Quote:

The idea that Islam attempts to present itself as being purely peaceful is a Western construct, not an Islamic one.

Abu Rashid

Never has Abu said anything more true.


Quote:

Five Iraqis asked me to baptise them one time last year, and after thinking about it long and hard, I baptised them... Within a week all five were dead.

Canon Andrew White - The "Vicar of Baghdad".

Ramadan* scorecard, Day 26      
In the name of The Religion of Peace - Terror Attacks 182, Dead Bodies  868
In the name of All Other Religions - Terror Attacks 1, Dead Bodies 1


Most of the dead are, of course, other Muslims. Never mind apostates, it's not safe being Muslim in Muslim countries.





* Ramadan = holy month of... er... Islam.

Guys, what do you think some movies that are never going to be made would be?

Birth of Nation Rebirth in 3D and Colour (The IMAX experience)

Men Behind The Sun: A New Beginning

Triumph of the Will 2: Back to Tha Will

Ironbar: The Wilson Tuckey Experience

Zoop The Movie

RE:Shock Video: Hamas Fundraising at Florida Mosque


..that other forum that I'm banned from.

How typical of Abu to throw his support behind Hamas - a terrorist organization.
So how much do you donate to them Abu?

Quote:

In the name of The Religion of Peace - Terror Attacks 182, Dead Bodies  868 In the name of All Other Religions - Terror Attacks 1, Dead Bodies 1

For a start most of those "statistics" are probably false flag ops carried out by the "western/democratic/christian/secular" religion anyway, not by Islam.

Secondly any of them which are bona fide operations by Islamic groups are probably just Muslims resisting the collaborationist governments installed in their countries by the Western religion/ideology anyway.

Thirdly, the claim of all other religions 1/1 is just nonsense anyway. The Zionists have carried out several terrorist attacks throughout Ramadan in which they murdered many innocent Palestinian civilians. The terrorist drone attacks of the U.S have killed hundreds in Pakistan, whilst the people there are already in a dire situation from the floods. Imagine if Muslims attacked the hurricane-ravaged people during Katrina.... Imagine the uproar.... or is such thinking beyond your means soren? I thought about as much.

And how about the hundreds of innocent women and even young baby boys raped by members of your religion/ideology in the Congo? The FDLR (Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda) have committed many massacres and other brutalities against the people of the region recently. Why no mention of their atrocities here???

It seems you are completely blinded to anything unless the magic word "muslim" appears in the text somewhere... It seems quite clear that your narrow blinkered view of the world doesn't stretch far beyond the borders of Afghanista, Iraq and Pakistan...

You have put on a poorly researched, and poorly presented show here I'm afraid.

Quote:

For a start most of those "statistics" are probably false flag ops carried out by the "western/democratic/christian/secular" religion anyway, not by Islam. Secondly any of them which are bona fide operations by Islamic groups are probably just Muslims resisting the collaborationist governments installed in their countries by the Western religion/ideology anyway.

Abu

In denial much??

I appreciate that religious folk often have a tenuous relationship with reality, but those beliefs stretch even that fact beyond snapping point, and leave you in the realm of the totally self deluded.

I will certainly give you credit for saying that there is a huge political element to the terrorism that we see from Islamist extremists, but as Islam itself, seeks to be, and sets itself up as, both a spiritual and political system, that fact negates any argument which seeks to disassociate Islam from these nutters on the grounds, in saying that they are mostly concerned with political, rather than spiritual matters.

Islam demands adherence to it's political demands, it's spiritual demands, and also seeks to see it's very narrow interpretation of morality, applied to all, both muslim, and non-muslim alike, and that will never be acceptable to any decent human being who believes in personal freedom to make their own choices in such matters.

mozzaok wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 7:44am:

Islam demands adherence to it's political demands, it's spiritual demands, and also seeks to see it's very narrow interpretation of morality, applied to all, both muslim, and non-muslim alike, and that will never be acceptable to any decent human being who believes in personal freedom to make their own choices in such matters.

More than just its very narrow interpretation of morality... More like it's blind obsession with morality, such that the Muslim mind, is perverted to imagine it can be infused into everything by draconian force where necessary.

Wait until the collapse of the Islamic Republic after the full and frank accounts are made public of the cultural and psychological damage Islamism has inflicted on Iranians.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 12:17am:

Secondly any of them which are bona fide operations by Islamic groups are probably just Muslims resisting the collaborationist governments installed in their countries by the Western religion/ideology anyway.

"Nineteen people died when a suicide bomber rammed an explosives-laden truck into a police station in north-west Pakistan.

Eleven policemen and four passing schoolchildren were among those killed in the attack in Lakki Marwat town, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

The Pakistani Taliban said they carried out the bombing."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11195797


Abu, you are a supremacist fascist. You will justify anything done by Muslims for the caliphate, the Islamist version of the 1000-year Reich.

