Can Muslims Answer These Conundrums?

a reply to: rossacus

It is a simple point. You do not accept stuff on hope, it's clearly not a literal point. If you were to ask the doctor what it is or what happens they will happily explain it to you in terms you will understand. They will tell you the truth with evidence and clinical trials if you questioned it. The fact uve come to that conclusion just means you have never asked your doctor. So all I say with religion is when you asked you doctor, did he have a revelation or substance. I can't comprehend how you are taking that statement literally. Nice try, I have no idea what you mean. Simple analogy.

It is not clear what you mean by stuff but most all of life is lived through hope and faith. All religion is by theology and theology is hope and hope is faith first. A Christian is no different than any other person alive. We all live by hope.

Most medical doctors will work only with certain drugs that they are familiar with and most all depend upon the manufacture to inform them of the usage. Most doctors will only understand the side effects of certain drugs through the big pharm stats and in numerous cases are totally ignorant of the long term effects they have on a human. Trial and error my friend is the name of the game.

You have no idea of my background with doctors just as you have no idea of my association with true Christianity, Most all religions have certain methods of communicating with their deity (or so they believe) and through this belief they have hope.

Heb_11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

You cannot live by knowledge alone as knowledge is limited and soon becomes of no effect. Hope through faith is unlimited and eternal. The solution is, which faith is the proper faith to apply ones hope.

a reply to: Seede

Of course I have no idea about you doctor or your religious background. Lmao. What are you turning this into. I don't know what you have against doctors either, they are not ignorant to affects of the drugs. I'm sorry you have had bad experiences with them (otherwise you would not say such things), but most are competent and fully aware of the drugs they are promoting. Greed/agenda is a different subject altogether.


With regards with communicating with God through hope uve lost me yet again. I have no idea what your trying to achieve with these responses.


I would also LOVE to know your concept of true christianity, cos if it is true christianity you are posting from a prison cell. If your true christianity is that of the bible than you must promote slavery and sacrifice of your first born. But I don't want to go there as you WILL ignore all the bad and highlight all the good. I don't blame you for this, as it is the only means to justify this belief. I would do the same .

Sorry your post gets better. Knowledge becomes of no effect? Do you actually believe what your type as true or just to sound ignorantly intelligent. We cannot function without hope? Can the human race not survive or function in society with our current knowledge. Without belief in a diety we cease to have reason to function? Please.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Seede

Of course I have no idea about you doctor or your religious background. Lmao. What are you turning this into. I don't know what you have against doctors either, they are not ignorant to affects of the drugs. I'm sorry you have had bad experiences with them (otherwise you would not say such things), but most are competent and fully aware of the drugs they are promoting. Greed/agenda is a different subject altogether.


With regards with communicating with God through hope uve lost me yet again. I have no idea what your trying to achieve with these responses.


I would also LOVE to know your concept of true christianity, cos if it is true christianity you are posting from a prison cell. If your true christianity is that of the bible than you must promote slavery and sacrifice of your first born. But I don't want to go there as you WILL ignore all the bad and highlight all the good. I don't blame you for this, as it is the only means to justify this belief. I would do the same .

Sorry your post gets better. Knowledge becomes of no effect? Do you actually believe what your type as true or just to sound ignorantly intelligent. We cannot function without hope? Can the human race not survive or function in society with our current knowledge. Without belief in a diety we cease to have reason to function? Please.

Not any more, the First Born has already been sacrificed, the Greatest Master has become the Greatest Slave and it is the hope of Glory that we have inside, that dwells within us who desire the fulfilling.

The Great Physician has offered the cure, in Himself. Does that mean we don't go to doctors here? No, we go to doctors, but we also have hope in that Great Physician and the cure, that the Great Physician will guide the doctor's hands, to guide his knowledge in what our ailments are.

There are many doctors who do misdiagnose illness and cures.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the concept of the indwelling Savior who came once for all, not some and not for many more times. Once, for all.

But your doctor analogy leaves a little be desired because every doctor in the United States must pay malpractice insurance, because they might misdiagnose or operate wrongly. But since you use a natural analogy, let's use it in a spiritual sense.

When a person who has a sin sick soul, from the many ideas that lead them to certain actions, because no man acts without prethought, they have attitudes and ideas that cause them to act in certain manners, just like you, why do you post the way that you do? Because you have attitudes that sometimes aren't very healthy for you, and you know this. So what's the cure? Is the cure to change your actions without changing your heart?

It doesn't matter how much you force yourself to not do something, your heart will still be turned toward it.

James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Sin is not because of your simple actions, you can beat yourself all day long to remove yourself from temptation, but at the end of the day the beating has availed very little, because the heart is not changed. The Muslims say that women should be covered because it reduces the temptation for men, however, Jesus said "if a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart commits adultery with her already" and this was spoken in a time of Israel when women were covered.

It's not the looking that leads to sin, it's the lust already in the heart that leads to sin.

But the God of Israel has promised to live among and in His people. At times God did live among Israel in the tabernacle in the wilderness, when the Shekinah rested among them, and then the Shekinah came down into the temple that Solomon built, and dwelt there. Then the promise was given that God would dwell IN His people. THIS is the prophetic message given since the time of Adam and Eve, that HER seed would crush the head of the serpent. Then to Cain, "Sin lies at the door and desires to have power over you". Adam lived when God was with mankind, then even after the death of Abel, still spoke to Cain.

Therefore, the understanding throughout Torah is that God still speaks and visits mankind, but then by the time of Joel, in the end God would pour out of His Spirit upon ALL flesh and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. As Joel said that this would happen in the end times, Mohammed cannot be a last prophet if he believes the prophets that came before him.

Allah does not live with mankind neither does Allah live in mankind. And that's the shame of Islam to deny that understanding of God dwelling with mankind and in man. Emmanuel, God with us.

But I am assuming you believe that the cure is in the other wing. So dip the fly in the water, you'll be ok.

a reply to: rossacus

Of course I have no idea about you doctor or your religious background. Lmao. What are you turning this into. I don't know what you have against doctors either, they are not ignorant to affects of the drugs. I'm sorry you have had bad experiences with them (otherwise you would not say such things), but most are competent and fully aware of the drugs they are promoting. Greed/agenda is a different subject altogether. Text

I believe you just lost yourself rossacus.

Did you not write on page 7 of 6/9/15 the following?
Quote - The one I like for religion is if you go to a doctor unwell and he says if I put this chemical with this chemical in your veins you will be cured. Your reply is how do you jnow that? The doctors well I had a revelation, I believe it will work I know it is true. You would not accept this drug, because there is no proof, you are going according to 1 man's "vocation". Yet this does not apply with religion. Why? Unquote
That was what started the diversion of a doctor discussion.

