very poor show, and now you have the audacity to accuse Muslims of the very same thing in which you've failed in here yourselves.

Like when Muslim countries expressed their sympathies for 9/11 and GWB replied with his axis of evil nonsense. This is how the dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims usually plays out. You guys pump out the hate, invade a few countries, kill a few hundred thousand Muslims, then when a few loose canons get sick of it and retaliate you claim Muslims are barbaric and incapable of civilised dialogue. Are you for real soren? I honestly can't believe you're that one sided, I think you really must know this stuff deep down inside you, as you come across as being well informed.


Quote:

The Mohammedan doctrine of corrupted jewish and christian texts (to remove references to mohammed and the coming of islam)

Where did you get this from? Muslims believe references to Muhammad (pbuh) are still in there. The way I mostly see it as being corrupted is things like claims that prophet Solomon (pbuh) built temples for pagan deities, or that prophet Lot (pbuh) got drunk and had an orgy with his two daughters... this kind of stuff. Strangely enough, Lot (pbuh) was the ancestor of some of the Israelites political rivals, and Solomon (pbuh) was also a rival to the ruling family that prevailed amongst the Israelites...

Besides the Bible itself testifies to it's own corruption:

Jer 8:8 "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?


Quote:

are such lame and stupid ideas that it is amazing to hear bearded men uttering them

It would be less amazing if it came from clean shaven men? :)


Quote:

the notion that islam, to jewish and christian minds,  is just a load of ill-conceived invention by an Arab merchant

Well since a lot of those who embrace Islam were formerly Jews and Christians, apparently it isn't that much of an ill conceived invention. And not just laymen, but Rabbis, Pastors, Priests, and Scholars of the "Judaeo-Christian" tradition.


Quote:

Speaking of corrupted texts is th Muslim way of basking in the reflected glory of these very texts

Nope it's just a simple, yet sad, fact. Which as noted above, your own texts themselves corroborate.


Quote:

an argument, a shouting match even, even with god,

This is where our concept of God departs quite sharply. To you, God is just 'another bloke', who has a boy that is a 'chip off the old block' and who you can have debates and arguments with. To us, He is the maker, the creator of us all, why would we argue with him who fashioned us? Such 'discourse' would be nothing but complete disrespect for the one who brought you into being. As Muslims (and even originally in the Jewish and Christian traditions) we have great respect for our parents, and do not even argue with them, yet you believe it's befitting for the creation to argue with their own Creator? Sorry, but I think I agree with your original statements, that our religions are worlds apart, when it comes to the relationship between man and God.


Quote:

BUT with no violence lurking behind the scenes. But that violence is islam's political modus operandi, whether becaause of the current geopolitical  line up or otherwise, i do not know.

You keep alluding to this idea of violence-bolstered dialogue, but I really don't see it. You keep trying to link every Muslim's sincere dialogue back to your misconceptions about ahl al-dhimma or jizyah or whatever it is you've got in your mind Islam is all based on. My dialogue, here, now, with you is nothing to do with violence, so why keep alluding to it, as if to discredit my dialogue and the whole concept of Islam? If some Muslims espeouse violent dialogue, that's probably more to do with the hostile circumstances they find themselves under, rather than Islam in and of itself. You need to recognise this, you almost did.. but then you shyed away, as usual.


Quote:

I am convinced that reasonableneess is not an impossibility for a mohamedan.

Glad to see you're not a complete pessimist, perhaps you should try throwing out an olive branch sometime, instead of just more criticisms and misconstrued ideas about what Islam actually represents. I'm open to listen to what you think is the right ideas/beliefs/whatever, You should try it sometime

Quote:

This is where our concept of God departs quite sharply. To you, God is just 'another bloke', who you has a boy that is a 'chip off the old block' and who you can have debates and arguments with him. To us, He is the maker, the creator of us all, why would we argue with him who fashioned us? Such 'discourse' would be nothing but complete disrespect for the one who brought you into being. As Muslims (and even originally in the Jewish and Christian traditions) we have great respect for our parents, and do not even argue with them, yet you believe it's befitting for the creation to argue with their own Creator? Sorry, but I think I agree with your original statements, that our religions are worlds apart, when it comes to the relationship between man and God.

I think this supports my argument that Islam promotes obedience and thus makes Muslims easier to mislead or take advantage of.


Quote:

You keep alluding to this idea of violence-bolstered dialogue, but I really don't see it. You keep trying to link every Muslim's sincere dialogue back to your misconceptions about ahl al-dhimma or jizyah or whatever it is you've got in your mind Islam is all based on. My dialogue, here, now, with you is nothing to do with violence, so why keep alluding to it, as if to discredit my dialogue and the whole concept of Islam? If some Muslims espeouse violent dialogue, that's probably more to do with the hostile circumstances they find themselves under, rather than Islam in and of itself. You need to recognise this, you almost did... but then you shyed away, as usual.

Perhaps it's because you think the reigning in of muslim terrorists should be the last step on the path to peace, rather than the first. I find that a bit disturbing. I feel sorry for all the residents of Pakistan who are getting the crap bombed out of them because so many people thought that reigning in terrorists was such a low priority.

freediver,


Quote:

I'd be interested in seeing that.

I shall begin another thread about it.


Quote:

I think that Islam creates followers that are easier to decieve.

Muhammad (pbuh) said "The Muslim should be sharp, he never gets bitten from the same place twice"

Also the Islamic texts constantly implore the Muslims to seek knowledge, and to gain education, that really doesn't fit in with the 'easier to deceive' blind followers you seem to envisage. Doesn't mean some people don't exist like that, no doubt they do, as they do in all religions, that's just part of human nature, some are leaders, some are followers.


Quote:

Islam is a bunch of rules and only those who learn Arabic can read the rules

This fallacy has been disproven for you before. You only need to read Arabic to actually give rulings about the texts, not to read and follow them. Just as you'd expect a lawyer to read the language the laws of the country were written in i he were to represent you in a court of law. Doesn't mean you need to read that language to be a good law abiding citizen. But you certainly couldn't go representing people in court if you didn't read the language...