Quote:

The Pakistani Taliban said they carried out the bombing."

al-Jazeerah did not report the Talibaan carried this out.

We know the Western media routinely lies and attributes things to the Talibaan which they never did, and often things which the Western troops or their proxies themselves have carried out. Kidnapped Japanese journalist anybody?

Again the question has to be asked, if the Talibaan supposedly carry these heinous crimes out, why is it the masses blame America for it? Perhaps because they see the Blackwater operatives moving all over their country carrying out clandestine operations?

And the latest... A white trash nutjob wants 9/11 to become a Koran burning day...

This no doubt comes as a relief to the Islamic perverts. It's given them something to do (say, kick a non-Muslim to death in retaliation) while they're waiting to prove their fidelity to the perversion by bashing an errant female relative to death.

Quote:

Actually you were right, burning Qur'an is the usual way to dispose of it when it's become worn or if it was a printout used for a specific purpose and is no longer needed (though it's better not to), I've done it myself, which makes me chuckle quite a bit at this little debacle in the U.S. I think it's great, because actually him touching a Qur'an is the evil, so him burning it is in fact averting that evil.

Exaccerly... Abooby...

And given the monotonous regularity with which Muslims blow up each others' Mosques (let alone burn a bloody book of mythology), why should any of them give a desert rat's arse whether some uneducated Scots-Irish-Appalachian-Mountain-looking no-account Preacher burns the Koran, wipes his butt with it or rips the pages out and tele-evangelises origami...

But what's the bet, if he does burn the book, they'll demand a suicide pervert blow himself up in a bus full of schoolkids and old people.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 12:09pm:

But what's the bet, if he does burn the book, they'll demand a suicide pervert blow himself up in a bus full of schoolkids and old people.

And why? Well, as a gesture to defend the good name of Islam, don't you know. WHat else could all these suicide bombings mean??!!??

"I'll blow us all up in self-defence - and it's your fault, infidel. It is islamophobic to hold muslims responsible for anything."

YHWH The god of the early Israelites to be forever known as god.The twelve tribes of Israel rose up against their oppressors because of persecution.Is this what is going to happen when christians rise up against this crap that the muslims carry on about their beloved Koran.Why do the media beat up that the Koran is more important to muslims than the bible to christians.Is this a reverse discrimination of christian beliefs and is the media leading the charge by defacto.

Quote:

YHWH The god of the early Israelites to be forever known as god..

The God of the Israelites was known as El/Eloah (which is actually a bit of a Hebrew corruption of Allah), the name used by all the Semitic peoples, and this is all throughout the Bible. YHWH is a later addition, and most likely a name gleaned from one of the surrounding peoples of the Levant.


Quote:

The twelve tribes of Israel rose up against their oppressors because of persecution.Is this what is going to happen when christians rise up against this crap that the muslims carry on about their beloved Koran

The Muslims are the ones rising up against the Pharaohs of today, the Bushs Blairs etc. Those who've made themselves like gods on earth.

You've got it all upside down.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 9:19pm:

the Bushs Blairs etc. Those who've made themselves like gods on earth.

;D  ;D ;D  It is very satisfying to see that you are still out of your mind!

In democracies we are voting gods in and out of office. You have a problem with that? Of course you do. That's what makes it the the right thing.
Oh joy! We are kings over gods!!!! And as Mel Brooks (Melvin Kaminsky, actually - nudge, nudge) said in a slightly different context, "It's good to be the king."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuMQjKiaDTg

Soren wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 1:41pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 9:19pm: the Bushs Blairs etc. Those who've made themselves like gods on earth. ;D  ;D ;D  It is very satisfying to see that you are still out of your mind! In democracies we are voting gods in and out of office. You have a problem with that? Of course you do. That's what makes it the the right thing.

And as for Blair... Not much of a deity.... The only ones who want to bow down at the altar of Blair and kiss his arse, are the Irish... Not that they make a habit out of kissing English arse (the last one was St Patrick)... But really, if you're going to be a god... Be one the Indians could worship... or the Chinese... Now that'd be smart deitism...

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 1:47pm:

The only ones who want to bow down at the altar of Blair and kiss his arse, are the Irish... Not that they make a habit out of kissing English arse

That would be kissing a Scot's arse.

STill, good to know he was the Pharaoh, a god on earth.  He should put that on the cover of his new book. "I was a God!! You can all kiss my arse*" (which, come to think of it, is what he probably does say in the book).i
* Yes, Abu, you too.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 12:17am:

It seems you are completely blinded to anything unless the magic word "muslim" appears in the text somewhere...

http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2006-07-18.jpg

A form of narcissism, this constant self-pity.

