Thanks Ozi.
And what is the general point of praying, to you? Like when you pray each day, 5 times, why do this and that many times? What is the purpose?
Full Version: Clearing Misconceptions About Islam.
WE call it Salat, its not like the type of praying your probably thinking of, when one puts their hands together and down on their knees and pray for something. Salat is worship, we worship allah five times aday, as is prescribed in the quran itself. Its the mean by which we get close to allah, its the best means for living a good life, attaining peace and combining the worship with praying for yourself and others etc. Its when we try and remember allah as a community, its communal worship, we are to remember allah everyminute of our lives and do our best to do everything for the sake of allah. The communal worship is when the whole global community of muslims perform salaat, and make concentric circles around the globe, all facing mecca.
QUOTE (A-Fighter @ Apr 14 2008, 04:14 AM) 
[font="Verdana"]Well, as nobody seems to have any questions that are important, I shall pick a question from one of my previous discussions with someone.
How classic! And typical. And so perfectly exemplary of the condescending arrogance of islam with which you heap insult upon the injuries of islam. You are a big reason we see islam as so cowardly. Cowardly.
The more you ignore the real questions... Rather the more you insult those taking the time and making the effort to get through to you with their concerns the more you re-inforce the misconceptions you create and validate.
"...A father kills his daughter because he tries to force the rules of his religion on her -- but this has nothing to do with his religion? What is this pathology among many Muslims and Western leftists to absolve Islam of what it fertilizes into earthly incarnation?..."
QUOTE (libertyworld @ Apr 14 2008, 05:06 PM)
How classic! And typical. And so perfectly exemplary of the condescending arrogance of islam with which you heap insult upon the injuries of islam. You are a big reason we see islam as so cowardly. Cowardly.
The more you ignore the real questions... Rather the more you insult those taking the time and making the effort to get through to you with their concerns the more you re-inforce the misconceptions you create and validate.
"...A father kills his daughter because he tries to force the rules of his religion on her -- but this has nothing to do with his religion? What is this pathology among many Muslims and Western leftists to absolve Islam of what it fertilizes into earthly incarnation?..."
The more you ignore the real questions... Rather the more you insult those taking the time and making the effort to get through to you with their concerns the more you re-inforce the misconceptions you create and validate.
"...A father kills his daughter because he tries to force the rules of his religion on her -- but this has nothing to do with his religion? What is this pathology among many Muslims and Western leftists to absolve Islam of what it fertilizes into earthly incarnation?..."
i answered your accusations, go read them and weep.
QUOTE
Email and cobination of open mike forum, what do you call them chat forums. i have had both, and i cant remember his email address. Ask yourself this, why is it you cannot find his email, even though you dont wanna debate him,
Because I have serious question I would like him to answer, Ozi--particularly the whole Tisdall issue.
QUOTE
but he is uncontactable, for all we know he could be some Texan KKK member acting as an X muslims,
No worries there! Most of those nutters live around here! Yargh!
QUOTE
LOL, the fact he used Tisdalls material is classic Essays on Islams holybook, the fact he uses material from Geiger and Luxembourg is clear enough and you know this, and you also know they have all been rejected by their peers. maybe this is worth a read, from Dr Jeffrey Lang.
I'm not talking about that text, Ozi. I stated it was the only text I could find Tisdall mentioned. And that book is on classical essays. I would expect to read classical essays by a variety of individuals.
QUOTE
Ok fair enough, but are still claiming that his work is of scholarly stature and credible. The credible academics and orientalists say otherwise.
Ozi, I am doing no such thing. You are putting words into my mouth. Re-read my statement ...
Here, for those interested, is a detailed excerpt from IW's What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary edited with translations by Ibn Warraq. Very interesting. The second book is entitled Which Koran?: Variants, Manuscripts, And the Influence of Pre-islamic Poetry. Both deal with texttual integrity et al of the Koran--the two most important books dealing with Qur'anic Criticism (not a negative term). I do not see Tisdall mentioned in either--save for an essay in Part three of The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book. If missed, please let me know and point me to the page number. I will happily make corrections.
So point to me in the two works cited where WI used Tisdall and I will happily make corrections.
Point to me where I defended him, Ozi?
QUOTE
The reason you are defending him is shown clearly in the way you keep using his material and his name in order to get across the point that the textual integrity of the Quran is questionable, only on the basis of this author who has no credibility, he uses material from Luxembourg, Geiger, Watts, and Tisdall, showing that all the reject orientalists, by their own peers are the source of his information, yet you persist to show, that his cirtique of the quran is some how plausible or credible, when its nothing of the sort. Even Luxembourg, and Geiger, have been rejected and some of material from Watts is fine and some has been rejected too. Yet he in the main uses, Geiger and Luxembourg, Patrica Crone and her mate, all of which have been rejected by their peers and corrected, so why persist. They dont meet the academic standards you set for yourself.
I, again, have done nothing of the sort! Re-read my statement above! I haven't defended him at all!
QUOTE
I have posted quots on Gieger, Tisdall, and Luxembourg, how ever, not all the info is available on the net as you know, you are required to do some thorough research mate.
No, you are to provide the information ... and I'll take it from there. If not online, where? What text[s]?
QUOTE
Uh -huh. even Obama, who aint in power, siad he would like to bomb pakistan, he is not alone, all the coutries you are at war with are muslim population, bush refers to a war of ideologies, who's his and bin ladins, what are those ideoligies.
OBL hates us for being on Saudi ground and wants us out. SA, however, wants us there. I personally think we should leave and let the ME solve its own dang problems. As for Bush ... End terrorism is the goal. Hopefully it will happen one day as I mentioned in another thread. Handshakes ... not bombs and bullets.
QUOTE
Well its debatable too, but 9-11 nothing from the official verdict would stand up in a court of law.
I'll just leave that one alone.
QUOTE
Its obvious, what does Bush mean by bringing Democracy to the world, is it America right to do this, who gave it the right, and lets see how they go about their business. the first lie, and make up bull to go in to iraq, over WMD's as tho its a threat,yet they are the only one's to have ever used a nuke. The hypocrisy is so clear, then they can not find their imaginary WMD's which was info gven tothem by Inteligence, which always reminds me of the inteligence in the puppet movies, Where America is the World police. Now they change thier minds to do a regime change, because Saddam is evil (i agree), but implement your beliefs every where then, do the same in Zimbabwe, isreal, pakistan, Saudi, china, Korea, bruma, Cuba, the list is huge my friend, yet you only find your occupations in muslim lands, yet we only find you bomb muslim lands, if this is not forcing Secular values by force then what is, show me one muslim country which has invaded another country to impose islam.
Believe as you wish.
QUOTE
Demcracy is the guise your nation goes under when invading poor countries and implent secular values, its not freedom, it forced secularism.
Democracy allows for freedom of choice--that includes deciding what religion to believe in ... or none at all.
QUOTE
I have been, not to iraq, but afghanistan, to visit, during holidays to my home land Kashmir, you should visit the latter and see how india treats us.
If I were not stuck in this stupid wheelchair, I would. As for India ... That's a complete debacle.
QUOTE
In afghanistan, Karzai cannot step out of his kandhar, neither your soldiers, when they do venture on campaigns they dont stay out there, becuase the otehr areas are ruled by the taliban and warlords, did bush not say this war is over, and he taliban are gone.Hmmm.
There are bases spread out all across Afghanistan, Coalition forces reaching out to the warlords and people. Trying to unify groups with such widely varying beliefs is extremely difficult. I hope for all some happy medium can be reached and the good people of Afghanistan can lead wonderful lives--free to think and say what they so choose.
Bush obviously spoke too soon. As for the taliban ... just a matter of time.
QUOTE
It does say it all, true freedom and democracy come from Islam, not this fake freedom you live, where by you have no security at home out of home, murder, rape, theft, etc etc, needless i go in to the allged freedom we have in secular democracy.
This one just leaves me speechless. But living in the West you have that right. Believe as you wish.
Sean
QUOTE
i am serious mate i could be easily offended by what you said, i know its not your nature, and i dont mean to be offensive its not my nature, i am human i make mistakes, and i repent and say sorry. Im sincere mate.
