If they did as you suggest, I'ld be fine to have them in Aussie.
But if they did that, they would be breaking the koran.

At least some of them have the guts to stand up and say what their goal is.


Bring in the wiccans, pagans, athiests, agnostics, buddhists and satanists by the boat load.
They're fine and pose no threat to anyone.
I particularily like the wiccans and athiests. Just good people to chat and live with.
Pagans and agnostics are a bit wishywashy, but that's not at all a drama !!!

malik - please interperet these quotes for me.


"Tabari IX:113 "Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an."

Men take authority over women... As for those who are disobedient, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. 4:34

mozzaok wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 3:04pm:


Stoned to death for committing adultery

Dylan Welch
April 3, 2008 - 8:45AM

Advertisement
A man and a woman have reportedly been stoned to death by the Taliban after being found guilty of adultery by a tribal court in Pakistan's border region.

The stoning was carried out in a tribal area on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan where the Taliban has a strong presence, Pakistani newspaper Dawn reported.

The killings are the first recorded incident of death by stoning by the militants, who usually put accused before firing squads, the newspaper stated.

The pair had been captured by the Taliban after eloping about two weeks ago from a border area known as the Mohmand Agency.

A complaint was made that the woman, married to another man, had been kidnapped but it was later reported that she had actually eloped.

A spokesman for the local Taliban told the newspaper the militants had captured them as they returned from Karachi.

They tried the couple, found them guilty and sentenced them to death by stoning.

After the executions were carried out the man's body was handed over to his relatives. The body of the woman was buried in the area by local people, the newspaper stated.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/03/1206851052700.html

Iran confirms man stoned to death for adultery

The Associated Press
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
TEHRAN, Iran: A man convicted of adultery was stoned to death last week in a village in northern Iran, an Iranian judiciary spokesman said Tuesday, the first time in years that the country has confirmed such an execution.

Jafar Kiani was stoned to death Thursday in Aghchekand, 200 kilometers (124 miles) west of Tehran, said spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi.

Death sentences are carried out in Iran after they are upheld by the Supreme Court. Under Iran's Islamic law, adultery is punishable by stoning.

Jamshidi did not elaborate on how the stoning was carried out. Under Islamic rulings, a man is usually buried up to his waist, while a woman is buried up to her neck with her hands also buried. Those carrying out the verdict then throw stones until the condemned dies.

International human rights groups have long criticized stoning in Iran as a "cruel and barbaric" punishment.

Before Iran's confirmation, U.N. human rights chief Louise Arbour condemned the execution, her spokesman said.

"The execution has apparently gone ahead despite Iran's moratorium on execution by stoning, a moratorium that had been in effect since 2002," said Jose Diaz of U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.

"Stoning is in clear violation of international law," Diaz said in Geneva. He said Arbour considered stoning to be a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited under an international treaty that Iran has signed.

In Oslo, Norway, Iran's ambassador was summoned by Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere to protest the stoning, the Norwegian Foreign Ministry said.

Stoere was "deeply upset" that the death penalty had been carried out and called stoning an "inhumane and barbaric method of punishment," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Frode Andersen.

The reported execution came two weeks after international pressure, including protests from Norway, caused Iranian officials to delay carrying out the sentence against Kiani and his female companion, Mokarrameh Ebrahimi, who also was sentenced to death by stoning. It was not known if a date had been set for her execution.

Norway's embassy in Teheran will try to arrange for representatives of the international community to visit Ebrahimi in prison, the Norwegian foreign ministry said.

The couple had reportedly been imprisoned for 11 years.

Stoning was widely imposed in the early years after the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and brought hard-line clerics to power. But in recent years, it has seldom been applied, although the government rarely confirms when it carries out stoning sentences.

There is no official report of the last time Iran stoned someone to death, but there were unconfirmed media reports that a couple was stoned in 2006 in the northeastern town of Mashhad.

Women's rights activists headed by feminist lawyer Shadi Sadr have been campaigning to have the sentence removed from Iran's statutes.

Iran's reformist legislators have demanded an end to death by stoning as a punishment for adultery, but opposition from hard-line clerics sidelined their efforts.

Capital offenses in Iran include murder, rape, armed robbery, apostasy, blasphemy, serious drug trafficking, adultery or prostitution, treason and espionage.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/10/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Stoning.php

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 4:26am:

Sprint have you read Tabari and seen those for statements for yourself?

