[quote]Makavali wrote:
dyskee wrote:
thnx but once again please don’t take wikepeadia a source of your information.
Why? For the most part, it’s accurate and impartial.
Also, have a read of the signs these ‘peaceful’ protester are holding.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/Protesters2006.jpg[/quote]
misguidance??
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I have a question.
What is the mainstream Sunni understanding of Surahs 9:5 and 9:29? [/quote]
give me time to search and ask and i will answer you by thursday at the most inshalla “if god wills”
So just for clarification, Muslims think that Jesus was a prophet no more, no less; And Muslims think that the Bible is corrupted by men so therefore the Koran was sent to be the guiding rule; So do muslims believe that part of the corruption of the Bible was Jesus being the Son of God?
[quote]dyskee wrote:
Makavali wrote:
dyskee wrote:
thnx but once again please don’t take wikepeadia a source of your information.
Why? For the most part, it’s accurate and impartial.
Also, have a read of the signs these ‘peaceful’ protester are holding.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/Protesters2006.jpg
misguidance??[/quote]
I’d like to agree, but it seems like a lot of Muslims are ‘misguided’. Where do they get their justification for violence?
None other than the Qura’n. Which in itself is full of contradictions and error.
I submit to you that the Qura’n that is read today is corrupted and diseased by man. We all know that it was passed down by word of mouth for a long time before being written.
None of the written Qura’n copies may have ever been right. I could say the same for the Bible, the Vedas etc.
Nothing man-made could ever be the original word of God.
[quote]dyskee wrote:
2)no no no no , i wanted questions that show what islam is. because i believe that it is perfect and that does it fine for me.[/quote]
I don’t doubt that it works for you. Not for a second. But I do think I have the right to question whether or not it is perfect. Your claim of perfection seems to be based on blind faith, which to me is a bit weak. If someone starts putting holes in my religion, I question the religion first.
Man was meant to think for himself.
[quote]3)A)the reason behind the prohibtion of pork is because allah prohibted it. there are no other reasons in the quran or ahadith that say why other than god’s command.
but we do believe that allah is the wise whose orders and prohibitions are not meaningless, but rather contain rationale and wisdom.
Therefore, you can rest assured that, in the final analysis, the harms of eating pork outweigh its benefits, even if we have not yet learned or discovered the details of this.[/quote]
Sounds like blind faith.
Seems like that would be a biased source…
[quote](The more important and definitely proven hazards connected with the consumption of pork are the two parasitic zoonoses, trichinellosis and systemic cysticercosis. Both these infections can be life threatening and their prevention requires difficult measures including change of food habits.
Of the non-communicable diseases attributable to pork consumption (food) allergy and liver cirrhosis have been shown to occur, though more work is needed to prove its aetiological role in cirrhosis.
Consumption of pork and lard can give rise to hyperlipidaemia, constituting a risk factor in cardiovascular diseases. Furthermore, high pork and lard consumption in a low fiber diet would have a correlation with high incidence of cancer of the colon. However, these risk factors are shared by pork with other meats and foods of animal origin.[/quote]
Um… high consumption of any food can screw you up. And low fiber is bad for you whether or not you eat pork.
[quote]Of the additives used in curing pork for preparation of ham, bacon, sausages, etc. nitrites could be a hazard as they are converted to nitrosamines which have been shown to be carcinogenic in animals. The exact risk for man is not known and nitrites are present in many other foods including vegetables and sometimes in drinking water.
Pig breeding establishments can be sources of transmission of zoonoses to people exposed to living animals; these include leptospirosis (swineherds disease), brucellosis, erysipeloid and anthrax. Pigs may also increase chances of spread of balantidial dysentery and Japanese encephalitis. However, other meat animals can also act as sources of some of these zoonoses and of others which may be equally (or more) dangerous.
Pigs can cause strong psychological reactions (e.g. disgust) especially when scavenging on rubbish heaps or wallowing in mud mixed with their own excreta.)[/quote]
Umm… pigs are actually pretty clean animals. Cleaner than some humans I dare say. And a lot of these diseases are eliminated with proper cooking. I could say that chicken is bad when eaten raw, couldn’t I?
