It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The truth about Islam

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
What's really interesting is when people who have no clue about a certain religion start spouting off psuedo-facts that have no basis in actual truth.

Islam is nothing like Christianity; not the same god.

And I'm neither a Christian or a Jew. Just a guy who wondered why Muslims want to kill me and bothered to make an effort to find out.


Collectively they have a lot in common for being to different Gods.

LinkAfter perusing the Koran and the Bible, the experts collated numerous “correlative links” between Allah and Yahweh, among which are these:

* Each created the heavens and the earth in six days.
* Each called the first man, whom he created, Adam.
* Each has a favorite people.
* Each is called God, Almighty, All-knowing, King, Everlasting, Most High.
* Each is merciful, forgiving, jealous, angry, vengeful, and wrathful.
* Each is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnific.
* Each assumes human form and uses human language.
* Each employs angelic messengers.
* Each is opposed by a wicked angelic adversary.
* Each inspired the biblical prophets: Abraham, Moses, Noah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, Job, Jonah, Zechariah, Jesus, et al.
* Each works miracles and answers prayers.
* Each subjects woman to man, licenses polygamy, and condones slavery.
* Each regulates diet and hygiene.
* Each enjoins gifts to priests and propitiatory sacrifices.
* Each has a proclivity for thematic and verbal repetition.
* Each monitors human thoughts and deeds.
* Each edifies believers by chastening them..
* Each hardens the heart of enemies so they will not repent.
* Each stigmatizes criticism and rational inquiry.
* Each demands charity to orphans, the sick, the feeble, and the poor.
* Each afflicts, maims, or kills the disobedient, particularly those who worship false gods.
* Each exalts war on infidels.

Edit--- Though I must admit, If I were God, I would do all these too.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by farhyde]




posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
If you've seen any or all of the beheadings you also see what I'm talking about.


Murder is murder. A human does not die any more by the cutting of his jugular than a bullet in his brain. A quicker death does not make the taking of a life more humane, does it?


But when is murder not murder? Is it when God commands it?

So when a policeman shoots an armed criminal in the course of his duties, thus saving multiple lives...that is murder?

None of the soldiers I have known have ever claimed a religious direction for their work or exemption from their guilt. They claim society's blessing, democracy's blessing, the people's forgiveness, not God's command. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is claiming God's direction, he is acting on God's orders.

As noted by Ghandi, Christ is the man who said "offer him the other cheek".

Also noted by the Mahatma: "An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind".

The point of Ibn's comparison with Christianity is that Christ was a pacifist and his words negate the tracts of the old testament that disagree. Christ said that an adulteress should indeed be punished. The punishment, he noted, was stoning.
But "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".

"Vengeance is mine," sayeth the Lord. Not yours, or mine or Zarqawi's or Dubya's.

I personally don't have that much against Islam as a whole (Ibn would possibly say I live in a large white tower made of elephant tusk) but when two hundred holiday makers are killed in the name of Islam in a Hindu city on a Hindu island...It doesn't make my heart sing for Allah.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 03:13 AM
link   


The point of Ibn's comparison with Christianity is that Christ was a pacifist and his words negate the tracts of the old testament that disagree. Christ said that an adulteress should indeed be punished. The punishment, he noted, was stoning.


Perfectly taken out of context. The point of this illustration from Christ is to say , 'no one is without guilt, therefore, noone has the right to throw a stone'. Did you see christ then pick up a rock to stone the prostitute then to complete the punishent? No.. he said, 'your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more'.

If you kill someone, you are casting judgement. You are saying, 'I judge that person worthy of death'. Who are you to make that judgement. In the bible it says, 'judge not lest you be judged' and God makes it quite clear that he will be the judge at the end of time.

Murder in any form is murder, you cant water it down and two wrongs dont make a right.

From my understanding of the Bible, christ came to preserve life, not to shorten it. Why doesnt man kind try to do the same thing?



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 03:21 AM
link   
I admire your ability to selectively quote and therefore change the meaning of someone's words.

Don't tell me what I meant and then correct me by repeating my own argument. Jesus' message, as I pointed out, was "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". We are all, according to that definition, sinners and therefore no-one may take part in the stoning.