I do believe I have also clarified the issue of beating women in Islam in another thread. But I'll clarify it again for you.

And I really think you do not understand the proper meaning behind the verses you are referring to in the Qur'an when it comes to beating.

Let's take a look at the verse properly.

004.034
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

It says in the verse that if your wife is disobedient to admonish her, if she continues to do so then to refuse to share your bed with her.. If that continues and you find use in it to 'beat' her lightly. But what does it mean by beat?

In this context and by the examples of the prophet we are told that the force one should use is as if u were to beat her with a feather and even then not on the head, face or front of the body.

It is to be used in only extreme cases where it is the last option before divorcing her. It is done not to cause physical harm but to shock her into seeing the gravity of the situation.

If one goes through their marriage being very patient with their wife no matter the headaches she gives him, but then in one situation finds his wife to be doing something so abhorrent and not reforming after admonishing her and refusing to share his bed with her. Then one is allowed to 'beat' her lightly to get the message across that if she continues it will result in divorce. If up until that point in time you have been completely patient with her no matter her attitude then even if you did 'beat' her as softly as mentioned it would shock her enough to know that you are very serious.

I will also mention that the prophet Muhammad pbuh never beat his wives, he showed us that such behaviour was even abhorrent to him. He was the most patient and merciful of all men.

Thanks again Malik.
Your posts regarding the stoning of men was interesting, and I had not seen them reported.
The fact is that in both cases it was couples, whose crime was to fall in love, and to try and escape from a barbaric and primitive, medieval system which sought to torture them to death for this crime, which would be accepted as mundane, if unfortunate, in any other culture but that of Islam.
To see that they are killed in such a brutal way, for what is not really a crime in the mind of any, but the most extreme religious fanatics, only goes to highlight the cultural divide that lays between Islam, and the rest of the world.

The parenthisised qualifications you used to try and make the Islamic practice of wife beating seem less barbaric and backward than it is does not really bear any resemblance to the realities of what actually occurs.
I hardly think an enraged husband, who thinks of his wife as his inferior, and his possession, is going to ask her to pass the feather while he gives her a sound thrashing with it.
What you are offering up is in fact merely apologetic, and inaccurate justification of something which, either you know in your heart to be wrong, or you know to be so abhorrent to the general population that you seek to disguise your true beliefs.

Still, like sprint I gratefully acknowledge your willingness to put forward your point in an open forum where you obviously expect to draw criticisms, thank you.

Mozz, are you suggestiong we should have some kind of law governing who can preach?

You missed my point, re: who's in charge, I was pointing out that nobody is.

Who is in charge of Christianity?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 10:17pm:


About as idiotic an answer as you can get. And you want Muslims to  take you seriously and debate?

Misguided attempts at tolerance and political correctness do not overly impress me FD and Helian.
If you are saying we should try and respect individuals, and their beliefs, I would agree, up to the point where their desired freedoms encroach on mine.
I have never disguised my disgust and revulsion for all religious belief systems. I do not like them, simple.
I do not care if others like them, except where that impinges on my rights.
Like teaching Religion in state schools, that sucks, as the kids of atheists like myself, who would never allow their kids to be exposed to the propaganda of christian absurdity from the age of 4 years old.

The result, the kids who do not go to religious classes are made to feel ostracised,  with talk of going to hell, etc.
So many who are agnostic, or ambivalent are happier to just go with the flow, and let their kids be taught this rubbish.

Now to your silly, and erroneous point that christianity does not have a strict hierarchy.
Catholicism, the biggest and oldest? I don't need to expand, you know, but in your pathetic attempt to appear even handed you choose to ignore it.
C of E? Similiar hierarchy to the catholics, but with the Archbishop of Canterbury as the big poobah.

Now your wacky evangelical lot, well personally I rate them as loony as the muslims, except their aim is to strip the money from the pockets of their deluded followers.
So, mainstream christianity has a strong and visible hierarchy, what equivalent to that is their in Islam?
None,so quit you bulltish, I am not attacking muslims, but I will not be coerced into pretending Islam is anything but an outdated medieval system of control, which is creating huge negative impact in our modern world.
They need an upgrade.
You remember the Vatican councils? They dragged the church kicking and screaming into a semblance of modernity, who is going to do that for Islam?

mozzaok wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 7:58pm:

Mozzaok,

Thank you for your reply. I understand that you may not have seen these before. But as mentioned, the law applies equally to both men and women.

