Hey helian, Ive noticed you and a few other familiar names on this board.

How would you characterize this board?

Best regards

chilly water

malik - thanks for agreeiing that there is sexism in the koran against women.

What a life a muslim woman has.
Then after they die, they get to be sex slaves for terrorists.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 8:13am:


This is not even close to an exhaustive list of Christian denominations. Also Protestantism does not speak with one voice, it is an umbrella term that defines distinct Christian groups that broke with the Catholic Church. Newly formed Christian denominations are not considered protestant as they are not protesting against Rome.

mozzaok - bashir says what many other muslims say.
What is in the koran.

I'ld wish other nonmurderouos muslims point out where murderous ones, if that is the case.
To date, they don't.

Your contention of the vast numbers of the non-aligned christians just does not add up.

That was not my contention.

That's not what you said, FD?

Correct. When you quoted me, that's what I said. When you misquoted me, that wasn't what I said.

with no system to address their right to be preaching their hate

There is also no such system under Christianity (at least not to any greater extent than Islam), only under secular laws. The fact that you can list major Christian groups but cannot do the same for Islam only demonstrates your ignorance of Islam and is not some kind of evidence that Christianity is inherently heirachical, or more to the point, that Islam isn't. You have also failed to justify your assumption that heirachy is beneficial. You are assuming that the heirachy will have traits you support, yet you don't support religion at all.

What is the 'holy document of Vatican law' and the giant spider?

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

Mozz

What makes you think you'll feel safer with Islam under a restored Caliphate (a single voice of authority) ? Christianity and Islam were both at their most potent (and arrogant) when they were (largely) monolithic.

That question was in the context of St Linus the Pope. It's odd that he isn't mentioned in the Bible, yet there must be some other document from the time saying he was the first pope.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 8:45am:


It is not sexist at all. There are particular reasons for it which are completely justifiable.

Compare that to the West where previously, under English Common Law all of a woman's inheritance that she gained was given to her husband as soon as she got married to him. Don't forget that in Arabia prior to Islam coming women had no right to inheritance at all.

In fact, let's look at Biblical Law and make a comparison between that and Qur'anic Law now shall we?

As we know, Moses pbuh was the prophet who brought the main laws down for the Believers. So Let's take a look at a particular situation during Moses' pbuh time, This is the story of Zelophehad’s daughters. Zelophehad had 5 daughters, their name's were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirza.. Zelophehad didn't have any sons. Prior to Moses pbuh coming with God's laws, women were not allowed to own anything let alone have a share in any inheritance.

The daughters went to Moses pbuh and said "Our father died in the desert. He was not among Korah's followers, who banded together against the LORD, but he died for his own sin and left no sons.  Why should our father's name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father's relatives."(Numbers 27:4).

So Moses took this case before the Lord gbtH and the Lord gbtH said to Moses pbuh "What Zelophehad's daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father's relatives and turn their father's inheritance over to them."

He went further to say,
"Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves NO son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. If he has no daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers. If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father's brothers. If his father had no brothers, give his inheritance to the nearest relative in his clan, that he may possess it. This is to be a legal requirement for the Israelites, as the LORD commanded Moses.' " (Numbers 27:7-11)

It was only then that women were granted the right to inherit, but that is ONLY on the condition that the father had NO sons. If there are sons then the daughters share is a big fat ZERO.

Now we must remember that Jesus pbuh came onto the scene he stated "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:17-18)

So that means that the laws of Moses pbuh were not changed, and still stand.

Thus if we use your own logic, the bible states considers daughters/women to be worth absolutely nothing, unless of course there are no sons in their family.

That sounds rather primitive to me and DEFINITELY sexist.

BTW, women are not sex slaves in heaven, like men they receive anything that they want and are showered with blessings. What you are referring to are the Hourain, or Heavenly maidens, they actually are not women who have lived in this life. God created them as a reward in paradise.

And terrorists and suicide bombers do not go to Paradise, they go to hell.