To quote something much more modern "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". The meaning is exactly the same.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I admire your ability to selectively quote and therefore change the meaning of someone's words.

Don't tell me what I meant and then correct me by repeating my own argument. Jesus' message, as I pointed out, was "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". We are all, according to that definition, sinners and therefore no-one may take part in the stoning.

To quote something much more modern "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". The meaning is exactly the same.


Ok, obviously I missunderstood what you said. good we agree



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 04:25 AM
link   
farhyde~

Sure there are similarities. Muhammad's basic original message was that he was the final in the line of prophets stretching from him to Jesus all the way down to Moses, Abraham, and Adam.

Muhammad also hijacked certain aspects of Zoroastrianism and Sabaism, along with the tribal traditions of Mecca, such as the kab'aa, circumambulation, and throwing stones at the devil. However as Watt has asserted, it is clear that Abraham was never at Mecca.

But if they all worshipped the same god Allah would not be so vengeful towards the followers of these other religions. And at first he wasn't, because Muhammad had no power and he basically had to beg these people to convert, and he did this by including these traditions and prophets to his own fabrication.

After his base was established in Medina and he no longer needed them, because many saw his strength in battle as a sign of divine favor, he percieved them as a threat and had them wiped out. And from then on Allah unleashed his wrath on them. Kill them, subdue them, enslave them, rape them.

If you read the Christian Bible, OT and NT, and the Qur'an, it is clear that we are not reading about the same god.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by farhyde
[
Collectively they have a lot in common for being to different Gods.

LinkAfter perusing the Koran and the Bible, the experts collated numerous “correlative links” between Allah and Yahweh, among which are these:

* Each created the heavens and the earth in six days.
\


Yeah,this is all very familier

Muhammad takes us through a spirited debate on what was created first. Tabari I:198 “I heard Muhammad say: ‘The first thing created by Allah was the Pen. And Allah said to it: “Write!” It proceeded at that very hour to write whatever is going to be.’”

This is an essential insight into Islam. The religion is entirely fatalistic. There is no choice. Everything, including our eternity, is predestined.
This is the inverse of Judeo-Christianity, where we are given the choice to love God or reject him.

Returning to the “Pen,” what language do you suppose it wrote? Was it some form of the Akkadian tongue in cuneiform? After all, the stylus produced the first written language on planet earth.
Or was it Egyptian hieroglyphics, which appeared next? Could it have been Hebrew—the language of Yahweh’s first revelation—the language of the Torah?
After all, Allah claims he revealed it first.
No. Allah says it was Arabic because the Pen wrote the Qur’an before man was created.
Allah lies: 046.002 “And before it the Book of Musa [Moses] was a guide: and this [Qur’an] is a Book verifying (it) in the Arabic language.”
And...039.027 “We have coined for man in this Qur’an every kind of parable in order that they may receive admonition. (It is) a Qur’an in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein): in order that they may guard (against evil).”
041.003 “A Scripture Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail; a Qur’an in Arabic, for people who have knowledge.”
Then...041.044 “Had We sent this as a Qur’an (in the language) other than Arabic, they would have said: ‘Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! (a foreign tongue, a Book) not in Arabic and (a Messenger) an Arab?’ Say (unto them, Muhammad): ‘It is a Guide to those who believe; and for those who do not believe it, there is a deafness in their ears, and it is blindness in their (eyes)!’”

The words added in the parenthesis are things the Pen must have missed as it was writing the Qur’an.
These words are not included in the Arabic original. They were added by the translators.

There are a couple of problems with the Arabic theory. Written Arabic evolved among Syrian Christians as a stylistic derivative of Aramaic in the 6th century A.D.
The is no evidence the alphabet made its way to Muhammad’s Mecca until after the Qur’an was revealed.
Even then, the Qur’an is filled with many non-Arabic words, including the word “qur’an,” which the Syrian Christians defined as “to recite” or “to preach.”