The death penalty applied to adultery is NOT for two people falling in love as you say and it really is quite ignorant to portray it like that. It is for not only breaking the sanctity of marriage of which there could be no worse crime, but also for having the audacity of outwardly doing it in public where at least four witnesses could witness it. It is for arrogantly spreading fitnah (tribulation) to the extent of selfishly imposing their perversion onto society instead of keeping their sins to themselves.

I must stress here that in Islam it is not forbidden to get a divorce if you are not happy in your marriage at all, but such a huge betrayal like cheating on the person you are married to is perhaps the worst crime one can commit, breaking a person's heart like that and destroying ones family is considered so serious that not only does it carry the death penalty if proven with the testimony of 4 witnesses, but it carries a punishment of death by stoning because of the harm it does to their spouse, family and society in general. In Islam we consider the family unit as perhaps the most important thing worth protecting and hold family values as incredibly important.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 7:58pm:


You see that is the problem, you actually fail to understand the intention and context behind such a 'beating' and instead look to the examples that you see from your experiences. Although it is hard to blame you for that I must stress that in Islam it is certainly forbidden to beat women in a way that you are trying to portray.

In Islam, we believe that one should not act on emotion and when they are enraged as you have mentioned, in fact the prophet Muhammad pbuh said that if you are angry and standing, sit down and contemplate, if you are sitting and still angry, lie down and sleep so you can clear your mind. This is profoundly important in Islam as we are taught that to act on our emotions is a sign of weakness and that patience and clear thinking is the key to success in this life and the next.

I must also remind you that in Islam we do not hold women as inferior to men, in fact many examples can be seen where we hold women to be far more important to men. One such example can be seen when a man approached the prophet Muhammad pbuh and asked the prophet who, after God and His messenger, who he should listen to and obey the most and the prophet pbuh replied "Your mother" then man then asked again, who after his mother and the prophet pbuh replied "Your mother again" and the man asked a third time, who should he then listen to and the prophet again replied "Your mother again". The man then asked, after that who he should listen to and obey and the prophet pbuh then replied, "after that then you can listen to and obey your father".

In addition to that the prophet Muhammad pbuh is also known to have said "Paradise lies at the foot of one's mother" and to bring the point home to you further he also stated that the best of men is those who are the best to their wives and treat them with love and kindness and he exclaimed that your spouse is the second half of your faith in God.

I am not apologizing for or watering down my religion to make it seem more acceptable to you, I have the utmost faith in Islam and chose it willingly at an age where I could reason. I do not fear being completely honest and believe that I have indeed been honest to you and have not provided you with any inaccurate pieces of information.

In addition to that I must also stress that out of all of who convert to Islam in the USA every year, about 80% of those are women. They are not forced to convert and do so out of their own free will, if Islam was as bad as you portray, women would be below 50% of the converts, not at 80%.

I must also remind you that statistically one out of every 5 women in Australia suffers domestic violence, so perhaps people in glass houses should not throw stones?

mozzaok wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 1:02am:


As far as you know? Obviously you don't know anything really then don't you mate?

As I have already mentioned, Islam was a movement which brought rights to women who had a status of basically being objects and slaves. Islam WAS and still is the perfect form of women's liberation.

In Pre Islamic Arabia Female infanticide was prominent and fathers would bury their daughters alive in fear that if they should grow up, they perhaps may be captured in an inter tribal war and "disgrace" the tribe.

Women could not inherit wealth, vote, divorce, choose their husbands, they had no right to education, no right to be free from molestation from men on the street, no right to have a political voice etc, to be treated like equals with dignity and respect. A dowry was paid to the brides father which in a sense was payment for the bride.

Islam changed all of that, female infanticide was forbidden, women gained the right to inherit wealth, the right to vote, to divorce, to choose their husbands, the prophet Muhammad pbuh encouraged women to be educated, even if it meant that men could not be educated as preference was given to women. Women were to be treated with dignity and respect with no molestation from men, they were given equal rights and also gained a political voice. They were granted the inalienable right to be protected, provided for and loved. The dowry was then also given to the women, and not their fathers for the women to keep as a gift, not a payment to her father.

In Islam we even go as far as to say, that even if a woman has a job which pays 10 times more than her husbands does, the husband still cannot ask for or touch her wealth but instead has to provide a living for her and sustain her and her wealth is her own and she is granted the right to spend her money as she pleases. Compare that with the Christian West where up until recently, all of a woman's wealth was transferred to her husband's ownership when they got married.