'Nobody likes us, everybody hates us. But one day, we'll show them. There'll be hell to pay. One day. Not yet. One day.' [exit left, shaking fist, gnashing teeth]

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 9:19pm:

Quote: YHWH The god of the early Israelites to be forever known as god.. The God of the Israelites was known as El/Eloah (which is actually a bit of a Hebrew corruption of Allah), the name used by all the Semitic peoples, and this is all throughout the Bible. YHWH is a later addition, and most likely a name gleaned from one of the surrounding peoples of the Levant. [quote]The twelve tribes of Israel rose up against their oppressors because of persecution.Is this what is going to happen when christians rise up against this crap that the muslims carry on about their beloved Koran

The Muslims are the ones rising up against the Pharaohs of today, the Bushs Blairs etc. Those who've made themselves like gods on earth.

You've got it all upside down.
[/quote]

Elohim is generally considered to be the plural of Eloah. Occasionally it is translated “the judges” (Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9), quite often “the gods” when referring to false gods (Genesis 31:30; Exodus 12:12; 18:11 etc.), but mostly translated “God”, and used with singular verbs when referring to the one true God. This is commonly regarded as a plural of majesty, which is quite a common feature of the Hebrew language. It is used of Jesus in this plural form where it is translated, “O God” (Psalm 45:6), and where it is clearly being addressed to “the Son” (Hebrews 1:8). Therefore it does not prove a plurality of persons in the Godhead, as some have suggested.

The ancient writings of the Hebrew language refer to Elohim and not as you say.It was well before any muslim writings so you are putting the egg before the hen.

Quote:

The ancient writings of the Hebrew language refer to Elohim and not as you say

Elohim is as you say is a [royal] plural form of Eloah, which is the Hebrew corruption of ilah (Allah = al + ilah, ie. _the_ [one and only true] God).


Quote:

It was well before any muslim writings so you are putting the egg before the hen.

Ahhh you mean like when you claim Jesus (pbuh) is referred to in Psalms?  ;D

The ancient Hebrews were Muslims, so the original Bible was a Muslim writing. Not only does the word Eloah (cognate to Allah) appear in the Bible, but so too does the word Alah, which is Aramaic for God. As I said, variations of the root letters a/e-l-h are the usual way to refer to the one true God in all of the Semitic languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic & Arabic. In fact the NT supposedly quotes Jesus (pbuh) calling out on the cross "eloi eloi" not "yahweh yahweh" when he was being crucified, which is the same word but with the first person possessive pronoun attached (ie. "my god my god").

The language of the jews is an older recorded language than any Arabic. If anyone borrowed anything, it was the Arabs.

Love this : "The ancient Hebrews were Muslims, so the original Bible was a Muslim writing." It's easy to be Muslim - you never have to bother with thinking.

PBUH Peace be upon him is a phrase that practising Muslims often say after saying (or hearing) the name of a prophet of Islam. There are three variants of this phrase in Arabic:

"Peace be upon him": (Arabic: عليه السلام‎ ʿAlayhis salaam - A.S.) - this expression follows after naming any prophet other than Muhammad, or one of the archangels (i.e. Jibreel, Mikaeel, etc.)
"May Allah honour him and grant him peace.": (Arabic: صلى الله عليه وسلم‎ ṣall Allahu ʿalayhi wa sallam - S.A.W., SAAW, or SAAS) - this expression follows specifically after saying the name of the last prophet of Islam, Muhammad.
"May Allah grant peace and blessings to him and his family.": (Arabic: صلى الله عليه و اله‎ ṣall Allahu ʿalayhi wa aalih - S.A.W.W.) - this expression is used mostly by Shīʿah Muslims and follows specifically after saying the name of the last prophet of Islam, Muhammad.
In Arabic these salutations are called ṣalawāt, and are abbreviated by some with the use of SAW (in accordance with the Arabic words sallallahou alayhi wasallam) or PBUH (which stands for Peace be upon him in English). However, this practice is considered to be controversial among senior Islamic scholars who disagree with this use on the basis that it demonstrates a lack of respect and laziness.

Yet again you have claimed christian values as your own No where in the ancient writings does it say that Jesus was revered with peace be upon him after refering to a christian figure

Early Islam  
545  Abdullah, the Muhammad's father, was born.  
570  Muhammad was born in Mecca  
590 - 604  Pope Gregory the Great (c. 540 - 604) begins his liturgical reforms and changes in church administration.  
594  Muhammad became the manager of the business of Lady Khadija.  
595  Muhammad married Hadrat Khadija.  
610  Muhammad had a religious experience on Mount Hira that changed his life.  
615  Muhammad invited the Hashimites to adopt Islam.  
615  Persecution of Muslims by the Quaraish in Mecca intensified and a group of Muslims leave for Abyssinia (modern Ethiopia).  
621  Abu Jahl became leader of a mounting opposition to Muslims in Mecca and organized a boycott of merchants in Mohammad's clan, the Hashim.  
622  About 75 converts from Medina took the two Pledges of al-Aqaba, professing to Islam and to protect Muhammad from all danger.  
622  Muhammad and his small band of followers migrate to the town of Yathrib in the north. The leaders of that town invited him to come and lead them and were willing to adopt Islam. The Hijrah of 622, the migration, marked the beginning of the Muslim era and the Islamic calendar.  
624  Buddhism became the established religion of Japan.  
624  Muhammad broke with his Jewish supporters because they refused to recognize him as a prophet and adopt Islam. He chose now to emphasize the Arabness of the new religion and has his followers face Mecca when praying instead of Jerusalem.