Tabari I:199 “I heard the Prophet say: ‘The first thing created by Allah was the Pen. Allah said to it: “Write!”
The Pen asked, “What shall I write?” Allah replied, “Write what is predestined.”’” I’ll give Muhammad a pass on the talking pen because it makes no less sense than a talking earth. But this I’ve got to know: if the pen knew all that was predestined, why didn’t it know what Allah wanted it to do?

Tabari explains, Tabari I:202 “There are people who consider predestination untrue. Then they consider the Qur’an untrue…. People merely carry out what is a foregone conclusion, decided by predestination and written down by the Pen.”
They actually believe this stuff. And that’s because this passage was crafted to explain the Qur’an’s 68th surah called: “The Pen.” “I [Allah] call to witness the Pen and what it inscribes.” Without the Hadith, you wouldn’t know what “Pen” god was talking about.

The second verse is delicious
. The Lord is possessed to tell his lone prophet: 068.002 “You are not demented, demon possessed, or mad.”
Then he says, “There is surely an unending reward for you.” That “reward” became the means, method, and motivation for creating, staffing, and promulgating Islam.
The following Bukhari Hadith confirms Islam’s lack of choice and Muhammad’s dearth of prophetic credentials.

Bukhari:V4B55N549 “Allah’s Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, ‘As it relates to your creation, every one of you is collected in the womb of his mother for the first forty days, and then he becomes a clot for an other forty days, and then a piece of flesh for an other forty days [a four month gestation isn’t even half right]. Then Allah sends an angel to write four words: He writes his deeds, time of his death, means of his livelihood, and whether he will be wretched or blessed.’”

Moving on, the Pen gathers rivals for its pole position in the race of creation. Tabari I:204 “I asked the Prophet, ‘Where was Allah before His creation?’ Muhammad replied: ‘He was in a cloud with no air underneath or above it.’” A cloud without air, now there’s one for the science classes. “Then Allah created His Throne upon the water.” If there were clouds, water, and a throne—how did the Pen come first?
I’m sure the prophet will clear this up, so let’s listen to a Hadith from one of his Companions. Like so many Traditions, this one is found in both Tabari and Bukhari.
Tabari I:204/Bukhari:V4B54N414 “Some people came to the Messenger, entered his presence, and said: ‘Give us gifts!’ [Muhammad’s militants were mercenaries. The prophet bribed his way to prosperity.] This continued until it annoyed him.
Then they left. Some other people came in and said, ‘We have come to greet the Messenger of Allah and become knowledgeable about the religion and ask about the beginning of the world.’
He said, ‘Allah existed while there was nothing else. His Throne was upon the water, and all that was going to be was written on the memorial Tablet before anything else was created. Then Allah created the seven heavens.’ Just then, someone came to me and said, ‘That camel of yours is gone.’ I went out and found that she was out of sight.
I surely wish that I would have let her go so that I would not have missed the rest of the Prophet’s remarks!”
Okay, let me see if I understand this. The pen was created first but before it was created Allah created his throne. The throne was on water, which was yet to be created. Then we had writing on a tablet that had yet to be created so that Allah could tell us that there are seven heavens, which were created before or after the earth depending upon which version you believe. Bottom line: the camel’s gone. That’s about all we know for sure.
Used with permission .


[edit on 9-11-2004 by KAOSKTRL]



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   
There is much more violence in the Bible than in the Qur'an.

Read 'em and you'll see what I mean.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tamahu
There is much more violence in the Bible than in the Qur'an.

Read 'em and you'll see what I mean.


No not really.
You're probably talking about mentions of wars or something?
The Koran is a more violent book than the bible, period.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 08:50 AM
link   
More cre4ation
this will sound famialiar as well

Tabari I:219 “When Allah wanted to create the creation, He brought forth smoke from the water. The smoke hovered loftily over it. He called it ‘heaven.’ Then He dried out the water and made it earth. He split it and made it seven earths on Sunday. He created the earth upon a big fish, that being the fish mentioned in the Qur’an. By the Pen, the fish was in the water. The water was upon the back of a small rock. The rock was on the back of an angel. The angel was on a big rock. The big rock was in the wind. The fish became agitated. As a result, the earth quaked, so Allah anchored the mountains and made it stable.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
What's the point of this thread?