Honor killings, anyone?
You’re right, we aren’t equal. But to claim a woman can’t do this or that because she lacks a penis is a little weird. But that’s because I have a performance based set of criteria for most things in my life.
[quote]here from the quran: bism illah alrahman alrahim (and when she gave birth to her she said ’ lord i have given birth to her, a female’. and god knew very well what she had given birth to; the male is not as the female. and i have named her maryand commend her to thee with her seed to protect them from the accursed satan. her lord recieved the child with gracious favour.)(3:35-37)
but on the other hand that doesn’t mean that god denied the women of any rights but they have their own rights.
here from the quran:
bism ilah alrahman alrahim
(To men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn: But ask God of His bounty. For God hath full knowledge of all things) (4:31-32)
C)what i meant by recently was before islam not recently as in the past week. before islam women were objectified as sex and entertainment objects no more no less, after islam they were looked upon as human beings who have rights.[/quote]
I beg to differ. They were objectified only in some civilizations. In others, they were honored, and rightly so (childbirth).
Yes, adultery is a sin. Fornication? Not so much. That is consenting ‘relations’ if you will. Did God actually explicitly state “NO GAYS!” or is that just how it is interpreted.
[quote]Many homosexuals claim that the homosexuality is permitted because people are “born that way”.
This is not acknowledged in Islam. as i said before every one born has the right to choose what to do wether sins or good deeds.[/quote]
I think they were born that way. If it’s socially conditioned behavior, then where did it originate?
[quote]also, each individual has a different set of temptations that seem to trouble him most. sadly, people tend to excuse themselves in the things that are MOST difficult for them to avoid for the sake of God.
regarding the above argument, EVERY person decides whether or not to engage in the homosexual act or not, and for that reason, every time they fall prey to their own desires or Satanic inclinations, they are accountable.
Some may argue that certain people get attracted to the same sex more often than others, but this is not disputed.
all of the people get all sorts of desires, inclinations, fetishes, and addictions: these range wide on the scale of humanity. The point is that EACH PERSON is tested in the thing they love most, to see whether they will refrain from it for the sake of God.[/quote]
Love or desire? Big difference there.
[quote]Secondly, sexual desire is a matter of environment. When people honestly want to remove a sexual desire, they have to be serious with themselves and know that certain environments create this desire moreso than others.
Some people indulge in sexual literature, movies, pictures, discussions, or people and places that share their views. This FURTHER increases the temptation instead of combating it.[/quote]
So sweep it under the rug? Yeah, that’s worked brilliantly in the past.
[quote]god recommended fasting if u can’t keep ur lust in check.
The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: God curses the one who does the actions (homosexual practices) of the people of Lot repeating it three times;[/quote]
He said God curses those who did as the people of Lot did. Does he actually say homosexual practices, or is that yet another interpretation?
Ha ha! That is hilarious. But that’s just my sick sense of humor.
[quote]bism illha alrahman alrahim
(what do you come to male beings, leaving your wives that your lord created for you? nay, but you are a people of transgressors. they said’ if thou givest not over, lot, ththou shalt assuredly be one of the expelled’, he said’ truly iam a detester of what you do’.�? my lord deliver me and my people from that they do. so we delivered him and his people all together, except an old woman (his wife) lingered behind. Then, the rest We destroyed utterly.(26: 164-172).
E)they are drawn away from it because they are drawn away from their faith.[/quote]
How can they be drawn away from a perfect faith?
It’s been a long day at work!
[quote]Makavali wrote:
dyskee wrote:
2)no no no no , i wanted questions that show what islam is. because i believe that it is perfect and that does it fine for me.
I don’t doubt that it works for you. Not for a second. But I do think I have the right to question whether or not it is perfect. Your claim of perfection seems to be based on blind faith, which to me is a bit weak. If someone starts putting holes in my religion, I question the religion first.
Man was meant to think for himself.[/quote]
Absolutely.