Likewise scholars of all religions must be able to read the language of the original texts to actually study them properly, this goes without saying. Again, you try to claim this is something exclusively Islamic, and attempt to make Islam the 'pariah religion' over this poor perception of yours about the way Islam functions.


Quote:

Muslims are indoctrinated into following rules and rituals.

Again, all religions have rituals. Stop trying to claim Islam alone does such and such, when they're things common to all religions. If you want to debate these points, I'm not really against it, but at least make it quite clear that you recognise most, if not all, other religions have pretty much the same things. You constantly allude to the idea that Islam alone is a bizarre system because it has X characteristic, completely unheard of to the rest of civilised humanity and their religions.


Quote:

The focus on rules rather than morals creates a culture of obedience

As has been shown above, the moral is what is adhered to, as it's still adhered to even when the law/rules are not implemented.


Quote:

Under Caliphate this works OK because the establishment tells everyone what to think. But once the caliphate is gone, Muslims are cut adrift

This is a valid point, but not one that hasn't been addressed by Islamic scholars already anyway. And common sense would prevail in most cases. The Muslim has 3 'relationship areas' which Islam guides him in. The first is the relationship with his Creator (ie. the moral realm, worship etc.) and this functions perfectly regardless of a Caliphate. The second is his relationship with himself (ie. personal conduct) and this again is not dependant upon the Caliphate. The third is his relationship with other human beings (ie. societal transactions) and this area is quite obviously dependant largely on the Caliphate, and therefore a lot of it cannot be implemented. But most of it is not implemented on an individual basis anyway. For instance, cutting the hand of a thief has absolutely nothing to do with the average Muslim. It is the role of the state, same with collecting taxes or organising a state treasury, since there's no state, there's no necessity for them anyway.

Again, you're trying to claim that Muslims are some exotic and strange cult, that are lemming like, who'll just march off cliffs without a Caliphate to guide them. It's just nonsense. Like with other religions that have lost their state component, they still function, and Islam is no different, contrary to your wild claims.


Quote:

Muslims look to the nearest cleric to tell them what the rules are, right down to how to wipe their arse

As  I've told you previously, I don't have one of these so called 'clerics', so please apply your undertsanding to me...

Personal hygiene and the best way to carry it out was already spoken about 1400 years ago, there's no 'cleric' running around today telling people how to maintain it. And since the majority of non-Muslims (and sadly some ignorant Muslims) today still don't even wash their hands after going to toilet (let alone actually washing the filth from the places of excretion), it's quite obvious this stuff still needs to be taught.

freediver,


Quote:

I think this supports my argument that Islam promotes obedience and thus makes Muslims easier to mislead or take advantage of.

If this is, as I suspect, doublespeak for "Muslims *actually* believe sincerely in their religion and practise it with diligence and unswerving conviction" then yes I'd have to agree with you. However, I think you really need to get past this nonsense about Muslims being easier to mislead and take advantage of. Most Muslims are a lot sharper, and a lot more aware of what's going on in the world  than most non-Muslims. They might not be coping with it as well as non-Muslims in the world at the moment, but that's a different issue altogether.

Again, this all seems to stem back to your misconceptions about "the war on terrorism". I sincerely advise you to have a read of the book I posted about "Imperial Hubris", as I think you'll never look at the conflict the same after doing so. You have quite a few hurdles to get over before you can actually look at the situation clearly. You're just looking at it through GWB-tinted glasses at present, and there's little point discussing it, or anything that depends upon your view of the WOT.


Quote:

Perhaps it's because you think the reigning in of muslim terrorists should be the last step on the path to peace, rather than the first

Well if it comes down to a war of wills, and you recognise Muslims are so stubborn and uncompromising in their belief in, and commitment to, their religion, then you should just give up now :)

Quote:

Also the Islamic texts constantly implore the Muslims to seek knowledge, and to gain education, that really doesn't fit in with the 'easier to deceive' blind followers you seem to envisage.

Seeking knowledge and gaining an education in the Islamic sense may be slightly different to the regular interpretation of those terms. Doesn't it centre around making the mind more obedient to God's will?


Quote:

Doesn't mean some people don't exist like that, no doubt they do, as they do in all religions, that's just part of human nature, some are leaders, some are followers.

But the more a religion focusses on rules, the more these people are validated.


Quote:

You only need to read Arabic to actually give rulings about the texts, not to read and follow them.

Doesn't this supprt my argument? If you don't read Arabic, there is no interpretation for you, you just do what some other 'scholar' says. Your point is valid with respect to scholars, but with other relgions regular people can still question things and are not expected to blindly follow them. You only need the language issue if it is a question of correct translation.


Quote:

Again, you're trying to claim that Muslims are some exotic and strange cult, that are lemming like, who'll just march off cliffs without a Caliphate to guide them. It's just nonsense.

So why was there such a large crowd of people supporting Amrozi? I think you'd have trouble finding a similar response to a convicted criminal from any other religion who claimed that deliberate mass murder of innocent civilians was God's work.


Quote:

If this is, as I suspect, doublespeak for "Muslims *actually* believe sincerely in their religion and practise it with diligence and unswerving conviction" then yes I'd have to agree with you.

I don't see them as being any more sincere or dilligent than other religious people. It's the nature of the ideology they subscribe to that differs.


Quote:

Most Muslims are a lot sharper, and a lot more aware of what's going on in the world  than most non-Muslims. They might not be coping with it as well as non-Muslims in the world at the moment, but that's a different issue altogether.

Could you elaborate on this please?

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 9^th, 2008 at 9:26pm:

freediver said, Quote: I think that Islam creates followers that are easier to decieve. .....Also the Islamic texts constantly implore the Muslims to seek knowledge, and to gain education.....

abu,

You neglect the whole story' about encouraging education / learning.

All knowledge must be defined within ISLAMIC terms.