You two are very arrogant. Using 'selective' verses to prove your 'point' that the Qu'ran is not the most peacefull of faiths, is, well, quite nice; but, when you are trying to insinuate that all Muslims are visceral un-civilized creatures - a notion that reeks in all your posts - and driven by a need to fullfill the word of a Allah, you got to far.

You have excluded the peacefull verses from the Qu'ran, as you have excluded the fact that YAWEH is just as violent as the Islamic God ALLAH, who are the one and same diety. Just as Christians insinuate that thier Lord is Yaweh, Muslims say thier God, Allah, is Yaweh.

You have forgotten that the Caliphs after Muhhamed, when raided towns, cites, etc, would leave the Jews and Christians to follow thier respected faiths; you have not given us 'empiral' date to conclude that Islam has reeked 'more' havoc than any other faith in the world -- there are over 12000.

You have also taken the Hadith as justification of these acts; the Hadiths, such as the Ahl al-Bid'ah, which were not used by many sects, and used by others to serve thier own sociopolitical ends. The Hadiths were not written until 2 centuries after the death of Muhammad; these are not 'exact' qoutes from Muhhamed himself -- another fact you seemed to have overlooked.

Now you two have just decided to bash Allah in a child like manner disregarding the 'fact' that many muslims cruise these sites.
Have some repsect.
[edit on 8-11-2004 by ZeroDeep]


Some very good points, ZeroDeep.

Perhaps I missed something, but I can't recall our hatemongers addressing your points.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   
hatemongers?
Uhm most of what they say is true.
The Islam is a religion that people use as an excuse for violence, where christianity is not. (there are always exceptions)

The original poster pointed out why exactly the Islam is not as tolerant and peacefull as some want to make it look, and he did it in quite a convincing way I think.

If you want to talk about this, please just be a little objective. Don't be so desperate to form an extremely politically correct opinion about this, sometimes things just have to be called by its name.

I know not all muslims are bad, we kinda allready had that stage. Noone is saying the Koran sucks either, even though some may feel this way.
They are saying that the actions of extremists actually can be justified with verses from the Koran, for as far as these horrible acts can be justified of course.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   
You have to be willing to believe that the apostles or Mohammed or Guru Nanak or Joseph Smith or whoever WAS THE FINAL PROPHET.

But for those in the Charismatic, Apostolic, Anabaptist, Jewish Reconstructionist MOVEMENTS, there is NO FINAL PROPHET.

But the prophet Joel says: "And after that it must occur that I shall pour out my spirit on every sort of flesh, and your sons and your daughters will certainly prophesy. As for your old men, dreams they will dream. As for your young men, visions they will see. And even on the men-servants and on the maidservants in those days I shall pour out my spirit. And I will give portents in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke." Etc. Joel Chapter Two

And so, for some of us, there is NO final prophet. God still lives, and He can still express Himself and His Will.




posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   


farhyde~

Sure there are similarities. Muhammad's basic original message was that he was the final in the line of prophets stretching from him to Jesus all the way down to Moses, Abraham, and Adam.

Muhammad also hijacked certain aspects of Zoroastrianism and Sabaism, along with the tribal traditions of Mecca, such as the kab'aa, circumambulation, and throwing stones at the devil. However as Watt has asserted, it is clear that Abraham was never at Mecca.

But if they all worshipped the same god Allah would not be so vengeful towards the followers of these other religions. And at first he wasn't, because Muhammad had no power and he basically had to beg these people to convert, and he did this by including these traditions and prophets to his own fabrication.

After his base was established in Medina and he no longer needed them, because many saw his strength in battle as a sign of divine favor, he percieved them as a threat and had them wiped out. And from then on Allah unleashed his wrath on them. Kill them, subdue them, enslave them, rape them.

If you read the Christian Bible, OT and NT, and the Qur'an, it is clear that we are not reading about the same god



Now take everything you said, and replace 'Muhhamed' with 'Jesus', and 'Allah' with 'Yaweh'. and tada ! You got the Christian doctrine.