In the end, all the Jews were either banished or executed.  
March 15, 624  At the Battle of Abdr, Muhammad and his followers defeated an army from Mecca.

Muhammad's chief rival in Mecca, Abu Jahl, was executed.  
627  Meccan leader Abu Sufyan (c. 567 - c. 655) laid siege to Muhammad's forces in Medina during the battle of the Trench. Even with 10,000 men he was unsuccessful for the 15 days he was there.

Muhammad suspected the Banu Quraiza Jews of helping the Meccans and had all the men killed.  
627  A confederation was created between Muhammad's followers in Mecca and the eight Arab clans in Medina with the Constitution of Medina.  
628  Muhammad led about 1,600 men on a pilgrimage to Mecca where their passage was blocked by citizens of Mecca. Fortunately they agreed to negotiate with Muhammad and then later agreed to the Pact of Hudaibiya, ending hostilities and allowing for Muslim pilgrimages.  
629  After a group of Muslims was attacked, Muhammad dissolved the Pact of Hudaibiya and prepared to attack Mecca.  
630  An army of 30,000 Muslims marched on Mecca which surrendered with little resistance. Muhammad took control of the city and made it the spiritual center of Islam.  
632  Muhammad died. His father-in-law, Abu-Bakr, and Umar devised a system to allow Islam to sustain religious and political stability. Accepting the name of caliph ("deputy of the Prophet"), Abu-Bakr begins a military exhibition to enforce the caliph's authority over Arabian followers of Muhammad.

Abu-Bakr then moved northward, defeating Byzantine and Persian forces. Abu-Bakr died two years later and Umar succeeded him as the second caliph, launching a new campaign against the neighboring empires.  

c. 4 BC Birth of Jesus
c. 26 AD  John the Baptist begins ministry
c. 27 AD  Jesus begins ministry
c. 30 AD  Crucifixion of Jesus
c. 35 Conversion of Paul
c. 44 Martyrdom of James
c. 46-48 Paul's first missionary journey
c. 49  Council of Jerusalem
c. 50-52  Paul's second missionary journey
c. 51-52 First and Second Thessalonians written
c. 53-57 Paul's third missionary journey
c. 57 Letter to the Romans written
c. 59-62 Paul imprisoned in Rome
c. 60  Andrew martyred by crucifixion in Achaia (Greece).  
c. 66-67 Second Timothy written
c. 68 Martyrdom of Paul
70 Fall of Jerusalem  
c. 90-95  John exiled on island of Patmos
c. 95 Book of Revelation written
c. 96 Clement of Rome's Letter to the Corinthians written
c. 120 Didache written
202 Christians persecuted under Septimus Severus
211 Christians tolerated under Emperor Antoninus Caracalla
222 Christians favored Emperor Alexander Severus  
230 Origen's On First Principles
235 Christians persecuted under Emperor Maximin the Thracian  
238 Christians tolerated under Emperor Gordian III  
244 Christians favored under Emperor Philip the Arabian
251 Cyprian's Unity of the Catholic Church
254 Death of Origen
303 Diocletian orders burning of Christian books and churches
312 Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity  
313 Edict of Milan establishes official toleration of Christianity
325 Council of Nicea
336 Death of Constantine  

Funny how christianity started hundreds of years before Muhammad was born yet you claim early christians and jews were muslim and jesus was aprophet of Islam.Yet again you are wrong

Soren,


Quote:

The language of the jews is an older recorded language than any Arabic. If anyone borrowed anything, it was the Arabs.

This just shows you clearly have no knowledge about the Semitic languages. Arabic is far older than Hebrew. Hebrew is a completely corrupted and evolved language, which is even less conservative in it's oldest attested classical form (about 3000 years ago) than the slang Arabic one would hear from teenagers on the streets of Cairo today. By the time Hebrew was first recorded it had already lost about 6 of the original Semitic phonemes, whilst Arabic has lost only one single phoneme even till today. Hebrew also lost many of the original Semitic grammatical features, most of which Arabic still retains now.

Arabic is the most conservative living Semitic language, and even historically only South Arabian (part of the same sub-family anyway) that was more conservative.

Higherbeam,


Quote:

Yet again you have claimed christian values as your own No where in the ancient writings does it say that Jesus was revered with peace be upon him after refering to a christian figure

Wishing peace upon the prophets is a sign of reverence for them. I honestly don't see your problem with it. would you prefer people disrespect them and curse them or soemthing??? Is that what would make you happy?