Ditto!
Most kindly,
Sean
QUOTE (Ozi @ Apr 14 2008, 09:11 AM)
i answered your accusations, go read them and weep.
You answered nothing. Your disrespectful cowardice insults me, the world and islam.
You are the problem with islam. Not us.
"This tactic of denial, translation problem, context, misconception and so on, is an age-old method used by the conniving Islamists to save skin. In Islamic language this is known as taqiyya (telling lies) and kitman (adopting deception). When Muslims are weak, verses 3:28 and 16:106-107 of the Quran (that is Allah) tell Muslims to adopt these techniques to save themselves from the infidels."
"Last and not least, moderate Muslims ought to be courageous and honest enough to condemn crimes done in the name of Islam and admit that these crimes are all committed with the tacit approval of traditional Islamic theology which has not been reformed yet."
QUOTE (seanph @ Apr 14 2008, 05:18 PM)
Because I have serious question I would like him to answer, Ozi--particularly the whole Tisdall issue.
The find his address, coz i no longer have it, this was early days, but he one guy even through research hard to find. You try, coz i still have unfinished business with him.
No worries there! Most of those nutters live around here! Yargh!
LOL.
I'm not talking about that text, Ozi. I stated it was the only text I could find Tisdall mentioned. And that book is on classical essays. I would expect to read classical essays by a variety of individuals.
The fact that tisdall is used in the Classical essay and then his ideas are further perpetuated in his book and dealt with is clear. Therefore to use material of no real value in the eyes its peers, due to it being bias, is futile, and shows, which angles he is coming from.
Ozi, I am doing no such thing. You are putting words into my mouth. Re-read my statement ...
Here, for those interested, is a detailed excerpt from IW's What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary edited with translations by Ibn Warraq. Very interesting. The second book is entitled Which Koran?: Variants, Manuscripts, And the Influence of Pre-islamic Poetry. Both deal with texttual integrity et al of the Koran--the two most important books dealing with Qur'anic Criticism (not a negative term). I do not see Tisdall mentioned in either--save for an essay in Part three of The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book. If missed, please let me know and point me to the page number. I will happily make corrections.
So point to me in the two works cited where WI used Tisdall and I will happily make corrections.
Point to me where I defended him, Ozi?
You simply defending him by the mere fact that you keep quoting him as viable source to discuss the textual integrity of the quran, when he uses material from Luxembourg, Geiger, Tisdall and Watts. The man himself has no scholarly background, nor does he know arabic, or does he have academic credentials to be taken seriously , yet you do, even after reading his book, you find him as a serious contribution to the argument, when infact he is nothing like that, not credible at all.
I, again, have done nothing of the sort! Re-read my statement above! I haven't defended him at all!
No, you are to provide the information ... and I'll take it from there. If not online, where? What text[s]?
What i am not getting across here is this, Ibn Warraq has based his work on many other orientalists, the one i have named are a few, the over all point is that the poeple he has quoted or borrowed material from have been rejected by their peers, for example, he even uses Ginzberg, Friedländer and Obermann, each claimed that the source of Qur'an 18:65-82 was the "Jewish legend" of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi and Elijah as mentioned in Hibbūr Yāfeh me-ha-Yeshū`a. Ibn Warraq endorses Wensinck's claim without criticism. However, none of these scholars has proved this thesis, since seemingly none of them has thoroughly examined the component parts and particular elements of the two stories.
Wheeler says:
Even after the Arabic original was discovered, however, scholars continued to maintain that the Qur'an depended upon this story despite the fact that it is not attested in Jewish sources before this eleventh century text
You see my point, he deliberately uses material which is incorrect or been correct, but still uses the incorrect conclusion from the above scholars etc. over all Ibn Warraq himself has no credibility, and the material he uses carry very little weight too.
OBL hates us for being on Saudi ground and wants us out. SA, however, wants us there. I personally think we should leave and let the ME solve its own dang problems. As for Bush ... End terrorism.
True,i reckon, you would have no problem from OBL if you were not in Saudi, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Leave ME to sort itself out. i agree
I'll just leave that one alone.
Good, thats a different topic altogether.
Believe as you wish.
i will, and i know its true. Care to go in detail ,i dont mind.
Democracy allows for freedom of choice--that includes deciding what religion to believe in ... or none at all.
True democracy does, and when islam ruled, its was a true democracy in which jews, christians, pagans lived and prospered together.
If I were not stuck in this stupid wheelchair, I would. As for India ... That's a complete debacle.
Mate i am Kashmiri, just on the border, to the indian side of kashmir which is controlled by them, i know what they do, you dont, india does not even allow, independant organistation to witness it or the UN.
There are bases spread out all across Afghanistan, reaching out to the warlords and people. Trying to unify groups with such widely varying beliefs is extremely difficult. I hope for all some happy medium can be reached and the good people of Afghanistan can lead wonderful lives--free to think and say what they so choose.
Bases across afghanistan, mate i dont think so, the only strong hold you have is Kandahar, the rest is just open for play.
Bush obviously spoke to soon. As for the taliban ... just a matter of time.
Taliban just a matter of time, i thought they were defeated, and dead buried, yet they still fight there. i think it is a matter of time, before the US get kicked out of there.
This one just leaves me speechless.
Sean
Well we can debate if you wish.
ozi
The find his address, coz i no longer have it, this was early days, but he one guy even through research hard to find. You try, coz i still have unfinished business with him.
No worries there! Most of those nutters live around here! Yargh!
LOL.
I'm not talking about that text, Ozi. I stated it was the only text I could find Tisdall mentioned. And that book is on classical essays. I would expect to read classical essays by a variety of individuals.
The fact that tisdall is used in the Classical essay and then his ideas are further perpetuated in his book and dealt with is clear. Therefore to use material of no real value in the eyes its peers, due to it being bias, is futile, and shows, which angles he is coming from.
Ozi, I am doing no such thing. You are putting words into my mouth. Re-read my statement ...
Here, for those interested, is a detailed excerpt from IW's What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary edited with translations by Ibn Warraq. Very interesting. The second book is entitled Which Koran?: Variants, Manuscripts, And the Influence of Pre-islamic Poetry. Both deal with texttual integrity et al of the Koran--the two most important books dealing with Qur'anic Criticism (not a negative term). I do not see Tisdall mentioned in either--save for an essay in Part three of The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book. If missed, please let me know and point me to the page number. I will happily make corrections.
So point to me in the two works cited where WI used Tisdall and I will happily make corrections.
Point to me where I defended him, Ozi?
You simply defending him by the mere fact that you keep quoting him as viable source to discuss the textual integrity of the quran, when he uses material from Luxembourg, Geiger, Tisdall and Watts. The man himself has no scholarly background, nor does he know arabic, or does he have academic credentials to be taken seriously , yet you do, even after reading his book, you find him as a serious contribution to the argument, when infact he is nothing like that, not credible at all.
I, again, have done nothing of the sort! Re-read my statement above! I haven't defended him at all!
No, you are to provide the information ... and I'll take it from there. If not online, where? What text[s]?
What i am not getting across here is this, Ibn Warraq has based his work on many other orientalists, the one i have named are a few, the over all point is that the poeple he has quoted or borrowed material from have been rejected by their peers, for example, he even uses Ginzberg, Friedländer and Obermann, each claimed that the source of Qur'an 18:65-82 was the "Jewish legend" of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi and Elijah as mentioned in Hibbūr Yāfeh me-ha-Yeshū`a. Ibn Warraq endorses Wensinck's claim without criticism. However, none of these scholars has proved this thesis, since seemingly none of them has thoroughly examined the component parts and particular elements of the two stories.
Wheeler says:
Even after the Arabic original was discovered, however, scholars continued to maintain that the Qur'an depended upon this story despite the fact that it is not attested in Jewish sources before this eleventh century text
You see my point, he deliberately uses material which is incorrect or been correct, but still uses the incorrect conclusion from the above scholars etc. over all Ibn Warraq himself has no credibility, and the material he uses carry very little weight too.