But can I ask you, for the sake of thoroughness, to refrain from flooding the board with questions. Pick one which you think is the most important and we can then discuss it in depth. Otherwise, we won’t even be able to scratch the surface. Volumes have been written about Islam, Quranic interpretations and the Hadith. So, don’t expect me (or anyone else) to tackle more than one issue at a time. Once we reach a consensus (or an impasse), we can then move on to the next issue in order of priority as defined by you.
You can’t possibly mean that!
Yes. But pork was traditionally way more likely to kill you than chicken. Remember that they didn’t have fancy ovens back in the days.
According to the latest theory, Mozart was actually killed by eating a pork chop. Just thought I’ll throw in a bit of trivia.
Do not confuse a patriarchal culture that outlived Islam, with the religion itself. Honor killings are, sadly, not the exclusive domain of Muslims. They are quite common in Druze communities and other Arab Christian tribes. And since you are a Hindu, I should probably point out that it’s also practiced by Hindus and Sikhs.
But you knew that, didn’t you?
It’s not about the penis. Our brains are wired differently, our hormonal systems are not the same and we respond differently to stimuli in certain circumstances.
Not that I think women can’t do much that a man can (or vice-versa), but I’ll be interested in seeing where you fished that in the Quran.
I think Gaia, Tellus Mater and every last one of their analogs are still objectifications.
It is accurate to say that, in the last couple thousands of years, women have generally been under the boot of men. Only with the advent of technology and the pill, are they finally trying to break free. Civilizations where women are honored are quite the exception.
Case in point: There was a widespread practice in pre-Islamic Arabia that got baby girls buried alive (still a common practice in India, China, etc.); Islam put an end to that. So let’s give credit where it’s due.
No. But you can understand why the thought of having two men humping each other might make people uncomfortable. There’s this famous story of “the people of Lot” (Sodom) in the Quran that serves as a basis for the Saudis who delight in killing homosexuals. There are plenty of Muslim scholars who condemn the practice. So no, it is anything but explicit. However, in general, Muslims take issues with overt homosexual activity. But that’s nothing particular to the faith. Most people behave the same way. “Gay” is used as a derogatory term for a good reason!
[quoteI think they were born that way. If it’s socially conditioned behavior, then where did it originate? [/quote]
Generally, Muslims couldn’t care less about that whole debate. Besides the Wahabis, as long as you don’t flunk homosexuality in the face of everybody, you should be fine.
And I should point out that the Islamic empire produced heaps of homo-erotic poetry. In fact, to the extent that the branch was more prolific than the hetero-erotic writings.
You’d think that there’d be consensus if it were such a “big difference”.
And that’s coming from a romantic!
No. Keep it in check. Persecute it is out of the question, but all that “taking it in the bum and proud of it” is certainly not healthy for society as a whole.
You definitely need a sense of humor to tackle these issues and keep a cool head.
Again, you cannot possibly be writing this with a straight face!
The faith isn’t the subject here. It’s Man, otherwise known as a fallible being.
Exactly! So you can understand why I want to keep this debate on a point by point basis. It’ll give us a much better chance at delving deeper into the issues, as opposed to the superficial one-liner approach it always turns into. So please, take the time to figure out what you are curious about the most, and try to phrase the question specifically. Then, once we establish that we’ve covered every aspect of it, we can move on to the next one and so on.
Ok?
Lixy you are such a con-artist, “keep this thread on point” should never come out of your mouth.
Ok last time I flood, I promise. I’ just make some counter aguments here then we’ll find something to stick to!
[quote]lixy wrote:
Umm… pigs are actually pretty clean animals.
You can’t possibly mean that![/quote]
Can and do. Clean is whatever keeps the creature in a state that they can live. i.e. won’t keel over from disease.
[quote]Yes. But pork was traditionally way more likely to kill you than chicken. Remember that they didn’t have fancy ovens back in the days.
According to the latest theory, Mozart was actually killed by eating a pork chop. Just thought I’ll throw in a bit of trivia.[/quote]
Was bad. Not anymore. Why don’t you eat it? They have fancy ovens now, and yet I see Muslims take offense if I eat pork.
