[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Yes, just like Judaism had, and it is good that it had, the Quran even went beyond the good treatment of slaves and called it a good deed to buy slaves into freedom and a duty to free any slave that wanted to be free and any slave that believed in God...

Taliesin

And now???

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by segovius

Philosophically there is a problem with the 'Jesus death being his mission' meme:

The whole point of the sacrifice is that it should actually be a sacrifice. Ie, someone should give something up, pay someone else's debt.

The only person who could do this was God's (alleged) son.

Only this defeats the idea of sacrifice - God's son (who is illogically God as well) should be the last person to make an effective sacrifice - in fact, being God renders it invalid.

Put it this way: if you had to die to save the world but you had the power to rise again three days later would you do it? yes of course. And would it be a sacrifice? No.

Anyone would do it. Anyone at all - even the biggest sinner that ever lived. Because a) it is no sacrifice and you lose nothing and b) no-one wants to go to hell and if all it takes is three earth days asleep in a tomb out of a literal eternity of pre-existing ontological existence.....well.....it is clearly nonsense and merely a co-opting of the Judaic Abrahamic motif.

Anyway, it didn't work. we're all still going to hell apparently (especially us radical jihadis intent on restoring the Caliphate by the sword) and God doesn't make mistakes like that.

I'm no religious SCHOLAR, but the metaphor of the PAIN of crucifixion Jesus felt, the sense of loss and the reality that he DID live as a man and was going to suffer and really die as a MAN (but with a rock solid belief he was the son of God and that he WOULD join his heavenly Father after death) says something to me about OUR 'struggles' which end in a physical death yet leading to everlasting life if we believe in Him.

You seem to give short shrift to the process between his birth as a mortal and his ascension.

He was a MAN. He bled and felt pain as you and I. He did not want to die yet knew he would and did the things he did ANYWAY...in spite of the fact he COULD have avoided it. Not because he had nothing to lose. Not because he felt no pain. Not because it was just a la-dee-da formality.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by mojo2

And now???

Nowadays these rules are obsolete as there are no classic slaves anymore among jews, at least I haven't heard of anything in that direction.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I'm no religious SCHOLAR, but the metaphor of the PAIN of crucifixion Jesus felt, the sense of loss and the reality that he DID live as a man and was going to suffer and really die as a MAN (but with a rock solid belief he was the son of God and that he WOULD join his heavenly Father after death) says something to me about OUR 'struggles' which end in a physical death yet leading to everlasting life if we believe in Him.

You seem to give short shrift to the process between his birth as a mortal and his ascension.

He was a MAN. He bled and felt pain as you and I. He did not want to die yet knew he would and did the things he did ANYWAY...in spite of the fact he COULD have avoided it. Not because he had nothing to lose. Not because he felt no pain. Not because it was just a la-dee-da formality.

Yes, Jesus truly submitted himself to God's will without compromise, and was therefore a true muslim.

Taliesin

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Nowadays these rules are obsolete as there are no classic slaves anymore among jews, at least I haven't heard of anything in that direction.

Taliesin

Classic slaves???

And the fact these rules remain alongside the rules that are considered current must mean something more than neglecting to clean out the rulebook.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Classic slaves???

And the fact these rules remain alongside the rules that are considered current must mean something more than neglecting to clean out the rulebook.

Huh? Cleaning up the rule-book? Are you serious? You suggest that jews should clean up the Torah and exclude any rules dealing with slaves?

Taliesin

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

goMac:

If the temple was destroyed in 400 it's impossible for it to have been guarded by Muslims. Islam came about later.

Thats what i thought...dosent make sence. still waiting for links though. Quite a lofty claim goMac, i think ud be able to find at least one or two links. How about some historical archive websites as opposed to wikkipedia ?

Cheers

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Huh? Cleaning up the rule-book? Are you serious? You suggest that jews should clean up the Torah and exclude any rules dealing with slaves?

Taliesin

Are you saying I was reading this from the Holy Quran??? I think not.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Yes, Jesus truly submitted himself to God's will without compromise, and was therefore a true muslim.

Taliesin

Except he wasnt, he was a Jew who founded Christianity.

Like i said, all religions have their merits and their faults. Good people are good and bad ,bad. the definition of 'good' and 'bad' are essentially the same in all religions.....with the exception of 'Jihad' in my opinion. the number of conflicts Muslims are involved in is some indication of that implication, and it's not just some conspiracy of everyone else to encroach on muslim land.