Islam was the women's rights movement to come to the Arabs and women were given rights of which some were not equalled by the Christian West until the 20th century.

Women in the Christian West did not start getting educated until the 19th century and certainly not given the preference for education like in the Muslim world even until now, now it is only an equal right to have an education. Women were not given the right to vote until the 20th century, women had to pay a dowry to their husbands. There certainly was NO law against beating one's wife in the Christian West until the 20th century either, it was not looked down upon and it was a man's own business if he severely battered his wife and not anyone else could tell him how to run his household.

Beating one's wife like that was forbidden more than 1400 years ago for Muslims yet still was not criminalized in the Christian West up until only within the last 100 years. I will also add that it still continues today with statistics in the Christian West showing that in the Christian West, an average of about 22% of women go through domestic violence.

So please don't come and tell me about the status of women in Islam as being bad when history can attest that in reality, the Christian West is the one that has been incredibly barbaric and primitive in it's reluctance to give women equal rights and treat them with fairness, dignity and respect. You have taken far longer (up to 1300 years in fact) to evolve to a level that is anywhere near your Muslim counterparts in regards to women's rights being granted.

This explains clearly why 4 out of 5 of every person who converts to Islam in the US is a woman.

The result, the kids who do not go to religious classes are made to feel ostracised,  with talk of going to hell, etc.

That does not infringe on your rights.

Now to your silly, and erroneous point that christianity does not have a strict hierarchy.

It doesn't have any heirachy at all. Just like Islam.

Catholicism, the biggest and oldest?

So what? Catholicism is not Christianity.

C of E? Similiar hierarchy to the catholics, but with the Archbishop of Canterbury as the big poobah.

Every religious group has a leader if you break it down into small enough factions. The position of pope and of Archbishop of Canterbury have no biblical mandate. People are just as free under Christianity as they are under Islam to set up their own little group and preach whatever they want. There is no rigorous method to denouce such factions, just as there aren't in Islam. The pope has been denouncing the church of england for centuries. It achieved nothing, exactly because he has no biblical mandate to support such a denouncment. People could make the exact same argument about Christianity and point to the leaders of the factions of Islam, and pretend, through ignorance that the Catholic church, COE, Russian orthodox etc do not exist. That is what you are doing to Islam.

So, mainstream christianity has a strong and visible hierarchy

No it doesn't. It has a fractured leadership, as you just pointed out. Try counting the number of Christian groups that don't belong to the Catholic church or the COE, then get back to us.

Feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my sheep? I don't see anything in there about the pope. I don't see anything about selecting a single person to rule the church. Maybe Peter could claim a special connection, but that's about it.

In fact, in terms of having a leader, Islam does a far better job than Christianity, in that Mohammed had a political eladership role. This is ahrdly a good thing. It is naive to expect a spiritual elader to achieve the change you want. They are just as likely to do the opposite.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 12:04pm:


You are forgetting that Peter (as Simon was renamed) is Petrus (Latin for Rock) so it is most definitely Simon (henceforth known as the Rock) to whom Jesus is referring.

In verse 19 (And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.) Jesus goes further and gives 'The Rock' power to bind and loose on earth and declares that Peter's decrees will be honoured in Heaven.

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 12:28pm:


Nothing. The Archbishop of Canterbury was once the Catholic Primate of England. His Primacy in the UK is not recognised by the Catholic Church.

Also it is not universally accepted that Peter had primacy over the other apostles. The Orthodox Churches have always disputed the claim that the bishop of Rome has a primal role, even if they accept that he was first among equals. That is one of the great disputes that prevents the Schism of Orthodoxy from Catholicism from being resolved.

Hi Helian, yes I was aware peter meant rock.

Thanks for repeating the rest of that verse, I should have included it. It is significant. very interesting.
A few verses later on he also says
"Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

hey, what has this got to do with islam ?????
Who cares.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 1:10pm:


So you would agree that Christian text appears to contradict itself?

Is there anything in the Bible about direct spiritual descendants? Is that like reincarnation? Why is the fact that Peter set up his mission in Rome relevant? Surely you don't have to move to the same town to be his reincarnation? It sounds more like empty symbolism to me.

How come Peter can have self proclaimed reincarnations, but Mohammed cannot?

Can you point out the relevant biblical texts?