What is within ISLAM is good.

What is external to ISLAM is bad.

ISLAM, good.
Everyone else, bad.


And when it is ever revealed that 'muslims' are perceived as stifling education, these ppl are not rightly guided muslims.

Of course.
/sarc off

Deception and lies, deception and lies, deception and lies, deception and lies.


Disembowelled and murdered for teaching girls
Thursday November 30, 2006
By Kim Sengupta
GHAZNI - The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy.
The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely.
But his life was over.
He was partly disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes. The remains were put on display as a warning to others against defying Taleban orders to stop educating girls.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=500838&ObjectID=10413099



20 February, 2004
Ninth Pakistani school destroyed
Police in Pakistan's remote Northern Areas said on Friday that a ninth school in five days had been attacked and destroyed.
Local officials have blamed hardline Islamists opposed to female education.
.....The schools attacked were mostly set up by non-governmental organisations with foreign assistance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3507401.stm





++++



July 29, 2008
Indonesia: Muslims storm Christian school, injuring 265 students
While trying to chase a mouse into the street, a Christian student threw a slipper against a house owned by a local Muslim. The Muslim homeowner, enraged, kicked and punched the student. A crowd gathered. Rumors flew. Many students suffered various injuries to the head. Others were burnt by Molotov cocktails.
"Muslims storm Protestant school in Jakarta, injuring 265 students,"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021986.php




EARLIER ATTACK IN INDONESIAN ON SAME SCHOOL

Indonesian attack condemned
14th March 2007
A CHRISTIAN pressure group has condemned an attack on a theological college in Indonesia by a group of Islamic militants.
Arastamar Evangelical School of Theology (SETIA) in East Jakarta was attacked by a group of militant Islamists in the evening on Thursday 8 March.
The following Saturday more than 200 militants besieged the school for three hours, shouting threats and demanding the closure of the school.
http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=626


August 4, 2008
Indonesia: Urged on over mosque loudspeakers, Muslims go on rampage against students of Christian theological school to "drive out the unwanted neighbor"
"Key among motives for the attack, according to a member of the village assembly, was that area Muslims felt 'disturbed' by the presence of the Christian college."
In an update on this story, it becomes all the more apparent that many locals already had their minds made up, and only needed an excuse -- however ridiculous -- to attack. And it wasn't the first time this school has been targeted.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022061.php


abu,

This story from Indonesia, what would muslims think, if Christians in Australia behaved like this, towards muslims, and muslim schools in Australia?
i.e. with rioting, and violence.



++++++++

abu,

Of course, the ppl [claiming to be muslims] in these violent incidents were not rightly guided muslims.

Therefore these ppl were only NON-muslims, who were bringing ISLAM into disrepute.
/sarc off


++++++++

GIVE YOUR CHILD A GOOD EDUCATION,
.....WHICH WILL TEACH THEM TO THINK CRITICALLY.


OR,
.....YOU COULD GIVE THEM AN ISLAMIC EDUCATION.
.....WHICH TEACHES THEM SUBMISSION TO ALLAH.




From Koran,

ALWAYS BELIEVE THE CLERICS, ALWAYS BE OBEDIENT TO 'ALLAH' [i.e. the clerics].

"O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger," [i.e. obey the clerics]
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#047.033



"O ye who believe! ASK NOT QUESTIONS about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.
SOME PEOPLE BEFORE YOU DID ASK SUCH QUESTIONS, AND ON THAT ACCOUNT LOST THEIR FAITH."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.101

Doesn't the Koran order Muslims to not investigate those aspects of the Koran which they find personally disturbing?

Yadda yadda yadda.

Can't you just number your stock responses or something? So instead of filling a thread with the exact same post over and over again, you just say <insert stock Yadda rant #23 here> ?? Would certainly take up much less screen space, and would convey about the same amount  of useful information.

Quote:

Doesn't the Koran order Muslims to not investigate those aspects of the Koran which they find personally disturbing?

Does it? If it does, why didn't you just post it, instead of your own 'colourful' paraphrase?

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 12:01pm:

Yadda yadda yadda. Can't you just number your stock responses or something? So instead of filling a thread with the exact same post over and over again, you just say <insert stock Yadda rant #23 here> ?? Would certainly take up much less screen space, and would convey about the same amount  of useful information.

abu,

Instead of correcting and 'guiding' all the non-muslims who frequent these forum pages, i think that it would be much more productive for you to emigrate to Indonesia.

Once there, you could open your very own ISLAMIC school, and begin correcting and 'guiding' all of those not rightly guided muslims in Indonesia.

You know.

The not rightly guided muslims in Indonesia, who think Allah wants them to kill, and blow up, non-muslims.

You know.

All of those not rightly guided muslims.


++++++++


You should do this abu [emigrate to Indonesia, or Saudi Arabia, or....?],

Because you don't have to try to teach us here about ISLAM.

All we non-muslims have to do, to understand ISLAM is,
.....STUDY THE KORAN, AND THE HADITH.
.....AND LOOK AT THE BEHAVIOUR OF MEN, WHO CLAIM TO BE MUSLIMS.


abu,

We non-muslims, do not 'mis-understand' ISLAM.

It is all of those violent, not rightly guided muslims, who 'mis-understand' ISLAM.
/sarc off



ISLAM presents *itself* to the world.
...IN THE STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS OF ITS ADHERENTS.

Quote:

Does it? If it does, why didn't you just post it, instead of your own 'colourful' paraphrase?

I did the first few times, but kept getting no response, so I gave up tracking down the link every time I wanted to bring it up. But seeing as it has caught your attention this time, I'll try again:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216/6#6

This was the original quote from Yadda:


Quote:

"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble..... Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.101

Now aren't you the least bit curious why Yadda omitted part of the verses?

Here is the missing part:


Quote:

But if ye ask about things when the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.

Of course I'm interested, that's why I've asked about that verse a couple of times on this board.