Seriously I'm astounded at this claim.

As for the phrase "alayhi salaam", this is a very common phrase in most of the Semitic languages, and was used in the Bible many times. In the NT, it's in Greek obviously, but it's still there, translated most likely from the original Hebrew or Aramaic sayings:

"And as many as walk according to this rule, peace [be] on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." (Galatians 6:16)

In the OT we also have the exact same phrase as in Arabic pretty much:

"But those who turn to crooked ways the Lord will banish with the evildoers. Peace be upon Israel." (Psalm 125:5)

In Hebrew it says: שָׁלֹום עַל

shalowm alay, but instead of the attached pronoun on the end 'hi' (meaning 'him' in Arabic) it then has a direct object, being in this case 'Israel'. The salaam has become corrupted in Hebrew to be shalowm, by the Hebrew reversal of shin/sin and the Canaanite vowel shift from long 'a' vowel to long 'o[w]'.

And not surprisingly we find the NT records Jesus (pbuh) as greeting his followers with the exact same greeting all Muslims greet one another, which is also based on the exact same phrase:

"Then the same day at evening, being the first [day] of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you." (John 20:19)

Personally I've never come across Christians greeting one another with salaam/shalowm as Jesus (pbuh) and all other prophets did. Only Muslims, and some Jews use this greeting for one another.

The reason you don't recognise that the early Christians and Jews were actually Muslims is because you misunderstand the term Muslim. Muslim simply means 'one who submits his will to God', it does not mean 'one who follows a 7th. century religion from Arabia' as you erroneously seem to believe by producing a timeline from the 7th. century. Jesus and all prophets (pbut) taught submitting to the will of God, so they taught the religion of Islam. Never did Jesus (pbuh) or any other prophet speak about a religion called Judaism or Christianity. These are names you invented yourselves, long after the times of the Prophets. Islam on the other hand aptly describes the religion of God, that of submission to his will and command.

"The reason you don't recognise that the early Christians and Jews were actually Muslims is because you misunderstand the term Muslim. Muslim simply means 'one who submits his will to God', it does not mean 'one who follows a 7th. century religion from Arabia' as you erroneously seem to believe by producing a timeline from the 7th. century. Jesus and all prophets (pbut) taught submitting to the will of God, so they taught the religion of Islam. Never did Jesus (pbuh) or any other prophet speak about a religion called Judaism or Christianity. These are names you invented yourselves, long after the times of the Prophets. Islam on the other hand aptly describes the religion of God, that of submission to his will and command.  
Back to top"  

Yes you are right that all religions submitted to one god and muslim is just another offshoot of christianity when mohammid turned away from the true path of enlightenment and formed a offshoot of christianity not the other way round.the early teachings of christianity taught that everyone should respect thy fellow man.This has been incorporated into mohammid's teachings in the Koran.It is a shame that the christian values that mohammid taught has not been bought to the attention of the radicals of Islam.

Muhammad broke with his Jewish supporters because they refused to recognize him as a prophet and adopt Islam. He chose now to emphasize the Arabness of the new religion and has his followers face Mecca when praying instead of Jerusalem.

Quote:

Yes you are right that all religions submitted to one god and muslim is just another offshoot of christianity

Islam is a return back to what Christianity originally was, not an offshoot of it.

Jesus (pbuh) reiterated the same message that all his predecessors had, that we must worship only the one true God. But his followers over time slowly corrupted this message, to the point where they ended up worshipping him instead. If Muhammad (pbuh) produced an offshoot of this, then surely he would've taught this corruption of the message as well. But he did not, he called people back to the one simple message of monotheism that all the prophets (pbut) had taught.


Quote:

It is a shame that the christian values that mohammid taught has not been bought to the attention of the radicals of Islam.

The dichotomy that we are fed about Islamic radicals and moderates is not all that accurate. There's people in Muslim lands who have suffered terribly at the hands of Western colonialism, and they have taken a stand against it. That doesn't necessarily make them radical, just makes them people who are fed up with being someone elses resource bucket.

Doesn't mean they've forsaken the basic principles of being good to your neighbour. I'm sure if you were OBL's neighbour, that you'd consider him a very kind hearted man :)


Quote:

Muhammad broke with his Jewish supporters because they refused to recognize him as a prophet and adopt Islam

This is false on both accounts. Firstly he never had any Jewish supporters. Secondly, the chief Rabbi of Madinah embraced Islam. Till this day Jews continue embracing Islam, as do Christians, and atheists, Hindus, Buddhists etc.

You really speak crap, you know that don't you Abu?

Of course some Jews would have followed Islam, the same way they followed Christianity, that's all there was around at the time.

Big deal who followed it. Thank goodness there are "thinking" people leaving it.

In droves... Praise be to whoever and all that crap.