If your true christianity is that of the bible than you must promote slavery and sacrifice of your first born.

You have no idea of what Warminlndy just posted and that is sad indeed. I see nothing to discuss that would stay on track with her thread and that would not anger you. I don't want you any more angry than what you seem tp be now.
The subject should be for you to show your rebuttal of this thread or a civil discussion and not divert me into a defense of my faith. Perhaps in another thread we can discuss our faiths.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Allah does not live with mankind neither does Allah live in mankind. And that's the shame of Islam to deny that understanding of God dwelling with mankind and in man. Emmanuel, God with us.

From the 13th Century Islamic Poet Rumi

Light Breeze

As regards feeling pain, like a hand cut in battle,
consider the body a robe

you wear. When you meet someone you love, do you kiss their clothes? Search out

who's inside. Union with God is sweeter than body comforts.
We have hands and feet

different from these. Sometimes in dream we see them.
That is not

illusion. It's seeing truly. You do have a spirit body;
don't dread leaving the

physical one. Sometimes someone feels this truth so strongly
that he or she can live in

mountain solitude totally refreshed. The worried, heroic
doings of men and women seem weary

and futile to dervishes enjoying the light breeze of spirit.

Only Breath

Not Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu
Buddhist, sufi, or zen. Not any religion

or cultural system. I am not from the East
or the West, not out of the ocean or up

from the ground, not natural or ethereal, not
composed of elements at all. I do not exist,

am not an entity in this world or in the next,
did not descend from Adam and Eve or any

origin story. My place is placeless, a trace
of the traceless. Neither body or soul.

I belong to the beloved, have seen the two
worlds as one and that one call to and know,

first, last, outer, inner, only that
breath breathing human being.


If you want what visible reality
can give, you're an employee.
If you want the unseen world,
you're not living your truth.
Both wishes are foolish,
but you'll be forgiven for forgetting
that what you really want is
love's confusing joy.

from www.fiqhcouncil.org...

1. The preponderance of evidence from both the Qur’an and Sunnah indicates that there is no firm ground for the claim that apostasy is in itself a mandatory fixed punishment [Hadd], namely capital punishment
2. References to early capital punishment for apostasy were not due to apostasy itself but the other capital crime [s] that was coupled with it.

First off, here in the states I know ex-Muslims, and they did not have any issue leaving the fold.

Just as with Christianity or any religion, when you have 1.6 billion followers you will get many viewpoints. Christianity not only killed apostates in the middle ages, but non-Christians as well. At least you could live as a Hindu, Christian or Jew under Islam.. In fact, Jews lived better in Jerusalem under Islam than under Christianity. Of course, Christians still kill people too, like Joesph Kony..Or the genocide of Muslims by Serbian Christians just a couple of decades ago.. So there has yet to be a religion where every one who calls themselves a believer of that religion has been pure. So yes, you finally found a real point to make on page 6 of this thread. and this is an issue Muslims are addressing, but it gets hard when you're getting bombed. Also congratulations on finally addressing the gender issue, the only other real point you finally made after pages of nonsense. Read Fatema Mernissi and other Muslim feminists who have argue for Gender equality using the hadith and the Qur'an, showing that patriarchy was cultural and not a part of original Islam... Considering Islam is 1400 years old though, they are still ahead of where Christianity was even at 1800 years.. Pakistan has had a female Prime Minister, that's more than the US has had yet... But yes, gender is an issue and it is being addressed by many Muslim thinkers and activists.. Why don't you help their voice get out to the uneducated public instead of letting everyone demonize Muslims instead? All day long on social media I see some Christians posting things like "Squish them all like a bug" "Just nuke the whole ME" "They are evil rodents that must be eradicated..." Religion of Love, yeah right.

It's about Spirit.. There are good Christians, Muslims, Hindus.. etc. . My experience through Islam has made me suffer for the hurt and destroyed in this world, I can see them all as humans. Apparently your experience of god teaches you that all Muslim are following a demon.... and you know what follows calling people demons.... You don't even know how easily you'll light a match to burn all these supposed witches.. .. .. You ever cry for the dead in Iraq? Or do you only cry for souls being lost and for the calamities of the supposed faithful? Learn to separate your own fears and cultural influences from your experience of spirituality.

And of course.. to bring it back to love.. One of the greatest mystic saints and teachers of any tradition, not just Islamic.. that could teach you to see reality... the 13th century master Ibn al'Arabi

O Marvel,
a garden among the flames!

My heart can take on
any form:
a meadow for gazelles,
a cloister for monks,

For the idols, sacred ground,
Ka'ba for the circling pilgrim,
the tables of the Torah,
the scrolls of the Qur'án.

I profess the religion of love;
wherever its caravan turns along the way,
that is the belief,
the faith I keep.

originally posted by: AudioOne
And of course.. to bring it back to love.. One of the greatest mystic saints and teachers of any tradition, not just Islamic.. that could teach you to see reality... the 13th century master Ibn al'Arabi

O Marvel,
a garden among the flames!

My heart can take on
any form:
a meadow for gazelles,
a cloister for monks,

For the idols, sacred ground,
Ka'ba for the circling pilgrim,
the tables of the Torah,
the scrolls of the Qur'án.

I profess the religion of love;
wherever its caravan turns along the way,
that is the belief,
the faith I keep.

Not all Muslims are mystics, that is just a few sects in Islam.

That still doesn't answer the question. I have not found a single verse in the Quran that makes such statements. That's nice that you found poems from one Islamic mystic. I can counter it with this...

The Dark Night of the Soul by St John Of the Cross
On a dark night,
Kindled in love with yearnings–oh, happy chance!–
I went forth without being observed, My house being now at rest.
In darkness and secure,
By the secret ladder, disguised–oh, happy chance!–
In darkness and in concealment,
My house being now at rest.
In the happy night, In secret, when none saw me,
Nor I beheld aught,
Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart.
This light guided me
More surely than the light of noonday
To the place where he (well I knew who!) was awaiting me–
A place where none appeared.
Oh, night that guided me,
Oh, night more lovely than the dawn,
Oh, night that joined Beloved with lover,
Lover transformed in the Beloved!
Upon my flowery breast,
Kept wholly for himself alone,
There he stayed sleeping, and I caressed him,
And the fanning of the cedars made a breeze.
The breeze blew from the turret
As I parted his locks;
With his gentle hand he wounded my neck
And caused all my senses to be suspended.
I remained, lost in oblivion;
My face I reclined on the Beloved.
All ceased and I abandoned myself,
Leaving my cares forgotten among the lilies.