[quote]Honor killings, anyone?
Do not confuse a patriarchal culture that outlived Islam, with the religion itself. Honor killings are, sadly, not the exclusive domain of Muslims. They are quite common in Druze communities and other Arab Christian tribes. And since you are a Hindu, I should probably point out that it’s also practiced by Hindus and Sikhs.
But you knew that, didn’t you?[/quote]
I did. No religion is perfect. My issue with that is that some people claim (wrongly) that it is either part of their tradition or part of their religion.
[quote]It’s not about the penis. Our brains are wired differently, our hormonal systems are not the same and we respond differently to stimuli in certain circumstances.
Not that I think women can’t do much that a man can (or vice-versa), but I’ll be interested in seeing where you fished that in the Quran.[/quote]
Obviously I haven’t taken it from the Qura’n. But some people have and I want to know how they can twist the words of the Qura’n so easily.
[quote]I beg to differ. They were objectified only in some civilizations. In others, they were honored, and rightly so (childbirth).
I think Gaia, Tellus Mater and every last one of their analogs are still objectifications.[/quote]
How about Kali? I don’t see that as objectification.
Sickening, but that was a social thing (dowry). People who do that should be hung.
If it makes them uncomfortable, then ignore it perhaps?
Gay actually meant happy but yeah, it is derogatory now. But stems from fear of the unknown or different.
Flunk homosexuality? What do you mean? I don’t care for the raging fags either, but the quiet ones are OK.
[quote]Love or desire? Big difference there.
You’d think that there’d be consensus if it were such a “big difference”.
And that’s coming from a romantic![/quote]
I meant desire as in lust i.e. nothing but sexual attraction.
[quote]So sweep it under the rug? Yeah, that’s worked brilliantly in the past.
No. Keep it in check. Persecute it is out of the question, but all that “taking it in the bum and proud of it” is certainly not healthy for society as a whole.[/quote]
See above comment about raging queers. If someone is openly gay, then who cares? They can’t exactly ‘infect’ you. Anyone who goes on and on about it is just annoying but it ain’t nothing for them to be ashamed of.
[quote]How can they be drawn away from a perfect faith?
Again, you cannot possibly be writing this with a straight face![/quote]
Yes I can. No faith is perfect.
Agreed. Man is far from perfect.
[quote]It’s been a long day at work!
Exactly! So you can understand why I want to keep this debate on a point by point basis. It’ll give us a much better chance at delving deeper into the issues, as opposed to the superficial one-liner approach it always turns into. So please, take the time to figure out what you are curious about the most, and try to phrase the question specifically. Then, once we establish that we’ve covered every aspect of it, we can move on to the next one and so on.
Ok?[/quote]
Ok. That will be my last super-long post on this thread. Short and simple form here on out!
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
We are in Iraq because Bush is an idiot who had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussain, and he thought he could win the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people.
I’ll use the term criminal rather than idiot.
Also, need I remind you that 80% of Americans supported him “personal vendetta”?[/quote]
To call him a criminal is giving him to much credit. I think he actually believed what he was saying.
Keep in mind that all the info the American people were privy to showed Saddam to be a more immediate threat. As you can see when more correct information bacame available the sentiment changed.
As for me I was on the fence. I was not sure that was the right move even with the wrong information, now I am certain it was a huge mistake.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
So just for clarification, Muslims think that Jesus was a prophet no more, no less; And Muslims think that the Bible is corrupted by men so therefore the Koran was sent to be the guiding rule; So do muslims believe that part of the corruption of the Bible was Jesus being the Son of God? [/quote]
Which actually does not work. Jesus claimed to be the son of God, his entire ministry was based on that. You cannot claim that some of his teachings were ok, but that part is wrong. He either is the son of God or a charlatan, there is no in between. If he is not what he says he is, then everything he said and did is not worth the paper it is written on. The whole “prophet” compromise is a cop out, because if is not what he says he is, then nothing else about him or his life matters. His words and actions should be taken as intended or disregarded all together.