But thats just my opinion. Also, goMac...dude. You just accused Christianity of destroying the Library of Alexandria(first time ive ever heard that btw)....and you arent sure of what and when it happened ? Also....lets not forget....von Wrangle can clearly make the distincition between imperfect men and the 'religion' they follow. Couldnt we do the same ? Christians didnt destroy the library, but imperfect men who were coincidentally christian did. right ?

[skipjack]

I really hate the Lounge, but I was drawn to the title of this thread.

I have some thoughts, which most of you will probably consider ignorant since I have no educated authorities to quote.

It is easy to speak of Islam versus Christianity versus Judaism, but does anyone believe that the beliefs and practices and politics of the early Christian church (say, prior to 80 AD) can be equated to the beliefs and practices and politics of the Christian church after 500 AD, or of any of the Christian sects of the present day, any more than they believe the beliefs and practices and politics of the Muslim community of 620 CE was consistent with that of 625 CE or 630 CE or 1500 CE or the present day?

Just as Christianity has developed and fractured and been corrupted and been renewed throughout the centuries, so has Islam. Both the Europeans and the Arabs had their enlightened periods, coincidentally corresponding with their periods of economic success (with the accumulation of wealth achieved in much the same way). And, it seems to me, both had their high periods collapse.

Both Christianity and Islam have grown away from their roots. Christianity, in a sense, brought God from the self proclaimed chosen people to the world. Islam grew from an exclusively Arab religion to a world-wide religion.

I have my own criticism of Islam, infidel that I am, and have the opinion that the problem with Islam is Mohammed. The early Mohammed brought morality to what he considered to be his immoral people. Early Islam was idealistic and considered people with the same moral standards (Christians and Jews, by way of their belief in The Book) to be kindmen. But unlike Christianity, which was persecuted until the Romans used it as a unifying principle for their empire, Islam refused to be persecuted and, in accordance with the Arab culture of the time, adopted a militaristic attitude, first to survive (having no real means to support the community), and then to expand the community and bring morality to all of Arabia. (Most certainly, in this period through the conquest of North Africa and attempted expansion into Europe, Islam was not spread by trade and commerce.) But, as has been mentioned, coexistence with other people of the Book took a turn when those people refused to pay tribute to their new overlords, which resulted in the slaughter of a Jewish community. The inconsistency of Mohammed has led directly to the dual perception that Islam is a religion of peace based on submission and active worship and that Islam uses whatever means is available to spread its morality to the infidels. This is only one example of how Mohammed changed and there are examples of how he made decisions to benefit himself, personally (considering his family to be an extension of himself). As I see it, this problem is magnified in that Muslims do not only base their belief on the word of god, but also on the sayings and actions of their prophet. In my view, the corruption of Islam started with Mohammed himself.

Not to say that Christianity has not been corrupted by man and the interpretations (fabrications -- original sin, to bring up an earlier example) of men, but all that is well known.

Jesus, depending on who is doing the interpreting, either left a definite succession or ambiguous hints for how his sect (of the Jewish faith) was to carry on after his departure. At least he trained specific disciples on how to spread his teachings. Presumably, there was little dissention until leaders in the community took on a power structure that mirrored the kingdom of men. Mohammed, on the other hand, apparently left no directions for his disciples, other than by his example, which at the time of his death, was a policy of military expansion. His death caused an immediate fracture in the community based on who would succeed him and only encouraged the hostile outlook of the Islamic community toward outsiders or other sects (the sects being differentiated by options on who should succeed Mohammed). And no, I am not saying this is any better than Protestant versus Catholic or Christian versus everyone else. But I am saying that, in my opinion, from its origins, Islam had problems on a scale that took Christianity at least a few years or decades or centuries to develop.

In my infidel opinion, for the average Muslim, Islam is peace in the community, active worship of god, with a bit of an attitude of superiority in being a more moral people than those around them. On an idealistic level, the leadership (clergy) is tasked with spreading the moral principles of Islam. But there is an undercurrent that Islam is the one true religion that must be spead to the world (not unlike Christianity). What is usually claimed as peaceful coexistence (in predominantly Muslim areas) has historically been more of a tolerance of other religions, particularly if a tribute was paid with the implication that Islam was the superior religion. While not as harsh as "accept Christianity (specifically Catholicism), leave Al-Andalus, or die", it was more "practice or at least pretend to be Muslim or be taxed and even then you might be conscripted into the army". (Of course, there were some advantages to be had by remaining Christian or Jewish because there are some things, such as banking and military service, that Muslims generally did not do because it conflicted with their religion.) (And, of course, I realize that there was an evolution from Islam as an Arab religion (taxation of all non-Arabs) to a universal religion (taxation of all non-Muslims) that complicates this simplification.) Beyond the average Muslim, I don't need to mention any more than I need to discuss radical Christians.