The rest hardly clarifies what it is saying. In fact it reinforces the notion that it is a sin to ask about the troubling aspects of the Koran.

When is the Koran being revealed?

It also seems to directly contradict your other claim:


Quote:

Also the Islamic texts constantly implore the Muslims to seek knowledge

Or at least to qualify it, in that certain types of knowledge are out of bounds, or can only be sought 'when the Koran is being revealed'.

to me- as a lay person's interpretation- the verse seems to be saying that you have to at some point accept the wisdom of god, and that you can't possibly understand his wisdom- just because there are things we may not understand within our human sphere, doesn't mean they don't have a reason etc etc

and so if you continually question these things you can't possibly understand it will make trouble for you (in your mind and spirit). yes you should try to understand the quran and the teachings of god, but you should not be so presumptuous as to question the wisdom of god.

that could be totally off track- but that's how it appeared to me

it also says not to question things 'if made plain to you'- which seems to me to say, that if something is already spelt out, then you shouldn't keep questioning it because you have already been provided with the answer.

then saying that if you question "as the quran is revealed to you" seems to me to mean when you learn something new from the quran, ie as you are learning about it or from it.

really to me it just seems to be a pre-emptive move to stop us from being one of those little kids who continually asks 'why'

for me if I ask all those 'why are we here, what is the purpose of life' questions I feel like my head is going to explode. maybe that's what it's all about.

meh- I dunno, religious texts are confusing!!

Quote:

it also says not to question things 'if made plain to you'- which seems to me to say, that if something is already spelt out, then you shouldn't keep questioning it because you have already been provided with the answer.

I got the opposite impression - that it applied to things that hadn't been made plain, but which would trouble you if they did.

This koranic verse makes it hard for a muslims to sign up to the idea that faith has to be reasonable:

"Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith."

Little wonder some of them went apeshit when the pope suggested in Regensburg that religion has to be reasonable. A bit confrontational for some minds.

Would god take away your faith because you asked him a curly question? How ridiculous. I think it is silly to imagine a god would say something like this, especially a god who had never before said anything like this. Moses argued with god, David argued with god, Jesus asked a really tough one with his last breath.

To my mind this is Mohammed speaking, pre-emptively.

(The bit after about ask while it is being revealed does not contrdict or enlarge this line so there is no conspiracy by yadda by leaving it out.)

freediver wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 4:28pm:

Quote: it also says not to question things 'if made plain to you'- which seems to me to say, that if something is already spelt out, then you shouldn't keep questioning it because you have already been provided with the answer. I got the opposite impression - that it applied to things that hadn't been made plain, but which would trouble you if they did.

hmmm! that could also be true

didn't jesus also say that he would not reveal certain things to others, because they were so far beyond human comprehension that if he did it would drive us mad?

On the pope's Regensburg speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 5:46pm:

[quote author=freediver link=1225960213/45#53 date=1226298488][quote] didn't jesus also say that he would not reveal certain things to others, because they were so far beyond human comprehension that if he did it would drive us mad?

Does that sound the same to you as don't ask questions because those before you who did, lost their faith?

You are doing you Phd and you can't tell the difference?!?

I think that all religions place the full nature of God beyond human comprehension. Islam is the only one I know of that places revelation beyond human enquiry because it is so unpalatable.

Quote:

The bit after about ask while it is being revealed does not contrdict or enlarge this line so there is no conspiracy by yadda by leaving it out.

Obviously it didn't quite fit in with what Yadda was trying to imply about the verses, that's why it was left out.

As it says to ask.

Soren wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 6:24pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 5:46pm: [quote author=freediver link=1225960213/45#53 date=1226298488][quote] didn't jesus also say that he would not reveal certain things to others, because they were so far beyond human comprehension that if he did it would drive us mad? Does that sound the same to you as don't ask questions because those before you who did, lost their faith? You are doing you Phd and you can't tell the difference?!?

it depends on your interpretation- I am drawing a parallel

perhaps you didn't understand my posts

Quote:

As it says to ask.

How do you know that Abu? Can you clarify what it all means for us?

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 9:33pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 6:24pm: Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 5:46pm: [quote author=freediver link=1225960213/45#53 date=1226298488][quote] didn't jesus also say that he would not reveal certain things to others, because they were so far beyond human comprehension that if he did it would drive us mad? Does that sound the same to you as don't ask questions because those before you who did, lost their faith? You are doing you Phd and you can't tell the difference?!? it depends on your interpretation- I am drawing a parallel perhaps you didn't understand my posts

Can you give a definition of a parallel and the link to where you get it from?

tallowood wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 9:51pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 9:33pm: Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 6:24pm: Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 5:46pm: [quote author=freediver link=1225960213/45#53 date=1226298488][quote] didn't jesus also say that he would not reveal certain things to others, because they were so far beyond human comprehension that if he did it would drive us mad? Does that sound the same to you as don't ask questions because those before you who did, lost their faith? You are doing you Phd and you can't tell the difference?!? it depends on your interpretation- I am drawing a parallel perhaps you didn't understand my posts Can you give a definition of a parallel and the link to where you get it from?

lol- ahh dude, pointless!

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 10:27pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 9:51pm: Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 9:33pm: Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 6:24pm: Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 5:46pm: [quote author=freediver link=1225960213/45#53 date=1226298488][quote] didn't jesus also say that he would not reveal certain things to others, because they were so far beyond human comprehension that if he did it would drive us mad? Does that sound the same to you as don't ask questions because those before you who did, lost their faith? You are doing you Phd and you can't tell the difference?!? it depends on your interpretation- I am drawing a parallel perhaps you didn't understand my posts Can you give a definition of a parallel and the link to where you get it from? lol- ahh dude, pointless!

Pointless drawing or pointless Phd?

why would my phd be pointless?

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 10:58pm:

why would my phd be pointless?