OBL hates us for being on Saudi ground and wants us out. SA, however, wants us there. I personally think we should leave and let the ME solve its own dang problems. As for Bush ... End terrorism.
True,i reckon, you would have no problem from OBL if you were not in Saudi, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Leave ME to sort itself out. i agree
I'll just leave that one alone.
Good, thats a different topic altogether.
Believe as you wish.
i will, and i know its true. Care to go in detail ,i dont mind.
Democracy allows for freedom of choice--that includes deciding what religion to believe in ... or none at all.
True democracy does, and when islam ruled, its was a true democracy in which jews, christians, pagans lived and prospered together.
If I were not stuck in this stupid wheelchair, I would. As for India ... That's a complete debacle.
Mate i am Kashmiri, just on the border, to the indian side of kashmir which is controlled by them, i know what they do, you dont, india does not even allow, independant organistation to witness it or the UN.
There are bases spread out all across Afghanistan, reaching out to the warlords and people. Trying to unify groups with such widely varying beliefs is extremely difficult. I hope for all some happy medium can be reached and the good people of Afghanistan can lead wonderful lives--free to think and say what they so choose.
Bases across afghanistan, mate i dont think so, the only strong hold you have is Kandahar, the rest is just open for play.
Bush obviously spoke to soon. As for the taliban ... just a matter of time.
Taliban just a matter of time, i thought they were defeated, and dead buried, yet they still fight there. i think it is a matter of time, before the US get kicked out of there.
This one just leaves me speechless.
Sean
Well we can debate if you wish.
ozi
QUOTE (libertyworld @ Apr 14 2008, 05:25 PM)
You answered nothing. Your disrespectful cowardice insults me, the world and islam.
You are the problem with islam. Not us.
"This tactic of denial, translation problem, context, misconception and so on, is an age-old method used by the conniving Islamists to save skin. In Islamic language this is known as taqiyya (telling lies) and kitman (adopting deception). When Muslims are weak, verses 3:28 and 16:106-107 of the Quran (that is Allah) tell Muslims to adopt these techniques to save themselves from the infidels."
"Last and not least, moderate Muslims ought to be courageous and honest enough to condemn crimes done in the name of Islam and admit that these crimes are all committed with the tacit approval of traditional Islamic theology which has not been reformed yet."
You are the problem with islam. Not us.
"This tactic of denial, translation problem, context, misconception and so on, is an age-old method used by the conniving Islamists to save skin. In Islamic language this is known as taqiyya (telling lies) and kitman (adopting deception). When Muslims are weak, verses 3:28 and 16:106-107 of the Quran (that is Allah) tell Muslims to adopt these techniques to save themselves from the infidels."
"Last and not least, moderate Muslims ought to be courageous and honest enough to condemn crimes done in the name of Islam and admit that these crimes are all committed with the tacit approval of traditional Islamic theology which has not been reformed yet."
Either you dont know english or i need to speak in another language to you, the point you made have been answered, go through the post and you will see, even the verse you quote are addressed, open your eyes and look.
LOL. Taqiyya, Kitman shiite concepts, the verse you quoted have been addressed with added context that you missed likethe verse before them and after them. Please go read and then comment you on them, or you cowaring away from it.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Apr 14 2008, 09:43 AM)
Either you dont know english or i need to speak in another language to you, the point you made have been answered, go through the post and you will see, even the verse you quote are addressed, open your eyes and look.
LOL. Taqiyya, Kitman shiite concepts, the verse you quoted have been addressed with added context that you missed likethe verse before them and after them. Please go read and then comment you on them, or you cowaring away from it.
LOL. Taqiyya, Kitman shiite concepts, the verse you quoted have been addressed with added context that you missed likethe verse before them and after them. Please go read and then comment you on them, or you cowaring away from it.
In other words:
Stupid infidel!
Go back and read through the (over 300) posts on 21 pages of this thread to find your answers or you are cowering away from it.
This is great. The more you post, the more you open our eyes to "the real islam". That of arrogance, insults, condescension, cowardice, dishonesty and denial. For starters.
You told us we need to stop judging islam by it's followers, here:
QUOTE (Ozi @ Apr 13 2008, 07:31 AM)
"Siting tagic things as above and then labeling them islamic is false, they have no room in islam, you need to stop judging islam by its followers..."
I point out the cowardice and absurdity of such a notion, here:
3) We need to stop judging islam by it's followers... Wow. What astonishing arrogance. Ohhh... silly me! What was I thinking? That would be like judging a school by the students it turns out. Or like judging a style of parenting by the children that result from it. Who ever heard of such a thing?
You respond to that with what? Nothing.
You say tragic things have no room in islam. To which I respond:
2) They have no room in islam... That must be why silamic leaders have raised such a deafening silence in condemning the child suicide bombings of other innocent women and children, the so-called 'honor killings' and 'blood feud killings' and the stonings, the raping and genital mutilations and general shocking oppression of women and violent jihad and... I can't go through the whole litany again... It's sickening.
And you respond to that with... what? Nothing.
I tell you that you have responded with nothing... (and worse), to which you respond with what?
Laughter?
That I must be stupid or a coward myself?
Yes, I say you really are opening our eyes to the real islam.
Thank-you and keep it up.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Apr 14 2008, 04:43 PM)
Either you dont know english or i need to speak in another language to you,
WOW there was no need for that Ozi...give him/her a break
QUOTE (Ozi @ Apr 13 2008, 07:31 AM)
Siting tagic things as above and then labeling them islamic is false, they have no room in islam, you need to stop judging islam by its followers, you dont do that with other faiths do you, for example, the recent Mormon indicents, you do blame christianity and christians as whole for the actions of a few. Muslims represent about a third of the worlds population, not all are the same, to know islam go to its teachings.
These "Mormon incidents" were not the actions of the Mormons as a whole but a small spin off sect of the LDS religion. You with your statement here are doing exactly what you are decrying. The LDS Church, the group the AP defines as Mormon, has a membership of 12,868,606. The sect that is referenced by "recent Mormon indicents" has an estimated 10,000 members.
If you have got important questions, please put them forward and I will try to answer them...
Here is another 'question' about Islam that someone had asked me before: "Though Islam has of course used violence to get it's way. Muhammad himself was a terrorist in his own day for the religion he created up. And it is still using violence today for it's goals." (This person made many more false allegations against our Prophet (Peace be upon him) but I won't go any deeper into that).
Again, I gave him a very clear and convincing answer:
I want to point out that how on Earth could Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him) promote Islam without taking part in battles? You don't know how complicated the situation was back then... There were many tribes and many different and powerful armies around at that time!
There is a man called Michael H. Hart, and this man published a book called 'The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History'. The title tells you what it is about, but I will explain it a bit further. Hart decided to choose Mohammad (Peace be upon him) over Jesus or Moses (Peace be on both of them) as the most influential person ever despite the fact that Islam was not the largest religion at the time and that it was from a distant part of the world from where he lived. Hart attributes this to the fact that Mohammad (Peace be upon him) was successful in both the religious and political realms. He also writes that Mohammad's (Peace be upon him) role in the development of Islam is far more influential than Jezus's (Peace be upon him) collaboration in the development of Christianity.
In other words, throughout the whole of history, in every corner of the Earth, there was no better (influential) person than our Prophet Mohammad! (Peace be upon him). Compare your comments with Mr. Hart's, and then you will notice that you were the one who was mistaken (People make mistakes). If the person who you described as being Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him) really existed, do you really think he would be in that list of 100 most influential people? That person will not even reach rank #5,999,999! He would be the last person that you can call influential, but NO, he is #1! Here is a section of Michael Hart's book: 'Prophet of Islam: Conqueror of Arabia: Hart recognized that ranking Muhammad first might be controversial, but felt that, from a secular historian's perspective, this was the correct choice because Muhammad is the only man to have been both a founder of a major world religion and a major military/political leader.'
Here is another 'question' about Islam that someone had asked me before: "Though Islam has of course used violence to get it's way. Muhammad himself was a terrorist in his own day for the religion he created up. And it is still using violence today for it's goals." (This person made many more false allegations against our Prophet (Peace be upon him) but I won't go any deeper into that).
