Quote:


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

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

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

Quote:


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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Character limit..

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






Quote:


Wrong, i would suggest.

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

Laws are about politics, power.

Laws are not necessarily about justice, or morals.

ISLAM is a system of laws.

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





Quote:


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

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





As i have asserted previously....

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

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

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



++++++++



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

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

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

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

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

Good luck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

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





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

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







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


Soren,

I believe you are correct.

I see the purpose of Christianity in the same way.


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

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

soren,

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


Heeded the warning and ordained gay Rabbis?  

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

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

freediver,

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


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

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

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

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

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?

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

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

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

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

When is the Koran being revealed?

It also seems to directly contradict your other claim:

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

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


hmmm! that could also be true

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

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


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

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

Quote:


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

As it says to ask.

Quote:


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

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


lol- ahh dude, pointless!

why would my phd be pointless?

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


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

I was referring to discussing things with you

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


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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

Quote:

Source

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







abu,

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

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


Quote:


Yes.

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

And the seeker must accept the explanation given.

There is no dialogue.

There is no questioning.

There is no reasoning together.


You must understand....

All devout muslims believe that.....

ISLAM is perfect.

ISLAM requires no reform.




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

Quote:


That is the instruction, obey the clerics.

Believe what THEY tell, and command.

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


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

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


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

PERIOD.




++++++++++



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

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


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

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


Shurly shome mishtake.

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

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

freediver,

Quote:


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

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

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

Quote:


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

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

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

Quote:


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

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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

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

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

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


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



Quote:


Quote:


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

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

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


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

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

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

Quote:


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

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

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

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

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

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




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