Also, I don't get why you think Islam can't have equivalent leaders, given the references to the caliphate etc.

Sorry, that was mozz.

Anyway, can you point out the biblical references that legitimise the position of pope?

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 2:33pm:


I already have (see further back). The Pope is the direct spiritual descendant of Peter, that is the Catholic claim for the primacy of the Pope.

You said the Pope was the direct spiritual descendant of Peter. You did not provide anything to indicate that this is a legitimate or meaningful claim to make. What if some bloke came along saying he was te direct spiritual descendant of Jesus? How would you distinguish the two claims?

In those Bible quotes, Jesus was referring to Peter, not Peter and all of his direct spiritual descendants as proclaimed by whoever puts themselves in charge of the laying on of the hands.

Who was that bishop? Where in the Bible does it say that Peter bound a never ending line of direct spiritual descendants who would have his authority?

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 3:25pm:


Pope St. Linus (67AD-76AD)

When Peter declared his spiritual descendent he had the authority to pass on primacy. There were no exceptions to his authority - that which he bound or loosed on Earth was bound or loosed in Heaven.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 3:28pm:


The New Testament is considered by Christians to be the word of God, so if it contradicts itself, then God contradicts himself.

Descent from Abraham in Matthew is given through Joseph.

What other documents survive from that time? Is this something to do with the 'holy document of vatican law' and the giant spider?

As for FD saying that not being able to send my child to public school, and not have to choose between religious indoctrination, or ostracisation, does not impinge on my rights

That's not what I said.

As far as who put the pope in charge?, Who cares.
The point was they have a strict hierarchy, as do all other christian religions

Ah, but they don't. There are plenty of small unaffiliated Christian groups.

Judaism is even worse. They only ten ten or twelve men to set up a new congregation, with no heirachy at all, just tradition.

I believe many 'eastern' religions have little heirachy.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 10:52am:


Let's take a look again at what you posted.

"Tabari IX:113 "Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an."

Men take authority over women... As for those who are disobedient, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. 4:34

The first one is actually not in the Qur'an, it is allegedly from the Series of History books written by Tabari. I have not read this book but would be surprised if that is actually what he said. From my understanding the quote is from the Farewell Sermon of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. I have seen the farewell sermon many times and have not seen this quote in there. So I'm a bit skeptical about that quote, especially the part about comparing women to domestic animals. I think I'll wait for more evidence on that one mate.

The next one you posted was indeed a Qur'anic verse, although not complete. I did indeed provide you with a proper interpretation of the verse and in addition to that I explained it properly. I must remind you that the Qur'an was not revealed in the English and that what you are reading is simply a translation of it. A translation from Arabic to English is going to lose some of it's meaning, in addition to that it is important to search for context, something which  you have failed to do, even though I have tried to make it clear for you about the application of this verse but obviously you'd rather read it and believe what you WANT to believe of Islam and not what Islam really is. Perhaps this is why Muslims don't like talking to you about these issues.

Also you stated that women are considered to be worth half of a man, I actually didn't see the verse your referring to, can you please paste it again?

Sprint that quote makes no sense at all. Did you try to translate it yourself?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 10:20pm:


Ahmadinejad is not a cleric and is not 'in charge' of Islam, but I suspect you already know that. Got any quotes from the 'Christian' Pat Robertson?

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 4:53pm:


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

That's not what you said, FD?

"The result, the kids who do not go to religious classes are made to feel ostracised,  with talk of going to hell, etc." (by me)

"That does not infringe on your rights."(by you)

I guess one of us is losing more than his patience.

Catholicism - 1.2 billion
Protestantism - 692 million
Eastern Orthodoxy - 260 million
Oriental Orthodoxy - 79 million
Anglicanism - 77 million
Nontrinitarianism - 31 million
Nestorianism - 1 million

I think anyone with basic maths skills can see from these numbers that the vast majority of christians do belong to groups who maintain a strict hierarchy.

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

Back on topic!

Now with the Bali bombers, we had a local guy(Bashir)who preached killing non-muslims as their duty.
He was in charge, and we saw the results.
If their was some sort of hierarchy where someone could say, "hey we have this wacko out in the boondocks inciting youths to murder in the name of Allah, let's send someone in to replace him, before something bad happens"

That is my issue, susceptible people are open to manipulation by extremists, with no system to address their right to be preaching their hate under the broad umbrella of Islam.
It is out of control.