Again, I gave him a very clear and convincing answer:
I want to point out that how on Earth could Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him) promote Islam without taking part in battles? You don't know how complicated the situation was back then... There were many tribes and many different and powerful armies around at that time!
There is a man called Michael H. Hart, and this man published a book called 'The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History'. The title tells you what it is about, but I will explain it a bit further. Hart decided to choose Mohammad (Peace be upon him) over Jesus or Moses (Peace be on both of them) as the most influential person ever despite the fact that Islam was not the largest religion at the time and that it was from a distant part of the world from where he lived. Hart attributes this to the fact that Mohammad (Peace be upon him) was successful in both the religious and political realms. He also writes that Mohammad's (Peace be upon him) role in the development of Islam is far more influential than Jezus's (Peace be upon him) collaboration in the development of Christianity.
In other words, throughout the whole of history, in every corner of the Earth, there was no better (influential) person than our Prophet Mohammad! (Peace be upon him). Compare your comments with Mr. Hart's, and then you will notice that you were the one who was mistaken (People make mistakes). If the person who you described as being Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him) really existed, do you really think he would be in that list of 100 most influential people? That person will not even reach rank #5,999,999! He would be the last person that you can call influential, but NO, he is #1! Here is a section of Michael Hart's book: 'Prophet of Islam: Conqueror of Arabia: Hart recognized that ranking Muhammad first might be controversial, but felt that, from a secular historian's perspective, this was the correct choice because Muhammad is the only man to have been both a founder of a major world religion and a major military/political leader.'
QUOTE (A-Fighter @ Apr 14 2008, 02:42 PM)
[font="Verdana"]If you have got important questions, please put them forward and I will try to answer them...
Really?
Here is your chance to prove it.
Please do so in your own words.
I've been trying and trying and I get nothing but avoidance, condescension and arrogant disrespect. Will try again because this is really fun.
I have challenged you and ozi to respond (not so much to 'important questions'), but to my challenges to your own words.
My challenges can be found below or just go to my profile page and look at my recent posts for this topic.
The more you disregard our challenges to your own words, the more you damage islam.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2246273
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...amp;pid=2246057
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...amp;pid=2245304
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...amp;pid=2246092
Thank-you.
QUOTE (libertyworld @ Apr 14 2008, 10:11 PM)
I have challenged you and ozi to respond (not so much to 'important questions'), but to my challenges to your own words.
Is this the 'question' you are talking about? "...A father kills his daughter because he tries to force the rules of his religion on her -- but this has nothing to do with his religion? What is this pathology among many Muslims and Western leftists to absolve Islam of what it fertilizes into earthly incarnation?...". If not, please correct me. QUOTE (A-Fighter @ Apr 14 2008, 03:18 PM)
Is this the 'question' you are talking about? "...A father kills his daughter because he tries to force the rules of his religion on her -- but this has nothing to do with his religion? What is this pathology among many Muslims and Western leftists to absolve Islam of what it fertilizes into earthly incarnation?...". If not, please correct me.
That would be a good start, but please read my (few) posts on this topic which deal more with direct challenges to you and ozi's own words.
I am not asking you to speak for ozi. I am asking you to respond to the issues I have brought to this topic. And in those few posts of mine are some big ones.
Please respond without quoting any verses. I want to know what you think.
QUOTE (Mainpoint @ Apr 14 2008, 03:10 PM)
Just curious lmbeharry
Are you really mongolian
Are you really mongolian
No, I was born in Trinidad and Tobago (Caribbean), and I grew up on the east coast of the United States. I left the U.S. in 2004 (I grew tired of the corporate and government games, as they were playing with my life) and traveled to Korea. I taught for 2 years in Korea and then I came to Mongolia for vacation. I fell in love with the Mongolian countryside and the Mongolian women (so I decided to marry one of them). And then I officially moved here in December 2005. Mongolia is a beautiful country, but the capital city Ulaanbaatar is way, way corrupt, and I am really sick of the place. Now I know why Ataturk, Turkey's first modern President, moved the capital of Turkey from Istanbul to Ankara. A city (or maybe any place) can get corrupt and just have bad karma. Sometimes it's better just to move the city...
In any event, I'm actually looking for University teaching positions in Korea again, as I really don't like the level of corruption and difficulty of life in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia's capital.
But if I stay in Mongolia, and learn the language, then I guess I would be Mongolian.
QUOTE (libertyworld @ Apr 14 2008, 11:38 PM)
That would be a good start, but please read my (few) posts on this topic which deal more with direct challenges to you and ozi's own words.
I am not asking you to speak for ozi. I am asking you to respond to the issues I have brought to this topic. And in those few posts of mine are some big ones.
Please respond without quoting any verses. I want to know what you think.
I am not asking you to speak for ozi. I am asking you to respond to the issues I have brought to this topic. And in those few posts of mine are some big ones.
Please respond without quoting any verses. I want to know what you think.
Dude, I really dont know what your problem is or whether you can truly understand english or not. All your point were addressed on Page 19 of this thread. Please repond to my anwser to your initial questions, where you also posted references from verse, now im thinking maybe you just cut and paste that info from some anti islamic site. Anyway, i have answered all your points, you seem to be missing it everytime.
Here is the link, please read.....it will help you.
LINK
QUOTE (libertyworld @ Apr 14 2008, 11:38 PM)
That would be a good start, but please read my (few) posts on this topic which deal more with direct challenges to you and ozi's own words.
I am not asking you to speak for ozi. I am asking you to respond to the issues I have brought to this topic. And in those few posts of mine are some big ones.
Please respond without quoting any verses. I want to know what you think.
I am not asking you to speak for ozi. I am asking you to respond to the issues I have brought to this topic. And in those few posts of mine are some big ones.
Please respond without quoting any verses. I want to know what you think.
Please respond with quoting any verse....
Dude, you posted reference to verse, to accuse islam of violence and terrorism, but you dont want us to respond to you with verse, clearing up misconceptions. Man your methods are scary.
QUOTE
The fact that tisdall is used in the Classical essay and then his ideas are further perpetuated in his book and dealt with is clear. Therefore to use material of no real value in the eyes its peers, due to it being bias, is futile, and shows, which angles he is coming from.
Again, he's not using Tisdall in the two most important texts that I listed--at least that I can find. The classical essays is the only place I've seen him mentioned--and that was only one essay late in the book. And, again, it's a book dealing with individuals of various views--classical essays. No different from the mounds of Christian material I have. Same thing is done--good, bad and the ugly. It's a history of the evolution of religion--from a myriad of viewpoints. That's the way it should be.
QUOTE
You simply defending him by the mere fact that you keep quoting him as viable source to discuss the textual integrity of the quran, when he uses material from Luxembourg, Geiger, Tisdall and Watts. The man himself has no scholarly background, nor does he know arabic, or does he have academic credentials to be taken seriously , yet you do, even after reading his book, you find him as a serious contribution to the argument, when infact he is nothing like that, not credible at all.
I, again, have done nothing of the sort! Re-read my statement! I haven't defended him at all! I have not called him a viable source! You keep putting words into my mouth, Ozi. Here is what I said ...
Here, for those interested, is a detailed excerpt from IW's What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary edited with translations by Ibn Warraq. Very interesting. The second book is entitled Which Koran?: Variants, Manuscripts, And the Influence of Pre-islamic Poetry. Both deal with texttual integrity et al of the Koran--the two most important books dealing with Qur'anic Criticism (not a negative term). I do not see Tisdall mentioned in either--save for an essay in Part three of The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book. If missed it, please let me know and point me to the page number. I will happily make corrections.
I have asked this at least four times now ... Please point to me in the two works cited where WI used Tisdall and I will happily make corrections. And Point to me where I defended him in the above statement. If you do not have that information ... just say so.
QUOTE
Ibn Warraq endorses Wensinck's claim without criticism.
Where? Can you point me to that information please?
QUOTE
However, none of these scholars has proved this thesis, since seemingly none of them has thoroughly examined the component parts and particular elements of the two stories.