Sorry I won't support this with any scholarly works by learned historians, but as far as I've seen, the Lounge is no more than opinions anyway and in this age of the Internet, anyone can find someone out there who has published something that supports their beliefs. Sorry if I've offended anyone with these off the top of the head opinions, which have not been thorougly vetted for accuracy and freedom from historical revisionism.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Are you saying I was reading this from the Holy Quran??? I think not.

I really don't know what you are talking about. I have the feeling we are talking right beside from each other. Could you please rephrase and elaborate upon your question about the rules regarding slaves in the Torah or in the Quran?

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Except he wasnt, he was a Jew who founded Christianity.

That's the point really, he was born a jew because his mother was a jew, but he was sent by God to confirm the message of God that jews had already received but from which they deviated and also in order to open up the message for the whole humanity. But in doing his active work, including preaching, living as an example, doing good, including wonders... and ultimately sacrificing his life, he did God's will, he submitted himself completely to God's will and was therefore a muslim(which is an arabic term for someone submitted to God).

Taliesin

[Hawkeye_a]

No, he was a Jew who submitted himself completely to God. beleive it or not, but Jews and Christians and Hindus and Budhists are perfectly capable of doing that as well. The fact that he did dosent make him Muslim, as Islam didnt exist.

Also, i agree with what skipjack said. ive watched several documentaries and heard it from professors at uni, and thats what i base my opinion on. I can also testify to the 'self righteousness' and 'superioirty' that muslims seem to exert on non-muslims in the middle east as far as politics, media(censorship) and economics.(in case u dont know, i lived in the ME (Jordan and UAE) for around 16 years (i'm 25)).

And with that i take your leave.

Cheers

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

No, he was a Jew who submitted himself completely to God. beleive it or not, but Jews and Christians and Hindus and Budhists are perfectly capable of doing that as well. The fact that he did dosent make him Muslim, as Islam didnt exist.

You still don't get it, do you? "Muslim" is the arabic word for "devoted/submitted to God", therefore all prophets of God were off course "muslims", including Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and a lot of other prophets.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Also, i agree with what skipjack said. ive watched several documentaries and heard it from professors at uni, and thats what i base my opinion on.

You mean like the professor that is the source for the original post of this thread. If that's the level of intellectual honesty and academic engagement towards truth that is practiced in western universities about the topic of Islam...

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I can also testify to the 'self righteousness' and 'superioirty' that muslims seem to exert on non-muslims in the middle east as far as politics, media(censorship) and economics.(in case u dont know, i lived in the ME (Jordan and UAE) for around 16 years (i'm 25)).

Hmm, so you judge Islam by the attitude of muslims at specific phases of time or location and then off course thinking it must be that way because of their holy book.

If I would judge like that, I would easily declare christianity and the books it's based upon as evil and sinful because of the acts of Vlad-Draculea or because of the acts of the crusaders, that whenever they conquered a town destroyed it nearly completely and killed all of its inhabitants, or because of the acts of the catholic church that prosecuted during the inquisition christians, jews and muslims in Europe...

But I know that christians, jews and muslims are able to sin, and the devil is also always there to make them think their sinful activities and thoughts are good, not because of their religions or scriptures but because of their humanity and free will.

Taliesin

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

That's the point really, he was born a jew because his mother was a jew, but he was sent by God to confirm the message of God that jews had already received but from which they deviated and also in order to open up the message for the whole humanity. But in doing his active work, including preaching, living as an example, doing good, including wonders... and ultimately sacrificing his life, he did God's will, he submitted himself completely to God's will and was therefore a muslim(which is an arabic term for someone submitted to God).

Taliesin

Actually, He was here to fulfill prophecy. He came to overturn the Law. He spread a Gospel that allowed even the non-Jew to enter Heaven.