More crap

"Islam is a return back to what Christianity originally was, not an offshoot of it."

How the hell do you work that one out?

Christianity isn't or wasn't old enough.

There is no certain date for the start Christianity, though definitely sometime during the 1st century CE

Islam began in 610 CE

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 7:52pm:

Soren, Quote: The language of the jews is an older recorded language than any Arabic. If anyone borrowed anything, it was the Arabs. This just shows you clearly have no knowledge about the Semitic languages.

Recorded language, moor, recorded.

Arabic has undergone significant changes in the last 1400 years, the period of its recorded history. You are telling us that before it was recorded it was solid and unchanging and that Hebrew, being a recorded language for a few more millenia, was the one that was changing and was being corrupted, implying that recording a language hastens its corruptions while leaving it unwritten preserves it.

Considering the amount of idiocy you believe, this is but a minor stupidity.
You may be seated.

"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." (Surah 5:101-102).

"The Holy Prophet himself forbade people to ask questions ...so do not try to probe into such things." (The Meaning of the Qur'an, Maududi, vol. III, pgs. 76-77)

"The prophet was asked about things which he did not like, and when the questioner insisted, the Prophet got angry. (vol. 1, no. 92) The Prophet got angry and his cheeks or his face became red. (vol. 1, no. 91) "Allah has hated you...[for] asking too many questions." (vol. 2, no. 555; and vol. 3, no. 591, Bukhari's Hadith commenting on Muhammad’s reaction to hostile questioners.)


 


Islam is an information control cult!

Although in the Westerm world, Islam cannot enable their information control as they do in Muslim controlled countries, there is still significant misinformation that Muslims believe about the Bible and Christianity. As you can see from the three quotes above, Muslims are forbidden to question Islamic faith, and are expected to accept its truthfulness blindly without investigation. Muhammad understood that information was the main enemy of his newly invented religion. In many Muslim controlled nations, for example, young men are paid to learn NOTHING but the Koran to the exclusion of science and history and current world events. They are told this is all they need, but in reality they are brainwashed and basic world information is deliberately withheld from them.

Although Muslims in the Western world will claim Islam is an open religion, the fact remains that they contradict the actions of their brethren in Muslim controlled nations. In other words, actions speak louder than words! Remember, if Islam is such an open religion, why are Christians harassed and murdered in all countries where Muslims are in control of the civil governments.

Muhammad, in our opinion, spoke truth when he described the first reaction people had to his new religion:
"This [Islam] is nothing but a lie which he [Muhammad] has forged, and other have helped him do it... Fairy tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written; and they are dictated before him morning and evening." (Surah 25:4-5)

Even Yusuf Ali, a translator of the Koran into English makes this comment:
"In their misguided arrogance they say, ‘We have heard such things before: they are pretty tales which have come down from ancient times: they are good for amusement, but who takes them seriously? The answer is that the Qur'an teaches spiritual knowledge of what is ordinarily hidden from men's sight, and such knowledge can only come from God to Whom alone is known the Mystery of the whole Creation.’" [3058-9]

Soren wrote on Sep 17^th, 2010 at 9:42am:

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 16th, 2010 at 7:52pm: Soren, Quote: The language of the jews is an older recorded language than any Arabic. If anyone borrowed anything, it was the Arabs. This just shows you clearly have no knowledge about the Semitic languages. Recorded language, moor, recorded. Arabic has undergone significant changes in the last 1400 years, the period of its recorded history. You are telling us that before it was recorded it was solid and unchanging and that Hebrew, being a recorded language for a few more millenia, was the one that was changing and was being corrupted, implying that recording a language hastens its corruptions while leaving it unwritten preserves it. Considering the amount of idiocy you believe, this is but a minor stupidity. You may be seated.

Here ... here

Cockney,


Quote:

Big deal who followed it. Thank goodness there are "thinking" people leaving it. In droves... Praise be to whoever and all that crap.

Bit of wishful thinking there. On the contrary people are flocking to Islam, and this is in fact what has caused the waves of Islamophobia, is that people genuinely fear it "taking over", not by force as is the claim, but by the sheer fact that people are flocking to it.


Quote:

How the hell do you work that one out? Christianity isn't or wasn't old enough. There is no certain date for the start Christianity, though definitely sometime during the 1st century CE Islam began in 610 C

As I've already pointed out, the dates are meaningless. They do not detract one iota from my points thus far.

Soren,


Quote:

Recorded language, moor, recorded.

The recorded part is completely irrelevant. When we look at how "old" or "conservative" a language is, the attested history of the language is not that useful, especially in the case of Semitic languages. Akkadian for instance is perhaps the oldest attested Semitic language, yet it's one of the least conservative in many respects. This is largely due to the fact that for much of it's recorded history, it was spoken by a people heavily influenced by Sumerian, which severely eroded the Semitic aspects of the language, especially the phonology. Ancient Hebrew likewise was spoken by people who lived amongst speakers of other languages, earlier on probably Hittites, Egyptians and the "sea peoples" who inhabited the Levantine coast. And later they even did away with Hebrew as their spoken language and adopted a Persianised version of Aramaic.