Wheeler says:
Even after the Arabic original was discovered, however, scholars continued to maintain that the Qur'an depended upon this story despite the fact that it is not attested in Jewish sources before this eleventh century text
Wheeler says:
Even after the Arabic original was discovered, however, scholars continued to maintain that the Qur'an depended upon this story despite the fact that it is not attested in Jewish sources before this eleventh century text
Where is the source for this information?
QUOTE
You see my point, he deliberately uses material which is incorrect or been correct, but still uses the incorrect conclusion from the above scholars etc. over all Ibn Warraq himself has no credibility, and the material he uses carry very little weight too.
I'll email this to IW if I can find him and get his reaction. I'll also send it to a couple of universities and see if I can get a response.
QUOTE
True democracy does, and when islam ruled, its was a true democracy in which jews, christians, pagans lived and prospered together.
You just stated exactly what I said. This is democracy in the West. You know this firsthand living in the UK. Peoples believing as they wish.
QUOTE
Mate i am Kashmiri, just on the border, to the indian side of kashmir which is controlled by them, i know what they do, you dont, india does not even allow, independant organistation to witness it or the UN.
You certainly would know more than I regarding said issue, Ozi. That said, I have seen plenty of news footage of the atrocities taking place there. And if I'm not mistaken, the US still has sanctions against India for this et al very reason[s].
QUOTE
Bases across afghanistan, mate i dont think so, the only strong hold you have is Kandahar, the rest is just open for play.
This simply isn't so Ozi. And, yes, there is still much to be done in many areas as I mentioned.
Coalition Military: Afghanistan Facilities (Major & Minor)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/fac...entcom-map2.htm
And I believe, for obvious reasons, Special OPS bases--Navy Seals, Green Berets, British SAS et al--are not listed.
QUOTE
Taliban just a matter of time, i thought they were defeated, and dead buried, yet they still fight there.
Bush obviously spoke too soon. As for the taliban ... just a matter of time. And yes they still fight ... and continue to die.
QUOTE
i think it is a matter of time, before the US get kicked out of there.
Time will tell.
QUOTE
Well we can debate if you wish.
I think we can both agree that that would be rather futile.
We will have to simply agree to disagree here. 
Sean
[quote]Again, he's not using Tisdall in the two most important texts that I listed--at least that I can find. The classical essays is the only place I've seen him mentioned--and that was only one essay late in the book. And, again, it's a book dealing with individuals of various views. No different from the mounds of Christian material I have. Same thing is done. It's a history of the evolution of religion.[quote]
I understand what you are saying, but he uses Tisdalls material and references, along with other orientalists, who material and reference are no longer valid, and have been rejected by the peers.
[quote]I, again, have done nothing of the sort! Re-read my statement! I haven't defended him at all! I have not called him a viable source! You keep putting words into my mouth, Ozi. Here is what I said ...
Here, for those interested, is a detailed excerpt from IW's What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary edited with translations by Ibn Warraq. Very interesting. The second book is entitled Which Koran?: Variants, Manuscripts, And the Influence of Pre-islamic Poetry. Both deal with texttual integrity et al of the Koran--the two most important books dealing with Qur'anic Criticism (not a negative term). I do not see Tisdall mentioned in either--save for an essay in Part three of The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book. If missed it, please let me know and point me to the page number. I will happily make corrections.
I have asked this at least four times now ... Please point to me in the two works cited where WI used Tisdall and I will happily make corrections. And Point to me where I defended him in the above statement. If you do not have that information ... just say so.
[quote]
I have shown you before that peers such as Blois, have rejected and others. In previous post showed you that he uses material from another orientalists, besides Tisdall, who's work has also been rejected, by academics and orientalists. As for IW own position, he is neither, yet you seem to give him more exposure, the more i inform you that, he knows no arabic, he has no academic credibility, he uses, Gieger, Watts, Tisdall, Wensinck's, all of which who endorsed by Ibn Warraq, the latter of the names, propagated the notion the muhammed borrowed off the jews and this is then further re-inforced by Ibn Warraq, yet the peers come to a different conclusion and reject Wensincks conclusions, yet, IW tends to keep using it. How can such people or their tactics and their papers, books for that matter, be taken seriously. Lets not forget Luxembourg and his theories and conclusions even they are re-inforced by IW, infact he uses a great deal of this guys material, especailly because he does no know arabic himself, yet his book you quote,the translations have been edited by him, under what credibility i ask, he knows no arabic, and bases all his work on others. Overall, his works his opinion have no value not only in the islamic world, but the academic, scholarly, and oreintalist world.
[quote]
Where? Can you point me to that information please?[quote]
The fact IW says and reinforces that muhammed borrowed stores etc from the jews and introduced them in to the Quran, WEnsinks, is one of the orienatalists who first proposed this. However, since his proposition, the peers and other credible orientalists, academics etc have come to the conclusion he is wrong and infact its the other way round, in regards to certain stories. Wensinks not alone, Obermann, is there too, maybe more than the former, Iw uses both their material to suggest some parts of the Quran come jewish sources, this is just one example of how he uses misleading information, knowing that it has been rejected by other peers, not just muslims. Infact the story it refer to is, claimed that the quran is dependant upon Judeo christian sources. Yet Bernhard Heller who had concluded in 1937 that the Hebrew versions of this story are late and are loaned from Islamic sources. So its totally the opposite, from what Wensink, Obermann, Ginzberg and Friedländer among others suggested, which is then re-inforced by IW in his book, meaning his conclusions and assertion bare no value, and are incorrect.
[quote]Where is the source for this information?[quote]
B. M. Wheeler, "The Jewish Origins Of Qur'an 18:65-82? Re-examining Arent Jan Wensinck's Theory", Journal Of The American Oriental Society, op cit., pp. 155-156.
[quote]I'll email this to IW if I can find him and get his reaction. I'll also send it to a couple of universities and see if I can get a response.[quote]
Cool, that will be interesting, remember, i mentioned Tisdall, alot because his work is so rediculous, but still used by IW, along with the others i have mentioned.
[quote]You just stated exactly what I said. This is democracy in the West. You know this firsthand living in the UK. Peoples believing as they wish.[quote]
We have a type of democracy in the west, mainly illusionary freedoms, whereby you can freely practise the evils of society, but the true freedom we all crave is not there, like, security, feeling safe in your own home, free to walk from one part of the US to another, without being mugged, killed, raped etc. Islam brought a true democracy for its subjects, all under the same law, free to walk from indonesia, to spain, knowing you are safe and not going to be touched, and if so, who ever dared so, was risking a great deal, unlike today. in today democracy the crimnal have more rights than the victims.
[quote]You certainly would know more than I regarding said issue, Ozi. That said, I have seen plenty of news footage of the atrocities taking place there. And if I'm not mistaken, the US still has sanctions against India for this et al very reaso[quote]
I do, those Sanctions are peanuts in comparison to what was put on iraq. At the same time you have those sanctions, you also provide a lot of aid to india, commerce and business, funding their economy, to be a competitor to china, the only threat at the moment to America global domination. What the indian army does in Kashmir, is sick, and most of its is hidden from public eyes and journalist.
[quote]This simply isn't so Ozi. And, yes, there is still much to be done in many areas as I mentioned.[quote]
I see, the picture, i am aware you have bases around the country, but no control in those regions of the country, only over you base, like Kandahar. It impossible for the US to have control over all regions in. afghanistan, especially the mountains.
[quote]Bush obviously spoke too soon. As for the taliban ... just a matter of time. And yes they still fight ... and continue to die. [quote]
Bush speak a lot of tripe, and he was elected to represent you guys. The taliban are there to stay, you kill one, and 5 more take his place and they go to the battle field not to return but to die in the path of islam. So they have no fear, like american soldiers, who dont want to die. So to kill a dead man walking is very hard. its just a matter of time, before you withdraw. maybe when the pipe line is complete, and puppets are in place.
as for the last two points it is time which will tell and there is no point debating the other points, we will be here forever.
Cheers
Ozi.
P.S im struggling with this quote thing i have been told to follow. I tried but this is the result.