Once again, how conveint of you to 'forget' the 'fact' that everything you stated above was accomplished by the Christian faith, if not hundreds more the world over.

You seem educated, take a good look into the 'pagan' vestiges found in the Christian doctrine.

But, beyond that; what exactly was your point ? That Muhhamed was influenced by previous faiths ?

Tell me if the following names ring a bell

Cyble
Attis
Osiris
Horus
Krishna
Dyonosis
Mithras

Once again, what's your point ? Everything you stated can be said for many other faiths the world over, no matter the 'written' theory; it's human nature to stray away from the original status qou. You've disregarded the fact that Christians have persecuted millions under agressive and passive means; you have disregarded the fact that Hindu's have persecuted millions under agressive and passive means; you have disregarded the fact that even Buddhist have persecuted many under agressive and passive means.


Muhhamed never WROTE the Qu'ran, remember ! The man was illerate, and, quite obviously, you have also forgoten that many of the caliphs after him were in quite the quandry as to what 'exactly' his teachings were.




This is an essential insight into Islam. The religion is entirely fatalistic. There is no choice. Everything, including our eternity, is predestined.
This is the inverse of Judeo-Christianity, where we are given the choice to love God or reject him.


..........

Forgive me, but since when did we forget that the Christian God 'has a plan' ? Since when did we forget you are either Christian or burn in the pits of hell ? Since when did we forget that Paul gave a slave back to his owner, than ran around preaching Christs teachings of 'freedom'...

Come on...

In Islam you can be asked to convert to the ways of Islam, but you cannot be FORCED.

Deep



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
But when is murder not murder? Is it when God commands it?]
Murder is always murder. Your question presupposes that the God I believe in is the murderous, merciless depiction in the Qu'ran and The Bible. S/He/It is not. For I refuse to believe that God would create life, and behave so abonimably to his creation, then find mercy for them only on the day of judgement.


So when a policeman shoots an armed criminal in the course of his duties, thus saving multiple lives...that is murder?
I repeat, murder is murder. If you as a Christian, Jew or Muslim believe in the God of either of those scriptures, then he has commended you not to kill. Jesus enforced it. They made no exceptions unless God himself specifically commanded same. And I highly doubt that he has told anyone to kill in his name, ever, never mind in the last 2800 years.


None of the soldiers I have known have ever claimed a religious direction for their work or exemption from their guilt. They claim society's blessing, democracy's blessing, the people's forgiveness, not God's command. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is claiming God's direction, he is acting on God's orders.
This has no relevance whatsoever, for society has granted them the right to kill by way of man-made law, not divine law. May I remind you that Bush too claimed God's direction, he I suppose is excused because he is not Muslim? Furthermore, news coverage this weekend showed the US soldiers in prayer asking they be successful in defeating the enemy. If they weren't imploring God take their side and slay the enemy, whose direction and forgiveness were they seeking? You would think that with both sides praying to their God, he would have declared the winner quickly and save those he considers just and doing his work. Maybe he is just ensuring those that die are actually the unjust, even martyrs?


The point of Ibn's comparison with Christianity is that Christ was a pacifist and his words negate the tracts of the old testament that disagree.
Yes I am quite aware of all that, and have discussed it in several threads. the gist of which went something like this: Christ negated many things that Christians seem to love to state, but the things Christ did not negate, Christians love to find excuses as to why they need not follow the practices.


I personally don't have that much against Islam as a whole (Ibn would possibly say I live in a large white tower made of elephant tusk) but when two hundred holiday makers are killed in the name of Islam in a Hindu city on a Hindu island...It doesn't make my heart sing for Allah.
I agree, and neither does it make my heart sing for his God when the annihilation of others is argued in his name.

Each faith professes to be the one true faith, and none of them recognize that they might be wrong, and that the enemy is using the exact same argument as they, so it falls on deaf ears.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Boy where to begin?

Zerodeep~

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of authority people put into an opinion they are not qualified to offer. There is only one nugget of knowlege behind your posts: the fact that I'm anti-Islam. To you this fact alone is sufficient to dismiss me as ignorant, stupid, a hater, a bigot, a liar, a racist, or a combination of any or all of the above. But alas, I will respond to this tripe though I have little hope you will actually read it, or if you do that you will comprehend.