How is there love in a verse that says this

Surat Al-Bayyinah 98:6 Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

Yes, I dibelieve in Allah and Mohammed. I am a Person of the Book, the very Book that Allah told Mohammed that if he was in doubt if his prophethood, go ask the People of the Book. This Person of the Book states that according to the Book, Mohammed was in error. But Jesus loves you. Jesus gave his life for you.

Jesus didn't limit Himself to just the Jews or Christians, in fact, no one was a Christian before Jesus, they weren't Christians until the people of Antioch began to call them that as a pejorative. The Romans didn't love Christians as they were being tossed into stadiums with lions.

And yet, through all of it, they held on to the faith and hope that Jesus loves you as well. 1.6 billion Muslims are loved right now by Jesus, whom they deny. Think about it, Jesus even loved Mohammed and gave His life for Mohammed, for Mohammed to turn away from the grace and walk his own way. While we were yet sinners (even Mohammed), Christ died for us.

Funny you should mention Saint John of the Cross, because some academics see obvious influence of Islamic mysticism on his writings considering he was putting forward similar ideas to those developed by Islamic mystics 300 years earlier! In fact, it is a common knowledge in academia that many of the innovative theological ideas in Christianity during the medieval ages and the renaissance were directly influenced and taken from Arabic sources. The famous Catholic Monk Thomas Merton has this to say about Islamic Mysticism.

Merton’s interest in Sufism was a venture he specifically sought out. Initially his correspondence with the French scholar Louis Massignon, the presenter par excellence of the martyred master Hallaj to the West, was a triggering point for his interest in Islam. Particularly its mystical dimension, Sufism, the study of which Merton pursued through the works of two other important living scholars in the field, the French Henry Corbin and the Iranian Seyyed Hossein Nasr.

His discovery of Ibn 'Arabi, who bridged the domains of mysticism and philosophy, had a special impact on him, and he took an avid interest in the Spanish Sufis. It was not lost on him that the Arabic word suf referred to the coarse wool worn by a particularly ascetic group of the Prophet’s Companions, and that this was the very material with which the austere Trappists traditionally garbed themselves. And not to mention, he was a trappist monk himself, living the life of a catholic monk in sufi garb.

3. Thomas Merton's letters to Sufis

Father Thomas Merton's most fruitful correspondence which he had on Sufism was with a Pakistani sufi master and scholar, Abdul Aziz, who first wrote to him in November 1960 when his name had been furnished by Massignon, in answer to his request for the recommendation of a contact with “some genuine Christian saint and contemplative mystics”. It was the letters and books which Merton received from this fertile source that spawned the series of Sunday lectures on Sufism.

In answer to a query by Abdul Aziz about books on St. John of the Cross, Merton mentions the works of the two contemporary priests, Fr. Bruno de Jésus-Marie and Fr. Paul Nwyia, on the saint and his possible Sufi connections.

One of the fruits of the exchange of books between Merton and Abdul Aziz was the monk’s receipt of a copy of Titus Burckhardt’s classic text on Sufism, which prompted him to comment to his correspondent that Sufism clearly involved “a deep mystical experience of the mystery of God our Creator Who watches over us at every moment with infinite love and mercy”. He mentions that Burckhardt’s book also directed his attention to the importance of tawhid as central to the Sufi perspective, prompting him to note:

"I think that the closest to Islam among the Christian mystics on this point are the Rhenish and Flemish mystics of the fourteenth century, including Meister Eckhart, who was greatly influenced by Avicenna (the Persian mystical philosopher Ibn Sina). The culmination of their mysticism is in the ‘Godhead’ beyond ‘God’ (a distinction which caused trouble to many theologians in the Middle Ages and is not accepted without qualifications) but at any rate it is an ascent to perfect and ultimate unity...

Another point from Burckhardt which impresses Merton is the matter of “the dhikr which resembles the techniques of the Greek monks, and I am familiar with its use, for it brings one close to God”. He agrees that God “alone is Real, and we have our reality only as a gift from Him at every moment. And at every moment it is our joy to be realized by Him over an abyss of nothingness”, a comment which reflects the agony of Merton’s existential state as much as anything springing from Sufi doctrine, for he goes on to say with a particularly un-Sufi-like bitterness, “but the world has turned to the abyss and away from Him Who Is. That is why we live in dreadful times”. The Sufi perspective would be that no time in the world is better or worse than any other; the ‘dreadfulness’ comes in one’s individual inattention to God at any time.

Some of your own Christian mystics you value were influenced by Islam! lol

Not just one mystic poet.. The Whole tradition of Islamic Mysiticism. Once again you show your ignorance. Your blinders won't stop someone who is actually interested from finding 10,000's of pages of unitive mystical Islamic love literature, as hard as you might try to dismiss it as some lone phenomenon. Tell me, does your experience of Jesus say anything about Pride? About making proclamations based on emotion versus knowledge and never admitting you're wrong? That's why you lost respect in this thread from intelligent thoughtful people. Your so sure of what you "FEEL" that you think trying to convey that at any cost (even the cost of not knowing what you are talking about) is worth the end result. Except you are clueless. Is that how a grownup in Christ acts? Or do you think you would serve Christ better by knowing what you are talking about? Don't you think you should know something about Islamic mysticism before talking about it? I listed books at the beginning of the thread, and you haven't looked at any of them. You ask questions that no one would ask if you simply read some books. So, pride and condescension are what you are bringing, not love and enlightenment. It would be like my arguing against Christians because they are all cannibals. This wasn't an outlandish accusation in Rome as people didn't understand the Eucharist and it was all hearsay and fear mongering. That is exactly the same thing you are doing with Islam. Attacking it using hearsay and fear mongering, as opposed to DEEP research.

Here are some more books... Just from a simple Amazon search for Sufi Love ..
Books

Here is a great introductory text on Islam used at many Universities.

Vi sions of Islam

Hafiz poem:

I
Have
Learned
So much from God
That I can no longer
Call
Myself

A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
a Buddhist, a Jew.

The Truth has shared so much of Itself
With me

That I can no longer call myself
A man, a woman, an angel,
Or even a pure
Soul.

Love has
Befriended Hafiz so completely
It has turned to ash
And freed
Me

Of every concept and image
my mind has ever known.

.........................................................................................
As far as your questions about the Qur'an.. The Qur'an constantly says that God is closer to you than your jugular vein. That is all over the Qur'an and it means that Allah dwells inside of you, and when you realize it you can be in divine ecstatic Union with the All, the only Being. It also states in the Qur'an that "I was a hidden treasure and I loved to be known so I created heaven and earth that I may be known." And it is through love... What do you think Ar-rahman Ar-rahim means? It starts every single chapter, all through the Qur'an... It is through Allah's Mercy, compassion and beneficence that we share in his reality. Read real books or find another hobby (i.e. not uneducated Muslim bashing.)

a reply to: AudioOne

No, it means that a spiritual entity calling itself Allah is inside.