I understand what you are saying, but he uses Tisdalls material and references, along with other orientalists, who material and reference are no longer valid, and have been rejected by the peers.
[quote]I, again, have done nothing of the sort! Re-read my statement! I haven't defended him at all! I have not called him a viable source! You keep putting words into my mouth, Ozi. Here is what I said ...
Here, for those interested, is a detailed excerpt from IW's What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary edited with translations by Ibn Warraq. Very interesting. The second book is entitled Which Koran?: Variants, Manuscripts, And the Influence of Pre-islamic Poetry. Both deal with texttual integrity et al of the Koran--the two most important books dealing with Qur'anic Criticism (not a negative term). I do not see Tisdall mentioned in either--save for an essay in Part three of The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book. If missed it, please let me know and point me to the page number. I will happily make corrections.
I have asked this at least four times now ... Please point to me in the two works cited where WI used Tisdall and I will happily make corrections. And Point to me where I defended him in the above statement. If you do not have that information ... just say so.
[quote]
I have shown you before that peers such as Blois, have rejected and others. In previous post showed you that he uses material from another orientalists, besides Tisdall, who's work has also been rejected, by academics and orientalists. As for IW own position, he is neither, yet you seem to give him more exposure, the more i inform you that, he knows no arabic, he has no academic credibility, he uses, Gieger, Watts, Tisdall, Wensinck's, all of which who endorsed by Ibn Warraq, the latter of the names, propagated the notion the muhammed borrowed off the jews and this is then further re-inforced by Ibn Warraq, yet the peers come to a different conclusion and reject Wensincks conclusions, yet, IW tends to keep using it. How can such people or their tactics and their papers, books for that matter, be taken seriously. Lets not forget Luxembourg and his theories and conclusions even they are re-inforced by IW, infact he uses a great deal of this guys material, especailly because he does no know arabic himself, yet his book you quote,the translations have been edited by him, under what credibility i ask, he knows no arabic, and bases all his work on others. Overall, his works his opinion have no value not only in the islamic world, but the academic, scholarly, and oreintalist world.
[quote]
Where? Can you point me to that information please?[quote]
The fact IW says and reinforces that muhammed borrowed stores etc from the jews and introduced them in to the Quran, WEnsinks, is one of the orienatalists who first proposed this. However, since his proposition, the peers and other credible orientalists, academics etc have come to the conclusion he is wrong and infact its the other way round, in regards to certain stories. Wensinks not alone, Obermann, is there too, maybe more than the former, Iw uses both their material to suggest some parts of the Quran come jewish sources, this is just one example of how he uses misleading information, knowing that it has been rejected by other peers, not just muslims. Infact the story it refer to is, claimed that the quran is dependant upon Judeo christian sources. Yet Bernhard Heller who had concluded in 1937 that the Hebrew versions of this story are late and are loaned from Islamic sources. So its totally the opposite, from what Wensink, Obermann, Ginzberg and Friedländer among others suggested, which is then re-inforced by IW in his book, meaning his conclusions and assertion bare no value, and are incorrect.
[quote]Where is the source for this information?[quote]
B. M. Wheeler, "The Jewish Origins Of Qur'an 18:65-82? Re-examining Arent Jan Wensinck's Theory", Journal Of The American Oriental Society, op cit., pp. 155-156.
[quote]I'll email this to IW if I can find him and get his reaction. I'll also send it to a couple of universities and see if I can get a response.[quote]
Cool, that will be interesting, remember, i mentioned Tisdall, alot because his work is so rediculous, but still used by IW, along with the others i have mentioned.
[quote]You just stated exactly what I said. This is democracy in the West. You know this firsthand living in the UK. Peoples believing as they wish.[quote]
We have a type of democracy in the west, mainly illusionary freedoms, whereby you can freely practise the evils of society, but the true freedom we all crave is not there, like, security, feeling safe in your own home, free to walk from one part of the US to another, without being mugged, killed, raped etc. Islam brought a true democracy for its subjects, all under the same law, free to walk from indonesia, to spain, knowing you are safe and not going to be touched, and if so, who ever dared so, was risking a great deal, unlike today. in today democracy the crimnal have more rights than the victims.
[quote]You certainly would know more than I regarding said issue, Ozi. That said, I have seen plenty of news footage of the atrocities taking place there. And if I'm not mistaken, the US still has sanctions against India for this et al very reaso[quote]
I do, those Sanctions are peanuts in comparison to what was put on iraq. At the same time you have those sanctions, you also provide a lot of aid to india, commerce and business, funding their economy, to be a competitor to china, the only threat at the moment to America global domination. What the indian army does in Kashmir, is sick, and most of its is hidden from public eyes and journalist.
[quote]This simply isn't so Ozi. And, yes, there is still much to be done in many areas as I mentioned.[quote]
I see, the picture, i am aware you have bases around the country, but no control in those regions of the country, only over you base, like Kandahar. It impossible for the US to have control over all regions in. afghanistan, especially the mountains.
[quote]Bush obviously spoke too soon. As for the taliban ... just a matter of time. And yes they still fight ... and continue to die. [quote]
Bush speak a lot of tripe, and he was elected to represent you guys. The taliban are there to stay, you kill one, and 5 more take his place and they go to the battle field not to return but to die in the path of islam. So they have no fear, like american soldiers, who dont want to die. So to kill a dead man walking is very hard. its just a matter of time, before you withdraw. maybe when the pipe line is complete, and puppets are in place.
as for the last two points it is time which will tell and there is no point debating the other points, we will be here forever.
Cheers
Ozi.
P.S im struggling with this quote thing i have been told to follow. I tried but this is the result.
Nearly right Ozi, at the end of the paragraph your quoting you need to put [/quote] instead.
Just a quick slightly off-topic question - in Arabic countries, how are dates measured? Is Jesus seen as a prominent enough figure to use BC and AD? I'm gunna assume though that Islam has it's own system, because of how advanced their early astrology was?
Anyway, I don't have a clue, I can't find an obvious answer on the net... And I figure the Muslims in here can inform me!
Anyway, I don't have a clue, I can't find an obvious answer on the net... And I figure the Muslims in here can inform me!
QUOTE (libertyworld @ Apr 14 2008, 10:38 PM)
That would be a good start, but please read my (few) posts on this topic which deal more with direct challenges to you and ozi's own words. I am not asking you to speak for ozi. I am asking you to respond to the issues I have brought to this topic. And in those few posts of mine are some big ones. Please respond without quoting any verses. I want to know what you think.
I have read your posts and came to the conclusion that I don't know what you are talking about. I don't understand any of of your posts. If you really want an honest personal response, you should ask your 'questions' to Ozi. He knows (more than me) what you are talking about, so he will be able to reply to you. Now is the time to ask the most basic and important questions, simply because some members here are asking the deepest of questions when they don't even know anything about the Pillars of Islam, or the purpose of life etc.
QUOTE (HAJiME @ Apr 15 2008, 02:26 PM)
Just a quick slightly off-topic question - in Arabic countries, how are dates measured? Is Jesus seen as a prominent enough figure to use BC and AD? I'm gunna assume though that Islam has it's own system, because of how advanced their early astrology was?
Anyway, I don't have a clue, I can't find an obvious answer on the net... And I figure the Muslims in here can inform me!
Have you tried Wikipedia yet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_calendar.Anyway, I don't have a clue, I can't find an obvious answer on the net... And I figure the Muslims in here can inform me!
If that doesn't help, maybe Ozi can tell you.... he knows a lot about these kind of things.
QUOTE (HAJiME @ Apr 15 2008, 03:26 PM)
Just a quick slightly off-topic question - in Arabic countries, how are dates measured? Is Jesus seen as a prominent enough figure to use BC and AD? I'm gunna assume though that Islam has it's own system, because of how advanced their early astrology was?
Anyway, I don't have a clue, I can't find an obvious answer on the net... And I figure the Muslims in here can inform me!
Anyway, I don't have a clue, I can't find an obvious answer on the net... And I figure the Muslims in here can inform me!