First of all, it was not 'selective' verses of the Qur'an that first brought me to the realization that Islam might not really be a religion of peace.

First, there was:

'93 WTC bombing.

Then there was:

Khobar Towers bombing.

Then:

African Embassy bombings

Then:

USS Cole.

Then:


My original thinking was alot like most people: these terrorists are no different than what the Crusaders, the Inquisitors, or the witch hunters did in the name of Christianity.

But then you compare the two books, and you see that these acts are different. First and foremost, the teaching of Christ renders any possible act of barbarity or intolerance expressly un-Christian. The man was 100% peace, love, and tolerance, even for those who would do you harm.

The Qur'an is nothing like this.

The fact that the hadiths may or may not be exact quotes from Muhammad is absolutely IRRELAVENT. You are an infidel--what you think of such matters is insignificant. To the Muslim, they are part of his religion--a Muslim CANNOT practice Islam unless he consults both the Qur'an and the hadith. And I will never quote a hadith from any source other than Bukhari and sometimes Muslim. They are the two most sound (sahih), indisputable hadiths there are.

Pay attention because I am going to teach you the difference between the tolerant and violent verses in the Qur'an.

First, almost all Qur'anic scholars divide the Qur'an into three parts: Early Meccan, Late Meccan, and Medinan/post-hijra. While in Mecca, Muhammad needed people to believe he was God's apostle. So he included tolerant verses towards 'People of the Book', as well as many other traditions incorporated from Judaism, Christianity and other religions, like Zoroastrianism and Sabaism, as well as the pagan traditions of Mecca at the time. For instance, the Kab'aa was built long before Muhammad was born, and was a pagan shrine where some 300 idols were worshipped. It is now the holiest place in all of Islam.

Needless to say, few listened to his rantings, and in fact the Meccans became angry with him because he denigrated the idols of the kab'aa, which for the Meccans was not only their sources of worship but a significant source of revenue due to Mecca being on the way between Syria and Yemen. The only reason his life was spared at the time was because of the influence of his uncle, but once he died Muhammad had no protection. He was forced to move to Medina (also known as the hijra).

In Medina his power base was established through military acts, in what many perceived to be miraculous victories. Many thought Muhammad really must be a prophet because he seemed to have divine favor. Meanwhile, he was attacking caravans during sacred months of truce and justifying it by "revelation" from God ([002.217]). Now, himself a man of considerable wealth and power, he no longer needed these people to convert, and instead viewed them as a threat. This is where the verses become hostile. If you reference the Qur'an in the order it was revealed to Muhammad, not the order in which it was later compiled (from longest surah to the shortest), you get a real sense for this. The most violent of chapters are all towards the end of his life. Chapter 5, where God warns Muslims not to make friends of Jews and Christians, is the very last revelation Muhammad recieves. Surah 9, where, among other nasty things, God commands Muslims to kill the Mushrikűn (idolators, polytheists, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh, pagans) wherever they can be found, is the second to last revelation.

Continued...



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   
What is the significance of this? Is God confused? Does He contradict Himself? Is there some hidden meaning in all this that only true believers can discern? No. God merely changed his mind. The Qur'an says:
    [016.101] And when We change a Verse [of the Qur'ân, i.e. cancel (abrogate) its order] in place of another, and Allâh knows the best of what He sends down, they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad) are but a Muftari! (forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not.
    [013.039] Allâh blots out what He wills and confirms (what He wills). And with Him is the Mother of the Book (Al-Lauh Al-Mahfűz)
    [002.106] Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh is able to do all things?
With this in mind we see that earlier, tolerant verses were subsequently abrogated or caused to be forgotten--i.e. replaced by the later, hostile verses.

This you simply cannot dispute. It's not only what I believe but what Muslims believe, and they believe so with good reason: it is the commands of God Himself.