You calling Him a muslim is a nice little semantic game. We aren't Arabic so we don't use the term muslim when we are speaking in English. He was a Jew, prophet, teacher, minister, miracle worker, and God's son.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Actually, He was here to fulfill prophecy. He came to overturn the Law. He spread a Gospel that allowed even the non-Jew to enter Heaven.
He was a Jew, prophet, teacher, minister, miracle worker, and God's son.

Exactly, I agree nearly completely, even with the term "God's son" which can be equally translated from arameic/hebreic as "God's servant".

The only thing I don't agree with is your idea and interpretation that he came to overturn the Law. Actually Jesus said in the gospels that he came to confirm the Law, but to correct the wrong and hollow (ab)use of the Law by the pharisees, and off course to allow gentiles into the deal.

Taliesin

P.S.: To all muslims I wish a success- and insightful ramadan-month, and may God accept and reward your and my fasting.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Convert to Islam in the face of the obvious onslaught of radical Islam.

Invade Iraq and protect the oil from his vow to drive up the crude prices to bring America to ruin.

Or die.

Huh? Uhhhhhh...



Here. We'll get you a map, point to the areas Osama Bin Ladin controlled, and point to the areas we live.

Muslims in Spain left when the country was taken over by Christians. America is still run by America.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by goMac

Huh? Uhhhhhh...



Here. We'll get you a map, point to the areas Osama Bin Ladin controlled, and point to the areas we live.

Muslims in Spain left when the country was taken over by Christians. America is still run by America.

Yup America is the symbol of inequality, tyrany and opression...and the Muslim world is a thriving melting pot of tolerarance equality and liberty for all, irrespective of gender, color, race or religion. (sarcasm)

Spend 16 years in the middle east and then try and convince me otherwise. Also worth pointing out was that we lived in the more 'western' of the ME countries....i cant imagine what it must be like to be a non-muslim in places like Syria, Algeria, Morocco, S.Arabia, Iran or Pakistan, and quite frankly i dont want to find out.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Yup America is the symbol of inequality, tyrany and opression...and the Muslim world is a thriving melting pot of tolerarance equality and liberty for all, irrespective of gender, color, race or religion. (sarcasm)

Spend 16 years in the middle east and then try and convince me otherwise. Also worth pointing out was that we lived in the more 'western' of the ME countries....i cant imagine what it must be like to be a non-muslim in places like Syria, Algeria, Morocco, S.Arabia, Iran or Pakistan, and quite frankly i dont want to find out.

Iran, Syria and Morocco are wonderful places. For everyone.

[vmarks]

Iran is a wonderful place for everyone.

Everyone except perhaps young girls.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publ...cle_8652.shtml

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=4046

Or, perhaps you think Morrocco is wonderful:

http://hrw.org/women/ -- "Women in Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia face government-sponsored discrimination that renders them unequal before the law - including discriminatory family codes that take away women's legal authority and place it in the hands of male family members - and restricts women's participation in public life.

Abuses against women are relentless, systematic, and widely tolerated, if not explicitly condoned. "

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Iran is a wonderful place for everyone.

Everyone except perhaps young girls.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publ...cle_8652.shtml

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=4046

Or, perhaps you think Morrocco is wonderful:

http://hrw.org/women/ -- "Women in Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia face government-sponsored discrimination that renders them unequal before the law - including discriminatory family codes that take away women's legal authority and place it in the hands of male family members - and restricts women's participation in public life.

Abuses against women are relentless, systematic, and widely tolerated, if not explicitly condoned. "

I'm not going to spend much time on this one but speaking of equal before the law.

Are men and women allowed the same time off work after having a child in Israel and the US?

And do you know what happened when the king of Morocco tried to change those laws?

and one more thing.

Do you know who's the advisor to the king of Morocco?

[von Wrangell]

Oh, and btw vmarks. Is there any special reason for you being completely quiet around here up until yesterday?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Yup America is the symbol of inequality, tyrany and opression...and the Muslim world is a thriving melting pot of tolerarance equality and liberty for all, irrespective of gender, color, race or religion. (sarcasm)

Spend 16 years in the middle east and then try and convince me otherwise. Also worth pointing out was that we lived in the more 'western' of the ME countries....i cant imagine what it must be like to be a non-muslim in places like Syria, Algeria, Morocco, S.Arabia, Iran or Pakistan, and quite frankly i dont want to find out.

I would venture that both are evenly not open. They just have different targeting groups. Most extremist Muslim countries are not as open to women (with several major exceptions).