Because they teach you there to draw pointless parallels?

tallowood wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 11:02pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 10:58pm: why would my phd be pointless? Because they teach you there to draw pointless parallels?

just because you don't get it doesn't make it pointless

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 11:07pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 11:02pm: Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 10:58pm: why would my phd be pointless? Because they teach you there to draw pointless parallels? just because you don't get it doesn't make it pointless

"lol- ahh dude, pointless!" (c) - Gabriel

I was referring to discussing things with you

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 11:17pm:

I was referring to discussing things with you

Is that how they teach you the art of discussion for your phd, to be pointless? Then your phd is pointless and barren according to you.

tallowood wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 11:21pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 11:17pm: I was referring to discussing things with you Is that how they teach you the art of discussion for your phd, to be pointless? Then your phd is pointless and barren according to you.

um no- discussing things with you is pointless because you seem to deliberately misconstrue everything I say. as exhibited above.

and a phd doesn't teach you the art of discussion unless you're doing it on etiquette

nice massive jump in logic though by the way- very entertaining

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 11:34pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 11:21pm: Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10th, 2008 at 11:17pm: I was referring to discussing things with you Is that how they teach you the art of discussion for your phd, to be pointless? Then your phd is pointless and barren according to you. um no- discussing things with you is pointless because you seem to deliberately misconstrue everything I say. as exhibited above. and a phd doesn't teach you the art of discussion unless you're doing it on etiquette nice massive jump in logic though by the way- very entertaining

So drawing parallels is not your phd. What is it then?

oh I'd love to answer but I'm sure it would just provoke another series of personal attacks on me, if not by you then others

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 11:48pm:

oh I'd love to answer but I'm sure it would just provoke another series of personal attacks on me, if not by you then others

Certainly not by me and to keep privacy private on internet is smart so no more questions from humble I.

Quote:

How do you know that Abu? Can you clarify what it all means for us?

According to Ibn Kathir (May God be pleased with him) it refers to how the previous communities, mostly the children of Israel used to ask too many pestering questions of their Prophets, to the point things became forbidden for them, based on their excessive questions. This relates back to the story of when God asked them to sacrifice a calf, which is mentioned in Surah al-Baqarah. Basically they were asked to sacrifice a calf, instead of sacrificing it, they asked Moses (pbuh) what kind of calf, what colour, how old etc. until the requirements became so stringent upon them that it was difficult to find such a specific calf.


Quote:

The existence of a red heifer that conforms with all of the rigid requirements imposed by halakha is a biological anomaly. The animal must be entirely of one color, and there are a series of tests listed by the rabbis to ensure this, for instance, the hair of the cow must be absolutely straight (to ensure that the cow had not previously been yoked, as this is a disqualifier). According to Jewish tradition, only nine Red Heifers were actually slaughtered in the period extending from Moses to the destruction of the Second Temple.

Source

So it's not actually a commend for Muslims, but a reflection on what happened in the past?

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 3:35pm:

This was the original quote from Yadda: Quote: "O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble..... Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.101 Now aren't you the least bit curious why Yadda omitted part of the verses? Here is the missing part: [quote]But if ye ask about things when the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.

[/quote]






abu,

This part of the verse i omitted, is of no help to a seeker after TRUTH.

Within ISLAM all 'truth' is predetermined, even the 'truth' which is absurd.



Quote:

"But if ye ask about things when the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you,....."

Yes.

A cleric will 'clarify' and explain knowledge to the seeker.

And the seeker must accept the explanation given.

There is no dialogue.

There is no questioning.

There is no reasoning together.


You must understand....

All devout muslims believe that.....

ISLAM is perfect.

ISLAM requires no reform.




As i quoted previously, muslims are commanded....


Quote:

"O ye who believe! ASK NOT QUESTIONS about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing. SOME PEOPLE BEFORE YOU DID ASK SUCH QUESTIONS, AND ON THAT ACCOUNT LOST THEIR FAITH."

That is the instruction, obey the clerics.

Believe what THEY tell, and command.

Do not question, their determination, on matters of teaching and 'truth'.


ALWAYS BELIEVE THE CLERICS, ALWAYS BE OBEDIENT TO 'ALLAH' [i.e. the clerics].

"O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger,"
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#047.033


THERE IS 'QUESTIONING',
....AND THEN, SUBSEQUENTLY, THERE IS ABSOLUTE SUBMISSION,
....TO THE ANSWER FROM ALLAH [and the clerics, who bring and explain his word].

PERIOD.




++++++++++



Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Psalms 32:2
Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.


Jeremiah 17:7
Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.

Quote:

So it's not actually a commend for Muslims, but a reflection on what happened in the past?

It is indeed for us, it is a reflection on how previous nations went astray and how we should not stray like them, by excessive questioning that leads to hardship. It is probably worthwhile reading the story that this relates to, when the slaughtering of the calf was ordained for the Children of Israel.

And when Moses said unto his people: Lo! Allah commandeth you that ye sacrifice a cow, they said: Dost thou make game of us? He answered: Allah forbid that I should be among the foolish!
They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us what (cow) she is. (Moses) answered: Lo! He saith, Verily she is a cow neither with calf nor immature; (she is) between the two conditions; so do that which ye are commanded
They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us of what colour she is. (Moses) answered: Lo! He saith: Verily she is a yellow cow. Bright is her colour, gladdening beholders.
They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us what (cow) she is. Lo! cows are much alike to us; and Lo! if Allah wills, we may be led aright.
(Moses) answered: Lo! He saith: Verily she is a cow unyoked; she plougheth not the soil nor watereth the tilth; whole and without mark. They said: Now thou bringest the truth. So they sacrificed her, though almost they did not. (Surah al-Baqarah 2:67-71)

This is the kind of incessant questioning that it refers to, which causes trouble and hardship in people's religion. Although obviously you assumed it to be don't ask "Is Islam true", "Is the Qur'an the word of God" etc.

I didn't know the jews spoke arabic, calling Yahweh -  Allah?