Did Mohammed test the spirit to see if it was from God? People are filled with evil entities all the time, even Satan transforming himself into an angel of light.

1 John 4:1 - Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Did he test that spirit? No, at first the spiritual entity beat him and Mohammed feared that he was possessed by that spirit. Was there an exorcism? No, so therefore the spiritual entity that possessed Mohammed and every person who takes in that spirit, what can we say about them?

Believe not every spirit.

2 Corinthians 11: 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Whose end shall be according to their works.

1 Peter 5:8 - Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Oh, he devoured many people. An angel of light, a seducing spirit, one that permitted violence and murder, slavery, rape, torture and beheading. And this is the communion you have, with that same spirit?

I am sorry to inform you, there were Christian mystics long before Mohammed and just because you think that it is the same spirit in each poem, it was not. Allah was a stone idol long before Mohammed, the black rock was a meteorite worshiped by pagans long before Mohammed, ramadan was practiced as well, long before Mohammed.

He was beaten and possessed by a spirit in that cave, one that he did not test to see if it came from God, because that spiritual being then led him into his own vain imagination of calling himself a prophet.

That spirit led him to deny the crucifixion and the deity of Christ, which is exactly what John, James, Peter and Paul all said would happen. Oh foolish Galatian, who has beguiled you to turn away from the faith?

Ephesians 6:10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: 18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

We don't wrestle with flesh and blood, the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, Mohammed's was carnal. Following the lust of his heart, from a spirit that seduced him, transformed into an angel of light. Did you test the spirit that led Mohammed? And this spirit you desire to have communion and unity with?

Did you know at Kaibar, Mohammed showed up with his army to attack a village of Jews who had come out that morning carrying spades and baskets? He killed the men and took the women captive, forcing one woman to "marry" him. She then poisoned him. You see, the woman paid the blood money for the life of her husband and father, she exacted it from Mohammed. He slaughtered a village of Jews who only had spades and baskets. And you say you desire communion with that spirit? Yes, that demon allah in Mohammed is closer than your aorta, but not mine.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: AudioOne
Did you know at Kaibar, Mohammed showed up with his army to attack a village of Jews who had come out that morning carrying spades and baskets? He killed the men and took the women captive, forcing one woman to "marry" him. She then poisoned him. You see, the woman paid the blood money for the life of her husband and father, she exacted it from Mohammed. He slaughtered a village of Jews who only had spades and baskets. And you say you desire communion with that spirit? Yes, that demon allah in Mohammed is closer than your aorta, but not mine.

Again, lies and ignorance... At the battle of Khaybar, he didn't kill the men and take women captive, and the woman who poisoned him didn't marry him.
en.wikipedia.org...

Do your homework... Look in the mirror. How can you judge something without knowing anything about it?

I grew up in Christianity and used to be a Christian. I know all about the fear of spirits and demons blah blah.. Sure those forces exist, except some Christians see them where they don't exist. I felt God in Church and then I had God explained to me though Islamic mysticism.

But what's the point of arguing with you when you get everything wrong and won't open up a book? Islamic mysticism's impact on Christianity (as well as science and math) is fact, historical fact! Open a history book! The historical records are there! The records of debates and translations of Arabic works in Christian monasteries! Sure there were Christian mystics before Islam. But HISTORICALLY with EVIDENCE in the HISTORY BOOKS ISLAM INNOVATED THEOLOGY THAT CHRISTIANS WERE LATER INFLUENCED BY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T EVOLVE THEIR MYSTICISM AND THEOLOGY TO THE SAME DEGREE!

At least European Christianity which had killed off all other offshoots of Christianity which had to escape to the ME. The people of the book weren't European Christians in the ME!!! They had different scriptures! (the ones they were killed for by the Roman Catholic Church)
Have you ever read any of the Nag Hammadi texts? You know, all those alternate stories and theologies of Christ that often contradicted the gospels? History.. The texts and traditions that Muhammad was fulfilling wasn't your King Jimmy Bible. You don't even know your own Christian History. Read Hans Kung's Christianity : Its Essence and History. It will teach you much you desperately need to know. Follow that with some Thomas Merton.

a reply to: AudioOne

No? He didn't kill the Jews at Kaybar?

Let's see if that is a true statement you just made...

Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi) Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 59 :: Hadith 510 Narrated Anas: Allah's Apostle reached Khaibar at night and it was his habit that, whenever he reached the enemy at night, he will not attack them till it was morning. When it was morning, the Jews came out with their spades and baskets, and when they saw him(i.e. the Prophet ), they said, "Muhammad! By Allah! Muhammad and his army!" The Prophet said, "Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Narrated Anas bin Malik: We reached Khaibar early in the morning and the inhabitants of Khaibar came out carrying their spades, and when they saw the Prophet they said, "Muhammad! By Allah! Muhammad and his army!" The Prophet said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." We then got the meat of donkeys (and intended to eat it), but an announcement was made by the announcer of the Prophet, "Allah and His Apostle forbid you to eat the meat of donkeys as it is an impure thing."

Battle of Khaybar

Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad) Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 52 :: Hadith 195 Narrated Anas: The Prophet set out for Khaibar and reached it at night. He used not to attack if he reached the people at night, till the day broke. So, when the day dawned, the Jews came out with their bags and spades. When they saw the Prophet; they said, "Muhammad and his army!" The Prophet said, Allahu--Akbar! (Allah is Greater) and Khaibar is ruined, for whenever we approach a nation (i.e. enemy to fight) then it will be a miserable morning for those who have been warned."

The Jews were carrying spades and baskets, coming out that morning to do their jobs...Mohammed attacked a village of people with shovels...and buckets...

The Battle of Khyber

The Jews had been evicted from Medina, because they didn't accept Mohammed.

Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad) Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 52 :: Hadith 234 Narrated Anas: The Prophet reached Khaibar in the morning, while the people were coming out carrying their spades over their shoulders. When they saw him they said, "This is Muhammad and his army! Muhammad and his army!" So, they took refuge in the fort. The Prophet raised both his hands and said, "Allahu Akbar, Khaibar is ruined, for when we approach a nation (i.e. enemy to fight) then miserable is the morning of the warned ones." Then we found some donkeys which we (killed and) cooked: The announcer of the Prophet announced: "Allah and His Apostle forbid you to eat donkey's meat." So, all the pots including their contents were turned upside down.