Now contrast this to the Arabs, who lived for most of their history in the relatively isolated deserts of the Arabian peninsula, which is itself considered to be the homeland of the Semitic peoples. Very little outside influence managed to affect the language of the Arabs, and that is why their language is so pristine and conservative. Add to this the fact that one of the things they valued most was eloquence and adeptness at poetry. It is well known fact that of the original 29 phonemes postulated for proto-Semitic, formal Arabic (known as Fus-ha) has maintained 28 of them, even until this very day. Ancient south Arabian (what was spoken in Yemen and parts of Oman in ancient times) actually maintained all 29 of them in most of it's dialects as did Ancient North Arabian in some of it's dialects (this was probably the ancestor of modern formal Arabic). In contrast, ancient Biblical Hebrew had already lost about 5 of them and by the early Christian period had lost another 2. By the time of the standardisation of the Hebrew alphabet, only 23 of the original Semitic phonemes still existed in Hebrew, one letter actually doubled for 2 phonemes, hence the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet we see. Today a further 2 or 3 phonemes have merged even further, but are still represented graphemically, whilst yet others have become mixed up and mispronounced, since the modern Hebrew language is not a naturally spoken language but an artificially revived language. The modern day speakers of Hebrew are mostly native speakers of European languages, who learnt Hebrew, or their children.


Quote:

Arabic has undergone significant changes in the last 1400 years, the period of its recorded history.

It has? For instance? This should be interesting...

My fore-advice soren would be not to speak about that of which you clearly have little or no knowledge :)


Quote:

You are telling us that before it was recorded it was solid and unchanging and that Hebrew, being a recorded language for a few more millenia, was the one that was changing and was being corrupted, implying that recording a language hastens its corruptions while leaving it unwritten preserves it.

A few millenia? I think you've got your dates mixed up.

The oldest attested Hebrew writings go back to about the 10th. century B.C, whilst the oldest Arabic inscriptions go back to about the 8th. century B.C. Perhaps what you meant to say was "a few more centuries"? Or perhaps you mixed up alphabet and language? Being under the impression that since Arabic-alphabet inscriptions didn't appear until the early Christian period, therefore the Arabic language was never recorded until this time? A common enough mistake I guess.

Also you seem to be under the impression that merely recording a language preserves it's linguistic features. This is not the case at all. Although it is a step towards standardisation of a language, it does not guarantee the language will remain conservative. Look at how much modern English has changed since the time of Chaucer. I understand Arabic of 2000 years ago better than I understand the English of 500 years ago, and I am a native English speaker.

An important fact to keep in mind too is that Hebrew in it's earliest attested forms was already quite 'eroded', and had already merged several phonemes long before it was even first recorded. This became quite evident when European Linguists began studying Hebrew in comparison to other Semitic languages (previously believing it to be the original language of the Garden of Eden) and realised it was a very eroded language that could not have preceded the other Semitic languages, since it was so much less conservative than them. When Ugaritic was discovered in Syria in the early 20th. century, it became quite apparent that Arabic was the most conservative Semitic language in existence. This is because although Ugaritic was a Canaanite dialect (as is Hebrew, Phoenician, Moabite etc), it was phonetically almost identical to Arabic. It maintained 27 of the original Semitic phonemes, only 1 less than Arabic. And etymologicaly it agreed pretty much 100% with Arabic.


Quote:

Considering the amount of idiocy you believe, this is but a minor stupidity. You may be seated.

I shall be seated, and will eagerly await your response, especially the details about the "significant changes" Arabic has supposedly undergone in the last 1400 years.

Quote:

I shall be seated, and will eagerly await your response, especially the details about the "significant changes" Arabic has supposedly undergone in the last 1400 years.

This looks alarminglly varied for something so unchanging:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Arab_World-Large.PNG

You sound like some sort of Soviet scientists for whom ideology trump observation. Arabic is a human language. It changes like all other human languages. It's not god's language, the Koran is not an actual book that has exited, unchanged, in all eternity. What you have is a compilation of sayings in 7th century Arabic. It is not in the script of 800 BC, it is not in the order it was 'revealed' to Muhammad, it is not in the language anyone speaks nowadays in their ordinary discourse.

The tide of time is against you, too.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 18^th, 2010 at 6:35am:

Bit of wishful thinking there. On the contrary people are flocking to Islam, and this is in fact what has caused the waves of Islamophobia, is that people genuinely fear it "taking over", not by force as is the claim, but by the sheer fact that people are flocking to it.

You are confusing "people flocking to Islam" with "Islamic people are flocking to the West". Not the same thing.