Shurly shome mishtake.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 7:46pm:

Quote: So it's not actually a commend for Muslims, but a reflection on what happened in the past? It is indeed for us, it is a reflection on how previous nations went astray and how we should not stray like them, by excessive questioning that leads to hardship. It is probably worthwhile reading the story that this relates to, when the slaughtering of the calf was ordained for the Children of Israel. And when Moses said unto his people: Lo! Allah commandeth you that ye sacrifice a cow, they said: Dost thou make game of us? He answered: Allah forbid that I should be among the foolish! They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us what (cow) she is. (Moses) answered: Lo! He saith, Verily she is a cow neither with calf nor immature; (she is) between the two conditions; so do that which ye are commanded They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us of what colour she is. (Moses) answered: Lo! He saith: Verily she is a yellow cow. Bright is her colour, gladdening beholders. They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us what (cow) she is. Lo! cows are much alike to us; and Lo! if Allah wills, we may be led aright. (Moses) answered: Lo! He saith: Verily she is a cow unyoked; she plougheth not the soil nor watereth the tilth; whole and without mark. They said: Now thou bringest the truth. So they sacrificed her, though almost they did not. (Surah al-Baqarah 2:67-71) This is the kind of incessant questioning that it refers to, which causes trouble and hardship in people's religion. Although obviously you assumed it to be don't ask "Is Islam true", "Is the Qur'an the word of God" etc.

I really, honestly do not wish to personally offend you, Abu rashid, on account of what you believe,  so please stop reading now.

This is but one example of the unbelievable naivite of muslims. Mohammed says that he is the last prophet of god, offers up the revelations as they become necessary for his purposes, and the early muslims sit around, nodding. The Koran is so obviously not divine even in its inspirations that I find it simply unbelievable that people actually take it to be unaltered word of god. If they do, I am frightened. The jews and Christians at leats have the sense of proportion and humility to say that their texts are inspired. But to claim with a straight face that the above text is the best that god can come up with is just astonishing.

The Koran is not quite Finnigan's Wake but, by god, it's up there with it!

Is that why there are no more yellow cows? Because the Jews killed them all?

That example does not seem relevant. As far as I am aware, the ancient Jews sacrificed animals constantly. So why would a command to do so trouble them? The Koran bit does not say "Don't pester me with trivial questions", it says "don't ask questions if the answer may disturb you". The trivial questions bit I could understand, but not the disturbing questions bit. It's like it is commanding Muslims to decieve themselves about the nature of the Koran to the extent necessary to maintain faith in an ideology that disturbs them.

Quote:

I didn't know the jews spoke arabic, calling Yahweh -  Allah?

The most common name used for the deity in the Bible is actually 'elohim', not yahweh (which is probably just a contraction of the pronoun for 'him' anyway). Elohim is the plural of elah, which is cognate with Arabic ilah from which Allah is produced by merely adding the definite article. So perhaps the early Hebrews would've had a slightly different dialectal accent in the way in which they would've pronounced the word, but it would've been almost exactly the same as Allah. Besides, we simply don't know how they pronounced a lot of their language, but we know it most likely wasn't as modern Israelis do (with the Euro-Ashkenazi accent).


Quote:

The Koran is so obviously not divine even in its inspirations that I find it simply unbelievable that people actually take it to be unaltered word of god.

If you're referring to the content, then this is a story from the time of the Children of Israel. It's just being recounted, and it's amazing how much information is conveyed in such a few passages. If you're referring to the poetic quality of it, then it's well known the Qur'an is perhaps the most beautiful book of all time in it's own language. Translations depend upon the translators ability to transpose that beauty into a new language. Most translators of the Qur'an so far have been fearful to take poetic license and do much more than just a literal word for word translation, out of fear of changing the meaning of the pure word of God, and I do not blame them. I guarantee you if you look at a word for word literal translation of the Bible, you'd probably feel the same way (if you're actually being objective here). I've studied the Bible with Hebrew concordances and the writing style is very similar, due to them both being in Semitic languages. A lot of concepts conveyed with few words, due to the way Semitic languages can be used. But in the translations into English, a lot of extra words are added in to make it sound more comfortable in English. Personally I just think you're being picky, no doubt as an attempt to attack Islam from yet another angle, it's irrelevant, as the Qur'an has won many English speaking hearts, even if it's beauty isn't fully conveyed into the English language as of yet.

Just to give you an example, using one of my favourite Bible verses:
     

English	Hebrew
How	איכה 'eykoh
can you say,	אמר 'amar
'We are wise,	חכם chakam
And the law	תורה towrah
of the LORD	יהוה Yĕhovah
is with us'? But behold,	הנה hinneh
the lying	שקר sheqer
pen	עט `et
of the scribes	ספר capher
Has made	עשה `asah
it into a lie.	שקר sheqer

Now see how many English words are used for each Hebrew word? That's adding stuff in, to make it sound a lot more English and a lot more comprehensible to *you*. If I were to just translate it word for word, as the Qur'an generally is, it wouldn't sound anywhere near as natural, in fact you'd probably just think to yourself "What is this nonsense?" (If you're actually objective on this issue, and not just trying to use any excuse to take a dig at Islam).

I will give you a word for word literal translation:

Where! you say we're wise for God's torah (the law). Behold the lying pen of the scribes made it a lie.

Now that is just one small example, but I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that just because something hasn't been translated the best, doesn't mean it is not a great book. Also consider that when the Bible was translated, most English speakers were Christians, so the best literary minds would've been employed to translate it. When the Qur'an has been translated so far, it's either been by foreigners who've learnt English as a second language (bad way to translate) or by Englishmen who've embraced Islam, but might not necessarily be the best person for the job of translating. Perhaps in a few more decades when a lot more English speakers become Muslims, then we'll see if better translations begin to appear :)

freediver,


Quote:

That example does not seem relevant. As far as I am aware, the ancient Jews sacrificed animals constantly. So why would a command to do so trouble them?

Read the part I quoted above about Judaism, this is still today part of their religion, and they are still searching for this rare kind of cow. They admit to only finding 9 during a period of about 1000 years...