In islam we do have our calendar, its the lunar calendar like the jews, how ever i think we are currently in our 15th century islamically, our calender start at before Hijri,(migration of muhammed to medina) and after Hijri. So that put us in the islamic callender at about 1457 or something like that, i cant remember fully. will try and dig more up on this mate.
EDIT: Thanx Ozi.
I take it you mean that 2008 = 1457?
Still doesn't answer my question. What do you call years before 1 in the Islamic Calender?
QUOTE
So that put us in the islamic callender at about 1457 or something like that
I take it you mean that 2008 = 1457?
Still doesn't answer my question. What do you call years before 1 in the Islamic Calender?
QUOTE (lmbeharry @ Apr 14 2008, 01:56 PM)
Review Sayyid Jamal ad-din Al Afghani (you can find him on Wikipedia). "The Afghani" is recognized as the modern Islamist politico (ca. late 19th Century). Make sure you look at his Response to Renan in France (where Afghani gave and attended scholastic lectures on Islam and government).
You will find that he gives a cryptic answer. "The Afghani" was both a believer, and a pragmatist; and he, seemingly, could not come to a reconciliation of modern science and technology with religious dogma. And he, seemingly, believed that one should suspend one's religious beliefs if/when it became politically expedient to do so.
Nevertheless, he was a staunch advocate of Islamic homogeneity and the reduction of the influence of Western powers in the Near East.
So, regarding your questions, the absence of an Islamic state and Sharia would probably disallow the viability of Islamic death penalties. But, probably, Moses law and human taboo would prevail.
Sorry, I've had a few drinks tonight. I hope my answer was not too confused...
You will find that he gives a cryptic answer. "The Afghani" was both a believer, and a pragmatist; and he, seemingly, could not come to a reconciliation of modern science and technology with religious dogma. And he, seemingly, believed that one should suspend one's religious beliefs if/when it became politically expedient to do so.
Nevertheless, he was a staunch advocate of Islamic homogeneity and the reduction of the influence of Western powers in the Near East.
So, regarding your questions, the absence of an Islamic state and Sharia would probably disallow the viability of Islamic death penalties. But, probably, Moses law and human taboo would prevail.
Sorry, I've had a few drinks tonight. I hope my answer was not too confused...
Sorry, only just seen this reply.
I get the impression I would get differing answers depending on the muslim i asked. No real concensus.
QUOTE (A-Fighter @ Apr 15 2008, 03:30 PM)
Now is the time to ask the most basic and important questions, simply because some members here are asking the deepest of questions when they don't even know anything about the Pillars of Islam, or the purpose of life etc.[/font]
Here's a simple question - Where does the Islamic faith stand in regard to human space flight and possible life on other planets?
QUOTE (Username Deleted @ Apr 15 2008, 02:42 PM)
Here's a simple question - Where does the Islamic faith stand in regard to human space flight and possible life on other planets?
The question may be simple but the answer is not :D. Give me a few hour's time to answer this please.QUOTE (Username Deleted @ Apr 15 2008, 03:42 PM)
Here's a simple question - Where does the Islamic faith stand in regard to human space flight and possible life on other planets?
islam stance on space flight indicates its possible and plausible, before it happened, but only to an extent is it possible to space travel. As for life else where, allah says he is the lord of the worlds, the latter meaning there is life besides us, but he also informs us that humans are his most superior creation.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Apr 15 2008, 02:47 PM)
islam stance on space flight indicates its possible and plausible, before it happened, but only to an extent is it possible to space travel. As for life else where, allah says he is the lord of the worlds, the latter meaning there is life besides us, but he also informs us that humans are his most superior creation.
Superior in what way?
QUOTE (Username Deleted @ Apr 15 2008, 03:52 PM)
Superior in what way?
In everyway, basically allah says in comparison to all his other creation, human is superior, especailly when it achieve its true potential spiritually, greater than angels, djinns and what else is there.
QUOTE
as for the last two points it is time which will tell and there is no point debating the other points, we will be here forever.
Cheers
Ozi.
Cheers
Ozi.
I agree. We've made our beliefs known in great detail. To keep hammering away at them is akin to beating a dead horse. I think we are simply giving each other gray hair and ulcers!
Let us hope that one day, Ozi, we can shake hands and find some sort of common ground--a happy medium--no matter what our differences. What say you?Kindly,
Sean
QUOTE (seanph @ Apr 15 2008, 04:10 PM)
I agree. We've made our beliefs known in great detail. To keep hammering away at them is akin to beating a dead horse. I think we are simply giving each other gray hair and ulcers! Let us hope that one day, Ozi, we can shake hands and find some sort of common ground--a happy medium--no matter what our differences. What say you?
Kindly,
Sean
Let us hope that one day, Ozi, we can shake hands and find some sort of common ground--a happy medium--no matter what our differences. What say you?Kindly,
Sean
Ofcourse mate, as mentioned before, i have had some of my best debates with yourself, not agreed on everything, but that is what conversing and debating is all about. If i meet you sometime, i would shake your hand invite you round for a meal and a chat. Anytime.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Apr 12 2008, 09:13 AM)
LOL. its has more errors than the bible etc. Yu jokin mate, the bible has 50,000 errors according to its own experts, not even orientalists, but their own biblical experts. There is not one error in the quran, bring one if you can, or bring them all, so i can straighten your misconception, which is no doubt based on verses out of context and translations.
50,000 errors I would believe. Most are trivial: counting mistakes, minor inconsistencies and such that have no real effect over all. I don't concern myself with these types of mistakes. I am concerned only with errors of fact. And both the Bible and the Quran have a bunch of them.
I thought the Bible was part of Muslim tradition, as well as Christian tradition. Why do you use it if it has so many errors? For example, how do you rectify the Bible's statement that mankind was created from mud, while the Quran says it was clotted blood?
Funny thing that you should claim the Quran has no mistakes when you mention Warrq in the same post. I believe he has pointed out a number of them.
Or, you might try "The Skeptic's Annotated Quran" http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Or, "Contradictions in the Quran" http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/thre...ns+In+The+Quran
Or, "How to be Saved" http://www.howtobesaved.co.uk/quranerrors.php
Or, "Errors in the Quran" http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/
These are two ancient books and are mostly legend: a little history and a lot of imagination. They belong right up there beside Beowulf and the Legends of King Arthur.
Doug
On second thought: 50,000 errors is about 32 errors per page. It's hard to believe that even the Bible can come up with that many.
Doug
QUOTE
Ofcourse mate, as mentioned before, i have had some of my best debates with yourself, not agreed on everything, but that is what conversing and debating is all about.
Same here.
QUOTE
If i meet you sometime, i would shake your hand invite you round for a meal and a chat. Anytime.
Fish 'n chips!
MK,
Sean
Fish and chips should be banned. Eugh.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Apr 15 2008, 03:57 PM)
In everyway, basically allah says in comparison to all his other creation, human is superior, especailly when it achieve its true potential spiritually, greater than angels, djinns and what else is there.
Could you show me the text that your referring to, in the above reply and the one previously, thanks.
QUOTE (Doug1o29 @ Apr 15 2008, 04:26 PM)
Or, "Contradictions in the Quran"
Or, "Errors in the Quran"
Doug
Or, "Errors in the Quran"
Doug
there are no contradictions in Noble Qur'an
there are no errors either.
it is just simply perfect with no flaws. because it is word of God, no man.
QUOTE (lava @ Apr 15 2008, 05:22 PM)
there are no contradictions in Noble Qur'an
there are no errors either.
it is just simply perfect with no flaws. because it is word of God, no man.
there are no errors either.
it is just simply perfect with no flaws. because it is word of God, no man.
and much like the bible....how can one prove this is true?? or is it just what people like to believe??
For to say its perfect..no flaws...is gods word and so on..then you may have actual evidence...other than that, its just based on beliefs...
QUOTE (lava @ Apr 15 2008, 12:22 PM)
there are no contradictions in Noble Qur'an
there are no errors either.
it is just simply perfect with no flaws. because it is word of God, no man.
there are no errors either.
it is just simply perfect with no flaws. because it is word of God, no man.