The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar) Muslim :: Book 19 : Hadith 4438 It has been narrated (through another chain of transmitters) on the authority of the same narrator (i. e. Anas) who said: I was riding behind Abu Talha on the day of the Battle of Khaibar (and we were riding so close to the Holy Prophet that) my foot would touch his We encountered the people at sunrise when they had come out with their axes, spades and strings driving their cattle along. They shouted (in surprise): Muhammad has come along with his force! The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Khaibar shall face destruction. Behold! when we descend in the city-square of a people, it is a bad day for those who have been warned (but have not taken heed). Allah, the Glorious and Majestic, inflicted defeat upon them.

Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi) Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 59 :: Hadith 551 Narrated Abu Huraira: When Khaibar was conquered, a (cooked) sheep containing poison, was given as a present to Allah's Apostle

Gifts Bukhari :: Book 3 :: Volume 47 :: Hadith 786 Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle .

Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi) Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 59 :: Hadith 512 Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her 'Mahr'.

So, were the men killed and the women taken captive or not?

Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi) Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 59 :: Hadith 513 Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz bin Suhaib: Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet took Safiya as a captive. He manumitted her and married her." Thabit asked Anas, "What did he give her as Mahr (i.e. marriage gift)?" Anas replied. "Her Mahr was herself, for he manumitted her."

So it is a "marriage" because she was taken captive and then forced to marry Mohammed after her husband and father were killed. Does that sound like a loving marriage to you?

He "manumitted" her so he could "marry her", and you think this is what a loving prophet does?

a reply to: AudioOne

Did the Islamic sources lie or not?

Was Kaibar destroyed or not, was Safiyah taken captive or not, were the men killed or not?

This Muslim guy believes it

I have heard the following: that the Jews tried to kill the Messenger 3 times. And the last time was 6 years before the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, with poisoned mutton, of which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ate two mouthfuls, then Allaah caused the sheep to speak and tell the Messenger that it was poisoned. When the Messenger died, he said that it was as if he could taste that mutton. Is this true? If it is true, then it means that we have a great score to settle with them.

What else can we say?

What sources? Are you a hadith scholar now? Are you able to tell me of the thousands of hadiths you know which ones are strong and which ones are weak? Muslims collected any sayings they could find and recorded them for posterity to sift through, unlike the Roman Catholic Church that destroyed any alternate stories of Jesus that didn't fit their political motives. Today the Hadith are still being sifted through with a historical eye to see where politics interpolated information after the fact. You know, kind of like James Kugle who takes a historical eye to the OT. All historical documents are flawed. The NT itself has many variations among different scrolls before "definitive" ones are chosen. If you actually want to know about the battle of Khaybar, read Martin Lings translation of the earliest biographies of Muhammad that tell the whole story, not hastily patched together hadith which you don't know if they are considered strong or weak and which don't tell a story, just a few quick sayings, especially as educated Muslims have a more critical eye to these texts now, just as the OT and NT is seen more critically now than 200 years ago where people thought the earth is just 6,000 years old and the OT represented historical fact. Again, read the Wikipedia entry on this battle:
en.wikipedia.org...

You are still hastily throwing mud without comprehending what you are reading. Zaynab bint al-Haarith is the name of the woman who tried to poison Muhammad. She stated that if he was a prophet than the roast would tell him it had been poisoned. He took one bite and immediately heard the shoulder cry out that it ha been poisoned and he spit it out without swallowing, according to the earliest biographies which give the whole story, not small snippets of what someone heard which is what the hadith is (and many hadith are considered weak, they collected everything and left it to posterity to sort through.) You keep conflating Zaynab bint al-Haarith with Saffiya who married Muhammad. Oh the IGNORANCE! According to the earliest biographies Saffiya had a dream that she would marry Muhammad and her tribal elder hit her for it. She had a choice to leave with her tribe (according to the earliest biographies) or stay and marry Muhammad. She is NOT Zaynab bint al-Haarith who never married Muhammad. The tribes at Kyaybar had been orchestrating attacks on the Muslims and they had enough. If someone was attacking your village wouldn't you want to stop the people constantly orchestrating it? According to the biographies, the people at Khaybar were well armed and walked around with their armor. The only captives taken were those who tried to trick Muhammad when a surrender was brokered. The rest had a choice to leave or stay and give part of their harvest to Muhammad as terms of surrender. This is all in the earliest biographies which tell the whole story, not small snippets that are open for interpretation. But you can't even get who Muhammad's wife is right!

Also, if I argue Christianity, I'm not choosing some backwoods redneck who things all women should be barefoot and pregnant. The one scholar you linked is one of the most orthodox salafi extreme scholars there is, backward. Not that what you linked had anything to do with anything as of course I knew there where attempts on the Prophet's life. I said "THE WOMAN WHO MARRIED HIM DIDN"T TRY TO POISON HIM!" Direct Quote! Can't you read? You've proven through this thread that you can not comprehend anything you read. The woman who married him is not Zaynab bint al-Haarith. And what do you do? List link after link about Zaynab bint al-Haarith trying to poison him missing my obvious statement that she was not his wife. Here is a lesson in reading comprehension. If i had said, "No one tried to poison Muhammad." That would mean that I am arguing there wasn't an attempted poisoning, at that point it would make sense for your massive link fest. Reading comprehension should tell you that since I stated that "the woman who married him didn't try to poison him", that the issue lies with who you are talking about in your hastily put together ignorant Muslim bashing. Does Zaynab bint al-Haarith look like Saffiyah? SAFFIYAH did not try to poison Muhammad! In fact she had a dream about him.

So what else can you say? I'm sure you'll make something up, again without reading Martin Ling's translated biography or any of the books I've mentioned in your mudslinging fest. And to think, you actually started this thread pretending to be non biased!

originally posted by: Seede
Peter you are a cut above most ATS posters and you have, in my understanding, much knowledge and ability to show that knowledge but for the life of me I do not believe you understand Christianity as true Christianity was at one time. It has nothing to do with intelligence and it is unfair of you to think that I hold that premise. Of course there are many brilliant people in all religions and to say that one is greater in intelligence than another is not true at all.

I simply have to disagree with your assessment regarding my knowledge of Christianity or its origins or early stages. Let's cut the fat off the top here and get to the crux of this. You have made the same comment to several posters regarding "true Christianity". What exactly is true Christianity to YOU? Perhaps that would be a good starting point to better understand where our differences in opinion actually lie.