Really Helian.
To ignore the numbers is the issue.
The vast, vast, overwhelmingly vast, majority of christians, do belong to churches with strict hierarchies.

The groups I listed had numerous sub-groups, look here if you want to see who belongs where, and if any significant christian group was left out.
I doubt it.

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

mozzaok wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 9:37am:


Every group has leadership, that's true, as it is with Islam. But they do not speak with one voice. They often disagree with one another (in some cases vehemently).

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 11:08am:


How are those Pat Robertson quotes going?

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 4:53pm:


Every Christian denomination has created its own legalistic framework using scripture to justify its politics or structure. What would be the point of having faith in the truth of a metaphysical text if you cannot apply it to a socio-political constitution?

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 1:42pm:


I think there's enough that can be sourced on the history of Linus and his (possible) mention in Paul's second letter to Timothy.

malik - fyi

The old test is for jews.
The new test is for christians.
There is no christian country.
There are capitalist democracys, apart from in any islamic country.


Jesus did not abolish the law, he fulfilled it.
Christian are no longer held by it, as it is repaid. It is fulfilled.
There was a debt, it is repaid.
Look at what Jesus did with women , his actions with them are the most touching in the Bible, imho.


I'm surprised you would say something Jesus said was "primitive and sexist", given your earlier comments of support and that weird word - "pbuh" after saying mohammad or jesus.



Again, thank you for coming here.  I hope you continue here.
I do appreciate your input and fully support your right of speech.
Which would not happen to a jew/christian in an islamic country.

how insulting, fancy saying pbuh instead of peace be upon him !!!!!!!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 8:46pm:


Insult them, then thank them for coming here... You're acting like a screwball. Yes, FD pbuh does mean 'peace be upon him' and it is a sign of respect Sprint... Respect for different faiths is the way towards reconciliation not half-pissed rants against another faith's holy book.

Jews, Christians and Muslims have lived peacefully for centuries in many parts of the world including the Middle East.

Here's what we should be working towards

Quote:


The full article http://www.eni.ch/articles/display.shtml?05-0596

helian - where was my insult ?

is it an insult to question the koran?
it is ok to question the bible and laugh at me.

An ambassador of christianity !! thanks guys.
I hope I show that christians are flawed and err.
That'ld be perfect.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 8:46pm:

The Vatican is a Christian country guided by Christian laws. There is no proper Islamic State at the moment.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 8:46pm:

Jesus pbuh had never changed the laws of Moses. Thus the law that states that daughters get no share of the inheritance unless there are no sons. That IS Christian law, unless of course you can show me a Christian law stating otherwise?

Do not forget that you believe that Jesus pbuh is God gbtH, God TOLD Moses pbuh that daughters don't get an inheritance from her father unless there is no sons in the family, Thus you are saying that at one stage God was sexist. But then God changed His mind and somehow according to you and changed the laws  (which would be fine, because God gbtH can change whichever laws He wants with times. But you see that doesn't make sense in this particular case considering that the verse I pasted showed that Jesus pbuh said he WASN'T there to change the laws of Moses pbuh. I don't believe that he would have lied about that.)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 8:46pm:

I'm not stating that Jesus pbuh was primitive or sexist at all. I believe there are reasons for such laws, and in fact It proves that Islam is the finality and perfection of God's message for us. I gave you a complete explanation as to why a daughter receives half of the inheritance that a man does. Let's go over it again.

According to Islam, it is my responsibility as a man to provide the financial source to my wife, kids, parents (when they get old), and my sisters (if they become widows).  And if I refuse to support my widow sister for instance, then if she decides to take me to court and sue me, and prove that I make enough money to be able to support my wife, kids and my widow sister, then the court will force me to pay her money every month to support her.   This law in Islam is called the law of "Nafaqa".

The woman according to islam does not have to provide a single dollar, nor her husband has the right to ask her or force her to use her money to support her husband and kids.  In fact, just to show you how fair and respectful Islam is to women, a woman even has the right to ask her husband for money for breast feeding her their child.  

Furthermore, according to the Islamic laws, the husband does not have the right to force his wife to work if she doesn't want to.  It is the man's primary responsibility to support his family financially, and not the woman.  Also, in Islam, the wife has all the right to ask her husband to pay for her education if she wishes to go to school.  Women in Islam have the right to be educated, and it is their parents' responsibilities (if the women are single), or their husband's responsibility to pay for their education.

