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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Christianity is the blood, the sacrifice, and the atonement of a man's sins.

The ISLAMIC jesus spilt no blood.
The ISLAMIC jesus made no sacrifice.
The ISLAMIC jesus made no atonement for sin.

ISLAM and Christianity are as far apart,
.....as liberty and bondage.





Quote:



Typical.

You are a good muslim abu.

You have learnt your bondage well.



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

ISLAM / muslims always do this.





THE GREAT ISLAMIC 'TRUTH'.

What is within ISLAM is good.

What is external to ISLAM is bad.

ISLAM, good.
Everyone else, bad.



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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


WITHIN ISLAMIC 'TRUTH'.....

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


++++++


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

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

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

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

This is self deception.


++++


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

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

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

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



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

ISLAM is a war faring philosophy.

But peace as a concept, is desirable, virtuous.

So, peace must become part of ISLAM.

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

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

See,
.....ISLAM is peace.

My sentiments entirely.

soren,

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

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

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

Quote:


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

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

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

freediver,

Quote:


I shall begin another thread about it.

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


Could you elaborate on this please?