The moral of the story (yes you don't seem to think Islam teaches morals, anyway..) is that God asked them to do something, rather than just doing it, they asked questions (perhaps to mock?) unncecessarily, and so more restraints were placed upon them. This is also evident in their restrictions for Sabbath and Kosher food. Compared to the Islamic Halal food requirements, the Jewish requirements are quite extreme. There are so many different rules and regulations regarding what they can and can't eat. I've visited Jewish houses in which they actually have two kitchens built into the house, just so that meat and dairy products do not mix. Likewise for Sabbath they have all these extreme rulings. Mantra posted an article here recently, in which they've actually placed a huge wire fence around a Sydney suburb and plan to do it to another, so as not to violate the Sabbath.

Anyway, that's what Ibn Kathir (May God have mercy upon him) stated the verses you quoted refer to, is that excessive questioning leads to hardship. If you want to make something else out of it, you're welcome to, but quite obviously I'm going to accept the opinion of a qualified Islamic scholar over you.

Can you at least understand my confusion as to why this leading scholar would explain a command not to look into aspects of the Koran which people find troubling by comparing this investigation to asking trivial questions? I am not asking you to take my word over that of a trusted scholar. If anything I am asking you to place your own reasoning above it.

Quote:

Can you at least understand my confusion as to why this leading scholar would explain a command not to look into aspects of the Koran which people find troubling

That's the point, nowhere does it say "Don't  look into aspects of the Qur'an which people find troubling", that's your spin on what it supposedly says. That's what you'd like it to mean, and that's what you interpret it to mean, but it's simply not what it says.

Quote:

"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble..... Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith."

Yeh now contrast that with what you said, specifically the word 'Koran'. The verse does not mention it, nor even remotely allude to it.

Btw, just to point out to you, Koran is a pretty bad transliteration, it's spelt with a very strong "Q" sound, nothing like the soft "Qu" of English, and certainly nothing like "K", and the vowel after it is "U" followed by "R" as in "Turnip".

So what does it refer to then? Doesn't this take us even further away from the yellow cow example? Doesn't it contradict what you were saying about Islam commanding people to seek knowledge? If unstated, isn't it more likely to refer to questions of doctrine than say, science?

Quote:

So what does it refer to then?

I've already made it quite plain for you what it refers to. Obviously it doesn't fit in with what you wanted it to mean, so obviously you're going to reject it. Ibn Kathir (May God have mercy on him) was one of the greatest scholars of Islam, who memorised and was aware of the entire Qur'an as well as entire collections of hadith, so I think he'd have a much better idea of what it is about. Although obviously you think he's just being deceptive and trying to conceal the real nature of Islam... whatever ya reckon.

There is also some hadith that speak on this issue, and confirm that it is about excessive questioning that leads to hardship like what is mentioned in the story of the cow:

"Verily Allah the Almighty has prescribed the obligatory deeds, so do not neglect them; He has set certain limits, so do not go beyond them; He has forbidden certain things, so do not indulge in them; and He has said nothing about certain things, as an act of mercy to you, not out of forgetfulness, so do not go enquiring into these."

As well as the hadith where it's specifically mentioned about previous communities and their incessant questioning of their prophets:

“Avoid that which I forbid you to do and do that which I command you to do to the best of your capacity. Verily the people before you were destroyed only because of their excessive questioning and their disagreement with their Prophets.”

So do not enquire into things which are not mentioned in the Koran? Doesn't that contradict what you said about Muslims being commanded to seek knowledge?


Quote:

Ibn Kathir (May God have mercy on him) was one of the greatest scholars of Islam, who memorised and was aware of the entire Qur'an as well as entire collections of hadith, so I think he'd have a much better idea of what it is about.

That falls far short of an explanation as to why his interpretation appears to have so little to do with what the Koran actually says. If he said something that doesn't make sense then insisting he is a great scholar hardly clarifies the issue. Surely this is a significant issue in Islam? Doesn't the command to look into Islam yourself rather than take someone else's word for it inevitably lead other Muslims to also seek clarification of the apparent discrepancy? Are they not allowed to because it would trouble them, so they are compelled take the 'cop-out' response from the dead scholar at face value?

Quote:

So do not enquire into things which are not mentioned in the Koran? Doesn't that contradict what you said about Muslims being commanded to seek knowledge?

Are you deliberately being arrogant and obnoxious? Or is it just an involuntary character flaw?

It's got nothing to do with something being in the Qur'an or not being in it. Nowhere does it say anything about this at all, neither does it say anyhting about seeking knowledge, you're just speaking nonsense really.

Let me put it for you one last time. It's about people asking questions about a ruling/command given to them, when it's already made clear (in fact it reminds me a lot of you, perhaps that's why you don't like this passage so much), because then more stringent commands might be revealed for them that could cause them hardship.

Quote:

It's got nothing to do with something being in the Qur'an or not being in it.

I am not deliberately being obnoxious. It just doesn't make sense. Can you explain what this means for me, if it's nothing to do with what's in the Koran? I'm just enquiring as to what it is I'm not supposed to enquire about.


Quote:

and He has said nothing about certain things, as an act of mercy to you, not out of forgetfulness, so do not go enquiring into these."

Also, can you explain the discrepancy between what that scholar said and what the Koran says about not enquiring about troubling things.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 9^th, 2008 at 8:58pm:

Quote: There would be much fruit if Mohamedans could discusss such matters without hinting at or resorting to violence Just to make it clear for you, although I'm sure you're fully aware of the correct terminology. We are Muslims (those who've surrendered their will to God). This is our religion, and it was the original form of your religion and of the religion the Hebrews adhered to. They were of those who surrendered to the commands of God, instead of to their own whims and desires, or to idols and pantheons (from 3 to 300 and beyond) of false deities.

Considering that the vast majority of the koranic text is about Mohammed and obvioussly an even greater majority of the sunna  is about him, all together muslim textss are far more concerned with Mohammed than with God. So I think Mohammedan is more precise.