[quote]pat wrote:
dk44 wrote:
So just for clarification, Muslims think that Jesus was a prophet no more, no less; And Muslims think that the Bible is corrupted by men so therefore the Koran was sent to be the guiding rule; So do muslims believe that part of the corruption of the Bible was Jesus being the Son of God?
Which actually does not work. Jesus claimed to be the son of God, his entire ministry was based on that. You cannot claim that some of his teachings were ok, but that part is wrong. He either is the son of God or a charlatan, there is no in between. If he is not what he says he is, then everything he said and did is not worth the paper it is written on. The whole “prophet” compromise is a cop out, because if is not what he says he is, then nothing else about him or his life matters. His words and actions should be taken as intended or disregarded all together. [/quote]
Agreed, I was just making sure that I had the muslim view right.
I still don’t understand the whole “Bible is corrupt so God sent the Koran” theory.
I don’t think God would allow his word to become corrupt and cause confusion among believers.
If the Bible became corrupt, why should I believe that the Koran isn’t, cuz if it happened to the Bible then why couldn’t the same happen in the Koran.
IMO the God in the Bible clearly isn’t the same God thats in the Koran.
[quote]dyskee wrote:
my dear makavali :
2)no no no no , i wanted questions that show what islam is. because i believe that it is perfect and that does it fine for me.
3)A)the reason behind the prohibtion of pork is because allah prohibted it. there are no other reasons in the quran or ahadith that say why other than god’s command.
but we do believe that allah is the wise whose orders and prohibitions are not meaningless, but rather contain rationale and wisdom.
Therefore, you can rest assured that, in the final analysis, the harms of eating pork outweigh its benefits, even if we have not yet learned or discovered the details of this.
however scientific research has discovered some health hazards related to pork . The following summary is extracted from a scientific paper on the website of the Islamic Organization for Medical Sciences:
(The more important and definitely proven hazards connected with the consumption of pork are the two parasitic zoonoses, trichinellosis and systemic cysticercosis. Both these infections can be life threatening and their prevention requires difficult measures including change of food habits.
Of the non-communicable diseases attributable to pork consumption (food) allergy and liver cirrhosis have been shown to occur, though more work is needed to prove its aetiological role in cirrhosis.
[/quote]
I have eaten raw bacon and not a damn thing ever happened to me. Pork is A-OK, I have a couple of great pork recipes. You should try it, they are yum. Besides it’s great for building lean mass.
You have the same problem many have, in many religions, putting rules before the heart of the law. So what if homosexuality is a sin, is it up to humans to judge them or should we treat them like brothers and neighbors? I think it’s nasty, what they do, but I will treat them with the same respect as anybody else, I would just leave if they want to get down.
If islam was perfect, then no evil would arise from those who practice it. Alas, no religion, system or govenment has propagated more violence and strife on the world, than islam in it’s current state. That shit has to stop, now.
Good ol’ muslims are good ol’ human.
Lastly, do not be afraid to question what you believe. If you religion cannot stand up to scrutiny then it’s not worth wasting your time with.
Do muslims believe that non-muslims are going to hell because thay are not muslim?
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
We are in Iraq because Bush is an idiot who had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussain, and he thought he could win the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people.
I’ll use the term criminal rather than idiot.
Also, need I remind you that 80% of Americans supported him “personal vendetta”?[/quote]
And how many Muslims support the views of Al-Qaeda?
[quote]dk44 wrote:
So just for clarification, Muslims think that Jesus was a prophet no more, no less; And Muslims think that the Bible is corrupted by men so therefore the Koran was sent to be the guiding rule; So do muslims believe that part of the corruption of the Bible was Jesus being the Son of God? [/quote]
Actually, Jesus is a bit more than a prophet in Islam. His supernatural birth and sinless existence puts him in a very special category. The Quran talks about him being some sort of “holy spirit”.
And I don’t think Muslims are the only ones to claim that the Bible has suffered changes. Christianity has some time gaps that are hard to account for from a historian’s perspective, and that is what makes claims of a pristine Bible dubious. Not to mention the secrecy and absolute power of the Church, which could have relatively easily changed the original message (supposing the institution was aware of it in the first place) to suit some agenda.