And the moon is made of green cheese. Believe it if you want to. Doug
QUOTE (Beckys_Mom @ Apr 15 2008, 06:32 PM)
and much like the bible....how can one prove this is true?? or is it just what people like to believe??
For to say its perfect..no flaws...is gods word and so on..then you may have actual evidence...other than that, its just based on beliefs...
For to say its perfect..no flaws...is gods word and so on..then you may have actual evidence...other than that, its just based on beliefs...
all the books that given, both known and unknown were perfect. but unfortunately they were changed by men. the only exception is Qur'an. no one could change a letter in it. Qur'an itself is the proof. the difference between beliefs on Qur'an come from differences between people who's observing it. to me, it is full of evidence. put red sunglasses on everything turns into red. put blue ones on it is all blue. come along without any, be neutral and see true colors, 'evidence' for that matter.
there are names of God as you may have heard before. i'd like to share two of them with you.
THE HIDDEN ONE
1- He who is hidden because He is invisible and there is no similarity between Him and His creatures. 2- The hidden one in the sight of His servants those does not believe in Him. 3- He who can penetrate everything and is closer the beings than their closeness to themselves.
THE MANIFEST ONE
1- He who is evident because of the open proofs that prove His existence. 2- The evident one in the sight of His servants those believe in Him.
what and who you are matters in this world. because we have free wills and we all earn what we get. only after we die, on judgement day what we personally believe makes no difference at all. that time God would not be hidden whether we believe in God or not.
if you want evidence, you should know that does not come like pizzas you order.
QUOTE (Doug1o29 @ Apr 15 2008, 06:33 PM)
And the moon is made of green cheese. Believe it if you want to. Doug
i got your point already. i expect you to bring verses to prove your point so we can discuss. if you'd send links then don't bother! i prefer to discuss with individuals not web sites.
thank you
QUOTE (lava @ Apr 15 2008, 02:03 PM)
all the books that given, both known and unknown were perfect. but unfortunately they were changed by men. the only exception is Qur'an. no one could change a letter in it. Qur'an itself is the proof. the difference between beliefs on Qur'an come from differences between people who's observing it. to me, it is full of evidence. put red sunglasses on everything turns into red. put blue ones on it is all blue. come along without any, be neutral and see true colors, 'evidence' for that matter.
there are names of God as you may have heard before. i'd like to share two of them with you.
THE HIDDEN ONE
1- He who is hidden because He is invisible and there is no similarity between Him and His creatures. 2- The hidden one in the sight of His servants those does not believe in Him. 3- He who can penetrate everything and is closer the beings than their closeness to themselves.
THE MANIFEST ONE
1- He who is evident because of the open proofs that prove His existence. 2- The evident one in the sight of His servants those believe in Him.
what and who you are matters in this world. because we have free wills and we all earn what we get. only after we die, on judgement day what we personally believe makes no difference at all. that time God would not be hidden whether we believe in God or not.
if you want evidence, you should know that does not come like pizzas you order.
there are names of God as you may have heard before. i'd like to share two of them with you.
THE HIDDEN ONE
1- He who is hidden because He is invisible and there is no similarity between Him and His creatures. 2- The hidden one in the sight of His servants those does not believe in Him. 3- He who can penetrate everything and is closer the beings than their closeness to themselves.
THE MANIFEST ONE
1- He who is evident because of the open proofs that prove His existence. 2- The evident one in the sight of His servants those believe in Him.
what and who you are matters in this world. because we have free wills and we all earn what we get. only after we die, on judgement day what we personally believe makes no difference at all. that time God would not be hidden whether we believe in God or not.
if you want evidence, you should know that does not come like pizzas you order.
Give me a break. It's no different than any other holy book. Written by man to brainwash man. And it seemed to work pretty good on you apparently as you can't even see all the ridiculous inconsistencies and contradictions in the Koran that have already been pointed out in this thread. No different than bible literalists. You share the common ability to stare reality in the face and not even see it.
QUOTE (lava @ Apr 15 2008, 06:03 PM)
all the books that given, both known and unknown were perfect. but unfortunately they were changed by men. the only exception is Qur'an. no one could change a letter in it. Qur'an itself is the proof. the difference between beliefs on Qur'an come from differences between people who's observing it.
You cant 'Prove' the qur'an WITH the Qur'an...that dont work and its not actual fact evidence that it all came from God....not even close...and you have no evidence if anyone has changed a letter in it...for you wernt arround when it was written!!! you HAVE to believe its all untouched...
QUOTE
put red sunglasses on everything turns into red. put blue ones on it is all blue.
Rose tinted glasses for those that just want to see it all as perfect and untouched...and hey bobs your uncle..all looks perfect lol and its not just the qur'an its the bible and other holy books ever hand written by man...which is why I dont follow any of them...I prefer to follow God in my own way..its better for me
QUOTE
if you want evidence, you should know that does not come like pizzas you order.
Yea it comes with a side order of rose tinted glasses and only then I will see.....right?? LMAO
im messing with you..but seriously...you could never in your wildest dreams ever present actual real evidence that anything came directly from God...no man canEDIT - I am skeptical of ANY religious holy book...and most likely always will be....my beliefs differ from yours ...which is what makes this interesting
QUOTE (capeo @ Apr 15 2008, 06:12 PM)
Give me a break. It's no different than any other holy book. Written by man to brainwash man. And it seemed to work pretty good on you apparently as you can't even see all the ridiculous inconsistencies and contradictions in the Koran that have already been pointed out in this thread. No different than bible literalists. You share the common ability to stare reality in the face and not even see it.
yup I believe you are correct..written by man to be brainwashed by man...for if I didnt believe this was true, then I would follow it myself
Islam is so very similar to chritianity..in fact nearly all religions are similar..all have similar rules and so on...which make me believe that one is a copycat version of another
QUOTE (Beckys_Mom @ Apr 15 2008, 07:20 PM)
You cant 'Prove' the qur'an WITH the Qur'an...that dont work and its not actual fact evidence that it all came from God....not even close...and you have no evidence if anyone has changed a letter in it...for you wernt arround when it was written!!! you HAVE to believe its all untouched...
of course words of God has to be written with hands of people. as we read them with our eyes..last book was completed hundreds of years ago. but there are knowledge that only today's technology uncovers. i consider that as evidence of not-men-made. people could have known those stuff.
QUOTE
I prefer to follow God in my own way..its better for me
you gotto have 'a you who lived according to Qur'an' to compare then you'd know it is better.
QUOTE (lava @ Apr 15 2008, 07:10 PM)
of course words of God has to be written with hands of people. as we read them with our eyes..last book was completed hundreds of years ago. but there are knowledge that only today's technology uncovers. i consider that as evidence of not-men-made. people could have known those stuff.
hundreds of years ago?? can I ask why it was still being written up untill a couple of hundred years ago?? for I assumed it was like the bible and was finished over a couple of thousand years ago...
QUOTE
you gotto have 'a you who lived according to Qur'an' to compare then you'd know it is better.
lava, with all due respect...I follow God in the way I feel is right..I dont wish for any book to use as a guide...........you do but see thats good for you to have thats faith...everyone that follows a religious faith, will all say - their faith is the only truth...
I believe that God speaks to each one of us..its up to US to listen...therefore no book is required..for God speaks from within us...thats what becomes personal experience...I see no need for a book.......we all know what is right and what is wrong
Each to their own
QUOTE (capeo @ Apr 15 2008, 07:12 PM)
Give me a break. It's no different than any other holy book. Written by man to brainwash man. And it seemed to work pretty good on you apparently as you can't even see all the ridiculous inconsistencies and contradictions in the Koran that have already been pointed out in this thread. No different than bible literalists. You share the common ability to stare reality in the face and not even see it.
ahh please you give me a break and don't expect me to go back in pages to look for what you're talking about. ok?
not seeing what you're looking at is an ability? well, i do like optimistic people! and NO, i am not that blind since i was not religious for 30 years. for a reason i am now. reason is not me being brainwashed. in fact i was pretty much rebel to anything; religion, society, having career, getting married...
however it is just one screen stands in front of you, you should not forget there is an unknown individual talking to you. i might not fit that pattern you have.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.