What you observe as an increase in Muslim numbers is due to Muslims fleeing Islamic countries for the sanaty, safety and prosperity of non-Muslim countries.

Maybe people are not flocking to Islam, but Islam may win in the long run by out-breeding their counterparts, as was recently reported about Germany and Israel is also concerned about it.
Unfortunately this planet is allready overpopulated and that makes matters worse.

Quote:

This looks alarminglly varied for something so unchanging:

That image is of the distribution of spoken dialects, they have always existed, alongside formal Arabic. The Arabic language itself remains pristine and unchanged. When I watch al-Jazeerah or listen to a Friday sermon, or flick through kids schoolbooks, what I find is the exact same language that was documented in the Qur'an and Hadith 1400 years ago, and also pretty much what is in those 800 B.C inscriptions (although there's some minor variation in those pre-Islamic inscriptions).


Quote:

You sound like some sort of Soviet scientists for whom ideology trump observation. Arabic is a human language. It changes like all other human languages. It's not god's language, the Koran is not an actual book that has exited, unchanged, in all eternity.

So to put that in another way... you can't find a single example of these so called "significant changes"?? thought about as much.

In other words you have a penchant for speaking out of turn, and out of somewhere else...


Quote:

It is not in the script of 800 BC

And likewise the script of the 3000 year old Hebrew isn't the script Hebrew uses today. That means little. A script is merely a means of encoding a language, and does not really affect the language at all, so long as it can be decoded efficiently again.


Quote:

it is not in the language anyone speaks nowadays in their ordinary discourse.

Well the dialects and formal Arabic are not really mutually exclusive, they are described more as being rough points on a spectrum of varying degrees of formal and informal speech. Regardless, the Arabic language with it's 28 original Semitic phonemes exists and is what is taught to children at school, what is read on the news at night, and what pretty much all Arabic books, magazines and other material are written in. It maintains the most conservative and uniquely Semitic grammar out of all the Semitic languages, that is far more pristine than even the 3000 year old Hebrew inscriptions.

That's all that's relevant to this discussion.

Can't you just be a good sport and admit you got a little out of your depth and made a bit of a himar of yourself?

Quote:

You are confusing "people flocking to Islam" with "Islamic people are flocking to the West". Not the same thing.

Quote:

Maybe people are not flocking to Islam, but Islam may win in the long run by out-breeding their counterparts

No, people are literally flocking to Islam. I am talking about converts here, not a single time that I visit an Islamic centre or mosque, do I leave without having met a new Aussie convert to Islam like myself.

This is what scares you, and you know it soren. Perhaps your mate here has an excuse for being an ignoramus, but you know better I'm sure.


Quote:

as was recently reported about Germany and Israel is also concerned about it

Are you on drugs or something? The place you call "Israel" in the past 100 years has gone from being a 98% Arab majority (most of them Muslims) land, to being today over 50% infested with illegal Jewish immigrants who gate crashed the place and made it their own, pushing the locals out.

In short- By percentage growth: Unknown
By real person growth: Christianity
By percentage growth the fastest growing religions in the world are the smaller religions. This is because with a smaller sample size, every additional adherent accounts for a higher percentage increase.
Therefore, by percentage growth we are uncertain what the fastest growing religions in the world are. However, logically speaking with statistics in mind by percentage growth the larger religions including Christianity (2.2 Billion Adherents), Islam (1.3 Billion) and Hinduism (900 million) are the least likely to be the fastest by percentage growth. An example to illustrate this point is Deism in the United States of America. Although in the period of 1990-2000 it experienced a growth rate of 717% the amount of new followers was very small and the large percentage increase is attributed to a smaller sample size.
The alternative measure for fastest growing religion in the world is growth by the number of new adherents. That is, the religion to gain more new believers each period would be the fastest growing religion.
As it stands the fastest growing religion by this measure is Christianity. Using the most up to date figures we determine that on average in 2007 Christianity gained 7-8million more adherents than any other religion (i.e. Islam, followed by Hinduism at 17million less).
In conclusion, the fastest growing religion by percentage growth is unknown as smaller religions are not usually account for. By number of new adherents per period Christianity is the fastest growing religion.
A side note, any argument that a religion is true because it is the largest or fastest growing is a logical fallacy. The amount of adherents or growth rate does not imply validity.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 18^th, 2010 at 6:52pm:

Quote: You are confusing "people flocking to Islam" with "Islamic people are flocking to the West". Not the same thing. [quote]Maybe people are not flocking to Islam, but Islam may win in the long run by out-breeding their counterparts

No, people are literally flocking to Islam. I am talking about converts here, not a single time that I visit an Islamic centre or mosque, do I leave without having met a new Aussie convert to Islam like myself.

This is what scares you, and you know it soren. Perhaps your mate here has an excuse for being an ignoramus, but you know better I'm sure.


[/quote]


You never count the people who leave Islam. No stats on that because nobody wants to be killed.