There is absolutely no compromise in Islam about the unicity of God. It might just be the most recurring theme in the Quran and it particularly insists on the fact that God having a son would be an absurdity, as it would give Him human characteristics, a family, etc. And if God has a son, then it’s not a far-stretch to imagine that He was fathered, which is in contradiction with his eternal attributes.
The Quran defines Islam as a mere revival of the Abrahamic message.
[quote]pat wrote:
Which actually does not work. Jesus claimed to be the son of God, his entire ministry was based on that. You cannot claim that some of his teachings were ok, but that part is wrong. He either is the son of God or a charlatan, there is no in between. [/quote]
Judging from your logic, it’s no wonder we have trouble communicating.
I do not see the world in black and white.
Yeah. Because we all know Einstein’s refusal to embrace Bohr’s quantum mechanics theory invalidates his work on special relativity, electromagnetism, rheology, cosmology, optics, chemistry…
Gimme a break!
[quote]Makavali wrote:
dyskee wrote:
gkhan, i think that the taliban movement is lead by misguided people who feel that inorder to spread “ISLAM” they should do it by force , killing and inducing threats , not to take the blame off them but also i think that taliban was financed by major westren states to be an excuse for those westren states to do their campaign against terrorism and consequently invade us and take our oil , but once again this is my point of view.
I thought the Taliban were trained by the CIA to take care of Russia? Not as an excuse to invade.[/quote]
Seriously? The Taliban came after the CIA left Afghanistan.
Assuming that you believe everything else in either the Koran/Bible. Why is it so hard to believe that God could snap his fingers and make Mary pregnant? If you believe he created the world, then how much easier would it be to create a baby?
You gotta admit, the Koran kinda has a “fished from the Bible” feel to it. For instance, the whole Israel/Ishmael story. The Bible has one story, and then the Koran totally bites the story but changes the outcome. I don’ know if this is considered one of the “corruptions” but to me it seems like wool being pulled over my eyes.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
We are in Iraq because Bush is an idiot who had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussain, and he thought he could win the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people.
I’ll use the term criminal rather than idiot.
Also, need I remind you that 80% of Americans supported him “personal vendetta”?
And how many Muslims support the views of Al-Qaeda?[/quote]
80% of Americans supported Bush! Where did you find this?
[quote]dk44 wrote:
…and Bambie’s mother shouldn’t die, and bony people shouldn’t post in the Rate My Physique just to show their abs, and cannabis should be decriminalized…
What are you? 10?
Look around and see how much confusion exists among “believers”.
That’s a good question - just needs a question mark!
Technically, the exact same thing could indeed have happened to the Quran. But the histories of the two Holy Books are very different. The Quran went through a thorough process when compiled, but what makes it stand out, is the fact that it was open and public.
Arabia at the time of the prophet was laden with professional reciters. Poetry was the only notable art form, and the thriving field led to the emergence of a parallel market for good memorizers who can recite verses in exchange for money. Remember that most people did not know how to read or write at the time (not that it changed much!). So, here you have this prophet showing up with what is unarguably the most eloquent and artistic book ever written in Arabic and the accompanying message. The new converts were eager to learn it by heart to mesmerize their friends (it is reported that the Qurayshis accused the prophet of witchcraft upon hearing Quranic verses). So after Mohammed’s death, and as Islam spread further, the fear that some crook would sneakily alter the text to advance his/her interests struck the community. The book is then compiled in the form we know it today, in an open process whereby people who memorized bits of it would come forward and recite it. Cross-referencing was used to make sure everything that went in is legit’ and given the large population sample, it’s safe to say that there are good chances for it being essentially intact.
Also, the Quran is quite young in “monotheistic books scale”.
You don’t have to believe that it’s unadulterated, but you can at least acknowledge that there are varying degree of “corruption probabilities”, and that the Quran is less likely (however one would define that) to have been changed from its original version.
So…you believe in the existence of more than one god?
[quote]pat wrote:
Do muslims believe that non-muslims are going to hell because thay are not muslim?[/quote]
No.