It is you who believes that such a law is sexist.. I simply used your own prejudiced logic and reasoning abilities to show you that if we apply the same standards of testing to the Bible it shows that the Bible is far more sexist than the Qur'an. Thus the fact is that it is YOU who is saying the Bible and Jesus pbuh are sexist.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 8:46pm:


LOL there are no Islamic State's at the moment so you don't know what would happen. Historically it's been proven that Jews and Christians under a proper Islamic State get far better treatment than those Muslims and Jews in Christian

malik - i've alreay answered your queries.

answer me, who wrote the  koran?
Who put pencil to papyrus for it ?
it was not mohammad, he was illiterate.
did it just materalise out of the air ??

Who penned it ??

If you don't know that, ..............

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 11:45pm:


You're a hate filled ranter Sprint. Have the balls to call it.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 11:55pm:


Sprint, no doubt you could discuss Islam with thousands of Muslims if you were genuine about what you're trying to achieve. But you're not and, Muslim or not, we can see it for what it is. Hectoring a Muslim with Who wrote the Koran... c'mon, c'mon who wrote the Koran is an indication that you might be slightly unhinged. When you discuss matters of faith you must respect that you are discussing faith - there can be little or no criteria for falsification, you take it on faith or you walk away. No Muslim here yet has monstered you about proving the divinity of Jesus yet you demand of them proofs about matters of faith or badger them to explain Koranic verse which you then reject.

Let's see you prove your 'Christian love' by showing respect... and a bit of honesty about what you're really trying to do.

What did you think of the article I posted here above?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 12:15am:

http://www.eni.ch/articles/display.shtml?05-0596

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 12:27am:


Isn't being Christian also about holding out against the temptation to hate? Isn't true compassion about learning to love those you could more easily despise?

No one likes being bashed over the head with feverishly read and only partly understood verses from their holy books. I would not expect a Muslim to whizz through the bible underlining the crappy bits, then looking for Christian victims on which to pour their scorn and if he did I would expect him to be dismissed as a nutter. I bet if you went looking for moderate Muslims to honestly discuss their faith, they would be more than happy to show you that Islam is not about bombs and death but a code for living a decent life as is Christianity.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 12:27am:

No doubt hardship brings us closer to God, and having modesty and humility brings us very close to God.

If only we remembered those lessons when life got better instead of changing for the worst eh?

malik - has God ever spoken to you?

Malik - that's great.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 12:54am:


I've spoken to Christians (fundamentalists / Evangelists / Pentecostals) who seem quite ordinary until they discuss their Christian beliefs. It's then you realise the depth of their contempt for all those who aren't 'right with God' and the rigidity with which they interpret Christian text. Don't talk to them about the NT contradictions they all have their own justifications for them which are about as inane as the contradiction itself.  However, as I don't practice any religion, I've avoided religious debate with the 'fundys' where I can and found that works fine.  The 'Christians' go back to being ordinary and life goes on. I have never discussed Islam other than the basics with Muslims and don't intend to.

You can't debate people's faith away... It's faith. It's what you believe without the need for proof despite the contradictions et al.

Is anyone moderate about what they feel passionate about? The question is how to constrain that immoderation against a drift towards dogmatism and violence.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 1:16pm:


I mostly avoid seriously debating matters of faith because faith is not up for serious debate. There is little or no criteria for falsification. I cannot prove to a Christian that Jesus is not divine to his/her satisfaction because he/she will not give me any criteria by which he/she will accept that Jesus is not divine. A Christian simply believes that it is so and that is that. The same is true of Islam. The Prophet received the Koran from God via the angel Gabriel (so I'm told) and that is that. You either believe it or you don't.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 2:48pm:


Is there an argument for beauty in non divinity?

Sure helian, you can make it up as you go along. Tell us all how atheism has made your life complete.

I just did. Feel free to correct me if you want. Or just take it as an example and ignore the personal aspect.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 6:01pm:


OK. You are corrected. What should I take as an example?

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 6:24pm:


The old man lay down

Though he knew the dark
in the sun

at the zenith

of a day,

Yet he remembered well what Dylan taught

       Do not go gentle into that good night,
       Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
       Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

       Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
       Because their words had forked no lightning they
       Do not go gentle into that good night.

       Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
       Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
       Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

       Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
       And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
       Do not go gentle into that good night.

       Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
       Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
       Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

       And you, my father, there on the sad height,
       Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
       Do not go gentle into that good night.
       Rage, rage against the dying of the light.