Quote:

BUT with no violence lurking behind the scenes. But that violence is islam's political modus operandi, whether becaause of the current geopolitical  line up or otherwise, i do not know.

Quote:

You keep alluding to this idea of violence-bolstered dialogue, but I really don't see it. You keep trying to link every Muslim's sincere dialogue back to your misconceptions about ahl al-dhimma or jizyah or whatever it is you've got in your mind Islam is all based on

These are not my inventions, andd they are not misconceptions. These are your doctrines.  Islamic texts have been translated, history has been studied, analysed, discussed.  There is no misundertsanding.  

Theere is no misunderstanding when Islamists threatens  violence evey time Islam is questioned. It is theeir consciouss policy and it haas noww resulted in thee esstablishmeent of reflex in the minds of the Kufr that being critical of anything Mohammedan, let alone joking about them, can be a death sentence.

Book of fiction about non existent satanic verses - death threats and killings of translators
Lame-o danish cartoons - death and destruction, marches on the streetss of Western citiees like london, threateening death
Pope gives a speech in Germaan at his old university - death threats and killings
Rushdie is given a knighthood - more of the same
Berlin opera cancels a stupid performance of an opere for fear of death aand destruction from one of the religions ridiculed (Islam) but not from the otheer 3, obviously.
Novel about Aisha pulled on advice of possible violent backlash from Mohammedans.


None of the above involves the killing of a single muslim by an infidel. There is no invasion, there is no bombing. Only books, printed materials, art works, talk. And ALL in sovereign western nations, by freeborn citizens, within the law.

Indonesia executes terrorists - promise of 1001 more jihadists, ie. kufr killers in the name of Islam

And you do not see this or you are not aware of this? You are lying.
The bloody cheek.

Quote:

Considering that the vast majority of the koranic text is about Mohammed and obvioussly an even greater majority of the sunna  is about him, all together muslim textss are far more concerned with Mohammed than with God. So I think Mohammedan is more precise.

Actually Muhammad (pbuh) is only mentioned a few times in the Qur'an. Jesus (pbuh) is mentioned about 5 times more than Muhammad (pbuh) so perhaps we should be the real Christians? And in fact Moses (pbuh) is mentioned more times than the two of them (pbut), so perhaps we should be called Mosesans, assuming we'd go by your obviously flawed logic.


Quote:

And you do not see this or you are not aware of this? You are lying.

Those are reactions of individuals, who are acting on pure emotion, not on Islamic law. This can be countered by the example we saw during the time of the Ottoman Caliphate, when the French wanted to perform the blasphemous and slanderous play of Volatire, Sultan Abdul Hamid II (May God have mercy on him) used diplomatic means to stop it. Nobody was killed, no wild emotion charged demonstrations in the streets, no burning flags or effigies.

Also how about all the journalists that seem to be going 'missing' in Russia and other European states lately, because they report things not favourable to the governments? Just on vacation are they? Or did the Christian governments silence them, merely for reporting the news? Nah couldn't be... only Muslims would do such a thing!! Perhaps they contracted their friends in Syria to do it for them  ;D

Quote:

Those are reactions of individuals, who are acting on pure emotion, not on Islamic law. This can be countered by the example we saw during the time of the Ottoman Caliphate, when the French wanted to perform the blasphemous and slanderous play of Volatire, Sultan Abdul Hamid II (May God have mercy on him) used diplomatic means to stop it. Nobody was killed, no wild emotion charged demonstrations in the streets, no burning flags or effigies.

And if diplomatic means are not successful in stopping blasphemy? What if there is an irreconcilable clash of values - freedom of speech vs the death penalty for blasphemy?

Christian governments?
Russia?
As for the rest of Europe I'd have thought they'd be rather secular.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 12^th, 2008 at 11:36pm:

Those are reactions of individuals, who are acting on pure emotion, not on Islamic law.

More 'islamic individuals' acting completely outside islam...

Khaleej Times Online >> News >> INTERNATIONAL Taliban kill mullah critical of suicide(AP)
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/international/2008/November/international_November910.xml&section=international&col
14 November 2008    
KABUL, AFGHANISTAN - Suspected Taliban militants killed a religious leader in western Afghanistan after he criticized the use of suicide attacks in the country, an Afghan official said Friday.

Militants kidnapped Shamsudin Agha in Farah province's Anar Dara district on Tuesday, days after he led prayers condemning the practice of using suicide attacks as a weapon of war, said provincial police Chief Abdul Ghafar Watandar.

Suicide attacks are one of the Taliban's preferred tactics in their attacks against Afghan and foreign troops. Most of the victims of such attacks have been civilians.
Authorities recovered Agha's body on Wednesday night in Farah's Khaki Safed district, Watandar said.
Agha was the head of the religious council of Farah's Anar Dara district, he said.




I am sure a posse of true muslims is being assembled as we speak to find and punish those 'individuals', whoever they may be,  acting so obviously outside islamic rules.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 9^th, 2008 at 8:58pm:

Quote: an argument, a shouting match even, even with god, This is where our concept of God departs quite sharply. To you, God is just 'another bloke', who has a boy that is a 'chip off the old block' and who you can have debates and arguments with. To us, He is the maker, the creator of us all, why would we argue with him who fashioned us? Such 'discourse' would be nothing but complete disrespect for the one who brought you into being. As Muslims (and even originally in the Jewish and Christian traditions) we have great respect for our parents, and do not even argue with them, yet you believe it's befitting for the creation to argue with their own Creator? Sorry, but I think I agree with your original statements, that our religions are worlds apart, when it comes to the relationship between man and God.

The 'another bloke' quip is silly.

Different relationships - yes. Love is dialogic. It converses. A loving god converses (often in a still, small voice). This relationship is of the heart.

Submission is not dialogic. A god that demands only submission does not converse. He rules like a despot.

Even those who do not believe in any god can see the differences in the two kinds of relationship.