Most all people who are critics of Christianity will not understand that to discuss Christianity one must declare the denomination of the sect of which it is to be discussed. Most all named Christian sects of today are not Christians at all.. My opinion is that JW’s are not Christians, CLDS’s are not Christians, Roman and Greek Orthodox are not true Christians and most all organized denominations who bear the name tags of Christianity are not Christians by the measure of the first Synagogue of Christians under Christ Jesus and His Apostles. The closest groups are the Messianic Jews and they number about 350,000 world wide. Now remember that this is only my opinion in the theological realm. This has nothing to do with intelligence of people. There are brilliant people in all religions.

And why exactly do you feel that Messianic Jews are the closest thing to a true Christian? And why would my own religious upbringing exclude my knowledge of early Christianity? It's a far reaching assumption on what I do or do not know based on me not agreeing with you POV or my pointing out warmindy's blatant islamophobia and her own hypocritical statements.

When one says the word Christian it is almost always with their understanding that they are referencing all of these many divisions of religions as Christians and that is the problem. When I declare to anyone that I am a Christian I should make it clear that I am of the Synagogue of James the Just and the twelve Apostles of Christ Jesus. I do have prejudices and I believe all people have the same otherwise we would not have all of these divisions. When people attack me then we are discussing the first Christian Church of the first century under James the brother of Christ Jesus and not this conglomerate that is called Christians today. In fact I have a hard time accepting any organized religions today.

I'm sorry, but that's a bunch of hooey in my opinion. The early church was SO divided and there were so many sects, so many varying traditions in the first 250-300 years of the church that anybody can lay claim to a any number of them and cite them as the "true church" or faith. One thing we can agree on though is the bastardization of the original message by organized religion. Especially so in the American South and Midwest.

Now I believe what is fair for one is fair for all. When we discuss Islam we are discussing one accepted source called Muhammad and one literature called their Koran or Quran. Here on ATS I constantly read insulting posts smearing the Talmud as well as Torah and I rarely see any one as a champion of Torah. I constantly read that this God of the OT was a barbaric murderer and not the same God as the NT.

I think the disparity of the messages between the Hebrew Texts and the NT say it rather loud and clear. The Hebrew tribal God of the OT/Torah/Talmud is a very different entity than the one attributed to Christ. There really isn't much of an argument against this IMO

I have read post after post declaring that this Abraham who would kill his own child is a nut and his God is just as nuts. Post after post is loaded with glaring insults to the God of Moses and then when a response does come from a Christian it is the same old “PROVE IT” or “IT DOESN”T MEAN THAT” or other such rhetoric. When all else fails then comes the attack on the messenger.

In this instance, yes. I am most definitely attacking warmindy as the messenger. Her message is based on quote mining and finger pointing, ignorance, fear and hatred of something she doesn't seem to understand based on a POV that I'm assuming is gleaned from Christian websites. In her above reply to me she makes statements admonishing me based on my first hand experience with Muslims who I am friends with, Muslims I have served with and Muslims I knew in Muslim countries while the extend of her knowledge of Islam is that which is gleaned from the internet. I've been to Bosnia, I know full well the horrors of sectarian violence in ways that warmindy will never be able to imagine. The things I saw first hand would institutionalize most people. But somehow I now know nothing yet quote mined sources or minority viewpoints gleaned from biased sources are the real experts because they agree with her? There is northing remotely resembling a desire to learn the truth there. There is little more than a desire to gather further confirmation bias because she is, based on many conversations we have had in various threads on ATS, scared out of her wits about attacks on Christianity in America and what the Muslims are going to do once they implement full scale Sharia here. You need to hold both her and yourself to the same standards you expect from me.

Then when Warminlndy makes a thread with direct questions and invites conversations I see the same old pattern of attack her character. Not discussing the thread but simply attack the character. Regardless of character it should be attack with logical informative conversation. That will educate our minds and perhaps clear misunderstandings. Show Warminlndy and me through the posted material where we are mistaken. I have honestly read her thread well over half dozen times and see nothing that depicts her as being out of reason.

But several people of Islamic faith HAVE attempted to engage in discourse, have in fact pointed out the basis of her errors, most specifically her insisting on attributing an Anglicized grammar upon a not only non English source but not even an Indo-European language while attempting to assert the superiority of her own faith. The entire premise odf the thread is at best, disingenuous in my opinion.

The challenge is still out there. Put the club mentality aside and lets discuss with intelligence and when addressing Christianity address the denomination which claims Christianity and not the mess that exists today.

Sure, if I'm engaging you or warmindy, you guys need to be explicit about what you are basing your faith and POV on then. How can I discuss the specifics at that level without the appropriate information? I know you don't mean to put it out there as such, but the way you do could be interpreted as the beginning of a strawman argument. If you want the discussion to move in that direction, I'm more than happy to do so but everyone needs to be forthright about their end of the bargain do they not?

a reply to: peter vlar

OK, just to give you an idea of my POV, understanding the Scriptures is not what I intend to do out of my own imagination. I am, and I said it before on other threads, I am a Christian/Mystic/Quakerish/Pentecostal, meaning that I believe that Jesus IS the Christ, born of a virgin, sent to this world as God and as a man, to take the sins of the world upon Himself to bring mankind back into fellowship with God through the inward experience of the Holy Ghost.

But try as you might, this thread is not intended to be about Christianity, by diverting attention away from the premise of the thread, and that is in the title and the OP.

Unless you are willing to discuss the theme, which is the condundrums, then by diversion you are not talking about the topic at all. Rather, you are merely finding ways to justify the condundrums without explaining them.

There are how many Muslims on this thread that have agreed with you? Did they agree with your assessment of the condundrums? No, they agreed with the argument "let's point back to the Christians so they don't see what the Christian is really asking".

There is a former Christian who is now a Mystical Muslim, because apparently he read something that he agreed with. And he posts poems about the mystical experience of another Muslim, without addressing the core topic.

Now let me ask you this, since you are the voice of defense for Islam at this moment, what parts of Islam do you defend? Surely you can't defend every bit of Islam, you wouldn't be a Constitutional loving American if you did. So which parts of Islam can be defended, and which parts offend you?

If there are any parts that do offend you, then Islam as a whole cannot be defended.

Do you defend the Sharia laws from Islamic jurisprudence that says that I, as a woman, my testimony is worth half of yours? Do you defend the Sharia laws that state you may live happily and freely as a dhimmi as long as you pay the jizyah tax? And do you defend the Sharia law that says that if I am raped, I must have the testimony of four men to verify that I was raped, otherwise it is adultery?

Tell us, are there any parts of Islam that offend you.

Apparently the pedophilic rapist Mohammed doesn't offend the posters on this thread. Apparently it is ok for Mohammed and Muslims to kill people in the name of Islam.

Remember, while your friends were Muslim and told you that they could leave Islam at any time without repercussions, there are 1.6 billion more Muslims who do not say what you have just said.