You and others who ridicule me are looking at this from your Western, secular point of view towards religion in general. Of course Muhammad was not really a prophet. Of course the Qur'an is not really the word of God. How absurd would that be! The problem is we are dealing with an enemy who believes so, and there is absolutely nothing in our power that we can do to change it. The persuasions of the infidel have no power over the faith of the believer.

Let's clear the air here: I am not here to persuade people to hate Islam. I do not want to destroy Islam, at least not in the sense that the word "destroy" seems to imply (genocide), though I would like to see Islam "die" such as the Greek and Roman mythos have. What I am here to do is to teach people that A>Islam is not like other religions, B> it's a stretch to call it a religion at all (more closer to an ideology), C> the spread of Islam through jihad is a central tenate of Islam, and finally, D> we are never going to rid ourselves of the scourge of terrorism so long as we keep reassuring Muslims that their faith is not behind the actions of the jihadists. It most certainly is.

The terrorists are Muslims, and they have a right to claim a divine mandate for the jihad they wage. They are in fact the truest of faith; they do what God has asked of them. They have left their homes, their families, and for many of them considerable wealth and comfort to send the infidel into the abyss ([009.038-041]) and fight us so that Allah's religion may reign supreme ([002.193]). They know that if they die in jihad they will pass the gates of paradise and be married to the full-breasted ([078.033]) 'blacked eyed' ([056.020]), 72 virgin angels ([055.056]) all their own.

These are their god's own words, not mine, not the distortions of the haters, not 'snippets', not out of context. They are the word of god, and I want simply for us in the west to be aware of what is behind the actions of our enemies.

Finally, I will leave you with a link to a statement from Ibn Warraq, a Muslim apostate who left Islam partly because of the reasons I've documented above. You'll find a strange parallel with what I've been saying and what he says. If you're going to dismiss me, then you'd be forced to dismiss a former Muslim who knows more about Islam than any of us (I say this because much of what I've learned comes from him).

Statement by Ibn Warraq on the World Trade Center Atrocity

Enjoy yourself.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 02:13 AM
link   
So Ibn Iblis, I think it is only appropriate that I ask you of your current religious status...are you an athiest? or what religion do you belong to?

I'll assume you aren't Muslim...



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 02:21 AM
link   
It would appear that somehwere and I agree on most points. I particularly agree with his take on Christians who claim to follow Christ but ignore his words of tolerance in favour another's words of exclusion.

But...


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween


None of the soldiers I have known have ever claimed a religious direction for their work or exemption from their guilt. They claim society's blessing, democracy's blessing, the people's forgiveness, not God's command. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is claiming God's direction, he is acting on God's orders.
This has no relevance whatsoever, for society has granted them the right to kill by way of man-made law, not divine law. May I remind you that Bush too claimed God's direction, he I suppose is excused because he is not Muslim? Furthermore, news coverage this weekend showed the US soldiers in prayer asking they be successful in defeating the enemy. If they weren't imploring God take their side and slay the enemy, whose direction and forgiveness were they seeking? You would think that with both sides praying to their God, he would have declared the winner quickly and save those he considers just and doing his work. Maybe he is just ensuring those that die are actually the unjust, even martyrs?


Allow me to repeat myself.

None of the soldiers I have known. And I have known a good number of soldiers through my life. I was not referring to US Marines preparing to assault Falluja and who are justly worrying whether they will soon have a face-to-face meeting with the Almighty and be called to account. I was referring to my own personal experience of people who have chosen to take up arms in the service of their nation and perhaps die for it.
None of them had done so to serve their religion.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by cstyle226
So Ibn Iblis, I think it is only appropriate that I ask you of your current religious status...are you an athiest? or what religion do you belong to?

I'll assume you aren't Muslim...


I don't believe in any version of God created by man. I do not believe in the authenticity of the Pentateuch from Moses, the gospels of Christ, or the Qur'an or the hadith. I don't believe it is possible for man to "know" God, or that God has a plan for us, or wants us to act in a certain way, or, if he does, that he would pick a single person (Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, et.al.) to reveal his commandments to and expect mankind to believe hearsay handed down through thousands of years.

I do believe some type of intelligence was behind the creation of the universe, having read about some of the grand unified theories of the universe.

Hope that helps.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join