Are you defending Islam or Muslims? Who cares what they want to worship, but are you defending their political or religious right?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

OK, just to give you an idea of my POV, understanding the Scriptures is not what I intend to do out of my own imagination. I am, and I said it before on other threads, I am a Christian/Mystic/Quakerish/Pentecostal, meaning that I believe that Jesus IS the Christ, born of a virgin, sent to this world as God and as a man, to take the sins of the world upon Himself to bring mankind back into fellowship with God through the inward experience of the Holy Ghost.

But try as you might, this thread is not intended to be about Christianity, by diverting attention away from the premise of the thread, and that is in the title and the OP.

You did that all on your own by constantly shifting goal posts and then denying that you do it. It's your thread and your prerogative but you have to expect to get called out on it and to be debated. Otherwise start a blog and don't post on a public forum.

Unless you are willing to discuss the theme, which is the condundrums, then by diversion you are not talking about the topic at all. Rather, you are merely finding ways to justify the condundrums without explaining them.

Wrong. I'm not justifying anything. There is no conundrum. You are imposing an Anglicized viewpoint and set of grammatic rules on what is not only not an English language, it's not even Indo-European in origin. You can't expect the same rules of grammar to apply yet you try to impose them anyways. The errors were pointed out, you refuse to accept that. And I stand by what I keep saying, you refuse to acknowledge such because you're scared to death of Muslims.

There are how many Muslims on this thread that have agreed with you? Did they agree with your assessment of the condundrums? No, they agreed with the argument "let's point back to the Christians so they don't see what the Christian is really asking".

Wrong again. They showed you exactly what was wrong in the first page and a half of this thread. You are misinterpreting things and quote mining from biased sources. have you read the Q'ran? Have you been to any Muslim countries? How many Muslim friends do you have?

There is a former Christian who is now a Mystical Muslim, because apparently he read something that he agreed with. And he posts poems about the mystical experience of another Muslim, without addressing the core topic.

And that has what exactly to do with me?

Now let me ask you this, since you are the voice of defense for Islam at this moment, what parts of Islam do you defend? Surely you can't defend every bit of Islam, you wouldn't be a Constitutional loving American if you did. So which parts of Islam can be defended, and which parts offend you?

Am I defending Islam in America or Islam in Muslim countries? I was pretty clear earlier that what others do in their own sovereign nations is their business and not mine. When I was in their countries, I abided by their laws. In America, I follow the constitution that I swore an oath to protect and defend when I enlisted and expect everyone else to abide by our laws

If there are any parts that do offend you, then Islam as a whole cannot be defended.

I'm advocating against hypocrisy, ignorance, hatred of the unknown and fear mongering. I think my positions on organized religion are pretty well known around here. I have no use for any of it. Jesus, Yahweh, Allah, Shiva...whatever your flavor is, its not for me.

Do you defend the Sharia laws from Islamic jurisprudence that says that I, as a woman, my testimony is worth half of yours? Do you defend the Sharia laws that state you may live happily and freely as a dhimmi as long as you pay the jizyah tax? And do you defend the Sharia law that says that if I am raped, I must have the testimony of four men to verify that I was raped, otherwise it is adultery?

You're back to sensationalistic fear mongering...not quite a conundrum as outlined in your OP now is it? You apparently get to make the rules but don't have to follow them huh?

Tell us, are there any parts of Islam that offend you.

Organized religion as a whole offends me. Believers who don't want to shove their views down my throat or proselytize to me or make hateful comments about others are totally cool with me. Grandstanding, making remarks that incite fear and hate... I have no use for. I judge people by how they treat me as individuals not who they do or do not pray to.

Apparently the pedophilic rapist Mohammed doesn't offend the posters on this thread. Apparently it is ok for Mohammed and Muslims to kill people in the name of Islam.

Just as it's OK with you to not condemn the acts of Christians over the past 1700 years of their stranglehold on western society. I think the Cathars of France for example, would disagree with your sentiments.

Remember, while your friends were Muslim and told you that they could leave Islam at any time without repercussions, there are 1.6 billion more Muslims who do not say what you have just said.

Damn... good for you. I hadn't realized that you had surveyed all of them. Could you post a link to the results please? Just for the sake of understanding the demographics, age, gender, nation of birth etc...

Are you defending Islam or Muslims? Who cares what they want to worship, but are you defending their political or religious right?

Islam is the religion. Muslims are the adherents.

a reply to: peter vlar

Please tell me, WHY are the verses translated into English if the translations are in error? Not my problem, theirs.

Unless it is fixed, I am sorry to say that we have to go by their translations. And if their translations are wrong, again, not my problem.

I posted THEIR translated verses. Show me where I inserted any mistranslation in that.

On this thread alone there were Muslims who said "No, not the way it should be translated"...problem. Again, I used THEIR translation, not mine. I used THEIR sources, not mine. If it is in error, blame THEM.

Are they not brave enough to stand up to the accepted scholars who translated it into English?

Islam as a religion...is POLITICAL, and that is something you need to understand, their Dawah means that THEY follow..Islamic jurisprudence BEFORE any other, even the laws of the United States.

So you are good to go with treating women the way they do in those "sovereign" countries? I didn't know you were ok with stoning women to death.

Are you willing to be a dhimmi?

Dhimmitude: the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars, encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political system. The word "dhimmitude" as a historical concept, was coined by Bat Ye'or in 1983 to describe the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to Islamic rule.

Dhimmitude encompasses the relationship of Muslims and non-Muslims at the theological, social, political and economical levels. It also incorporates the relationship between the numerous ethno-religious dhimmi groups and the type of mentality that they have developed out of their particular historical condition which lasted for centuries, even in some Muslim countries, till today. Dhimmitude is an entire integrated system, based on Islamic theology. It cannot be judged from the circumstantial position of any one community, at a given time and in a given place. Dhimmitude must be appraised according to its laws and customs, irrespectively of circumstances and political contingencies.

You cannot extricate religion from politics. Are you defending their religion or their politics?

I know what a Muslim is, I know what Islam is. There is no compulsion in religion...except for those who are subjugated under Islamic religio/political jurisprudence.

By defacto definition, you are defending their political subjugation, because you cannot separate it from their religion. So you are against their organized religio/political system and you are defending their religio/political system at the same time?

Are you willing to be a dhimmi? See, these Muslims on this thread already have the status of being free from being dhimmis, that's why it is so easy to tell you what they want you to hear. They don't pay the jizyah tax, they don't have to worry about not going to masjid or wearing shorts or whatever they want, they don't even have to worry when they eat pork and sing rock music, because they are Muslim they will be forgiven. But you, oh Western man, you must worry because you aren't Muslim, you aren't forgiven, you are kafir to them. You don't believe in Allah or the prophet, therefore according to them, you are kafir.

Here is the United Nations document of the failure of human rights in Islamic countries.

If it is only a religion, then WHY does the United Nations have to make an issue of their political system?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

There is a former Christian who is now a Mystical Muslim, because he apparently studied religions and meditations for twenty one years and found that Islamic Mysticism fit his experiences and enabled further more powerful experiences. He apparently was drawn also by their inclusive view of all religions believing that God dwells in many different paths and grown up mystics understand this, he doesn't condemn Buddhists, Hindus, Native Americans, Christians or Jews of being deceived by demons like I do . And he posts poems about the mystical experiences of three separate influential Muslims, but because of my poor reading skills I wrote that it was just one Muslim. I hope you believe me when I say that he is not addressing the core topic because if you look back a few pages you will find he was one of the posters who refuted my inane grammatical shahada conundrum. As I can never admit that I am wrong, once people started refuting my argument I started to hastily throwing out whatever misinformation and accusations I could which had nothing to do with my original OP. However, when my inane comments were corrected I accused the posters of going off topic even though the posters were only refuting my off topic posts. I said that God doesn't dwell in Islam (and hence the mysticism rebuttal) or that Muhammad's wife tried to poison him (which was also refuted.) I will also ignore the fact that St. John of the Cross utilized mystical thought developed in Islam more than 300 years earlier. Oh Jesus in heaven, please let no one who reads this thread read any posts other than mine so they don't see that I am the one who went off topic after I couldn't admit my original OP was refuted, and that every single thing other posters stated was in rebuttal to my all over the place accusations.

Fixed it for you

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

Please tell me, WHY are the verses translated into English if the translations are in error? Not my problem, theirs.

Unless it is fixed, I am sorry to say that we have to go by their translations. And if their translations are wrong, again, not my problem.

You don't HAVE to do anything. You have the option of going to a mosque and asking an actual Imam or scholar to explain the translations to you. You're taking the easy way out with your stubborn childlike tantrum here.

I posted THEIR translated verses. Show me where I inserted any mistranslation in that.

Come on... it's been shown and explained already on pages 1 and 2. I'm not going to rehash information that's been presented in multiplicity.

On this thread alone there were Muslims who said "No, not the way it should be translated"...problem. Again, I used THEIR translation, not mine. I used THEIR sources, not mine. If it is in error, blame THEM.

Did you use THEIR translation or the PUBLISHERS translation? There's a huge difference. Not bothering to look further is indeed your problem.

Are they not brave enough to stand up to the accepted scholars who translated it into English?

See above

Islam as a religion...is POLITICAL, and that is something you need to understand, their Dawah means that THEY follow..Islamic jurisprudence BEFORE any other, even the laws of the United States.

And back to the fear mongering. In the US all are bound by US law. If they do not follow it, then call the police and report them. Do your civic duty. Be proactive.

So you are good to go with treating women the way they do in those "sovereign" countries? I didn't know you were ok with stoning women to death.

I'm not going to play your baiting game as this goes farther and farther off course. You were after all the one who was whining about me taking things too far off topic correct? Ag screw it... I'll play. IF I lived in a country where this was practiced, born and vbred there, I would in fact stand against it. But it's their country, home and choice and thus I have no say. What is your solution? Military campaign to wipe them out? Please give me YOUR solution to this please.

Are you willing to be a dhimmi?

Dhimmitude: the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars, encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political system. The word "dhimmitude" as a historical concept, was coined by Bat Ye'or in 1983 to describe the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to Islamic rule.

I'm neither a Jew nor a Christian and I don't live in a Muslim country. Neither do you. You're creating a mountain out of a mole hill with this ridiculous rhetoric. Demonstrate a basis for any of this in the US or just admit you're scared and hate them.

You cannot extricate religion from politics. Are you defending their religion or their politics?

I've answered this repeatedly at this point. Why the baiting game? You are conflating the powerful minorities with the majority and imposing your wrath upon all which is really hypocritical when you're all for this while totally against the same thing being levied at Christianity as a whole. Your faith is unimpeachable despite being just as guilty of every single charge you levy against Islam. It's disgusting and it's not at all Christian of you.

I know what a Muslim is, I know what Islam is. There is no compulsion in religion...except for those who are subjugated under Islamic religio/political jurisprudence.

And in the US, who falls under this?

By defacto definition, you are defending their political subjugation, because you cannot separate it from their religion. So you are against their organized religio/political system and you are defending their religio/political system at the same time?

You just love to put words in peoples mouths and twist em up good don't you? I'm less defending anyone than I am standing up against blatant hypocrisy, hatred and fear mongering. How many different ways will you ask this question? I will give the same damned answer every time.

Are you willing to be a dhimmi? See, these Muslims on this thread already have the status of being free from being dhimmis, that's why it is so easy to tell you what they want you to hear. They don't pay the jizyah tax, they don't have to worry about not going to masjid or wearing shorts or whatever they want, they don't even have to worry when they eat pork and sing rock music, because they are Muslim they will be forgiven. But you, oh Western man, you must worry because you aren't Muslim, you aren't forgiven, you are kafir to them. You don't believe in Allah or the prophet, therefore according to them, you are kafir.

I don't believe in Jesus or Yahweh either. So what? Once again, I base my impressions of people on how they treat ME on a personal level. I don't fault the whole for the actions of a minority. Should the German people have been punished for the actions of their military regime during WW2?

And for the record, nobody has told me what (I wanted to hear. I got my information from the Q'ran, from books aplenty and years of research as well as from Muslims in Muslim countries. It's interesting that you fight so viciously for your POV but haven't actually answered the questions I asked. How much of the Q'ran have you read? Do you own one? The one I have has the English translation as well as explanations in it as to the differences in grammar. How many Muslims do you know personally? How many Muslim countries have you been to? Will you release the survey you did of 1.6 bn Muslims worldwide? Tell the truth... are you or are you not scared out of your wits because you believe "they" are trying to impose Sharia law in the US? Do you or do you not believe that Christianity is under attack in the US? Are you afraid of Muslims or not?

If it is only a religion, then WHY does the United Nations have to make an issue of their political system?

Please find me a single country that's not in violation of UN Human Rights clauses.

www.hrw.org...

www.truth-out.org...#

If you simply plan to attack me and not answer my questions, consider this my last reply to you. Best of luck to you and I hope you can find some peace in your heart and stop being so hateful and hypocritical. But unless your as willing to be introspective about your issues as you are willing to rally against others that you seem to know little about except for what you read on biased Christian web sources than there's not much to talk about.