The US is not as open to well... Muslims for one.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Except he wasnt, he was a Jew who founded Christianity.

Like i said, all religions have their merits and their faults. Good people are good and bad ,bad. the definition of 'good' and 'bad' are essentially the same in all religions.....with the exception of 'Jihad' in my opinion. the number of conflicts Muslims are involved in is some indication of that implication, and it's not just some conspiracy of everyone else to encroach on muslim land.

But thats just my opinion. Also, goMac...dude. You just accused Christianity of destroying the Library of Alexandria(first time ive ever heard that btw)....and you arent sure of what and when it happened ? Also....lets not forget....von Wrangle can clearly make the distincition between imperfect men and the 'religion' they follow. Couldnt we do the same ? Christians didnt destroy the library, but imperfect men who were coincidentally christian did. right ?

Well, it was destroyed by either Roman Christians, Roman Christians in the first Crusades, or Christians in the last Crusades. I would think that every time the Christians came in they destroyed a bit more of the library, until there was nothing left.

Jesus is considered a Muslim by Islam because he as seen as worshipping god (I don't think you want to depute that). Islam considers him a profit, but not the final prophet, as where Christianity considers Jesus the last prophet (cause the next time Jesus comes back the world is ending).

Jihad as previously said does not mean violence. Here is the definition:

"Contrary to popular opinion in the West, this does not mean "holy war". A literal translation is "struggle". The struggle to establish justice and righteousness may or may not involve military action. Just as Westerners talk about their "crusade against poverty", so Muslims can use jihad in the same sense. There is also the "greater jihad", which is entirely against the caprices of the soul; the jihad in the world is the "lesser jihad""

When Islam talks about a Jihad, it's literally saying "Everyone go down to the food bank and feed people" or "Go become a monk" or other holy acts. Gullible Westerners have taken the definition of Jihad as a war (Osama Bin Ladin also uses it incorrectly, which also disqualifies him from being a true Muslim).

How about people stop using the incorrect definition of Jihad on this forum? Let's show some intelligence here.

[vmarks]

CAIR defines jihad in part as "fighting against tyranny or oppression."

Can you see how violent murderers could use that definition and believe they were waging Jihad?

http://jacksonsnyder.com/arc/Midrash/92.htm

The word jihad is much misunderstood. It’s often translated as “holy
war,” but that’s inaccurate. A better translation would be “striving” or
“struggle.” The Islamic sources speak of two forms of jihad, the greater
jihad and the lesser jihad. The greater jihad is an internal battle,
basically the battle against what we would call the yetzer hara, the evil
inclination. The lesser jihad is physical battle to bring more of the
world under Muslim domination.

In general, suicide violates Islamic law. But the imams who encourage the
suicide bombers quote a hadith about Mohammed. A hadith is a teaching, not
in the Koran, but based on oral tradition, sort of like a quote from the
Talmud, and this one goes: “A man asked the Prophet: What is Jihad? He
replied: "To fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the
battlefield)." The man asked: "What kind of Jihad is the highest?" He
replied: "The person who is killed while spilling the last of his blood."

The definition of jihad as the battle to bring the world under Muslim
domination is what led to the Muslim conquest of North Africa and Southern
Europe in the 8th century. We haven’t heard much of jihad since the
Muslims were kicked out of Spain in 1492 not because Islamic theology
evolved away from belief in the concept, but rather because they didn’t
have the power to do anything about it.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

CAIR defines jihad in part as "fighting against tyranny or oppression."

They do? Could you provide a link to that?

Because the explanation they use that I find says the following:

What is Jihad?
"Jihad" does not mean "holy war." Literally, jihad means to strive, struggle and exert effort. It is a central and broad Islamic concept that includes struggle against evil inclinations within oneself, struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense (e.g., - having a standing army for national defense), or fighting against tyranny or oppression.

http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=aboutIslam

Or did you just forget to mention the other parts of that definition?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

They do? Could you provide a link to that?

Can you not read? I said "CAIR defines jihad in part as fighting against tyranny or oppression."

And you found the link where they said that exactly.

Or did you just forget to mention the other parts of that definition?

Not at all: I intentionally used the words "in part."

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac

as where Christianity considers Jesus the last prophet

No.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No.

Yes.

This is why Muslims spend a lot of time trying to find evidence in the Bible that Jesus talked about prophets after him. Christians say that Jesus was the last prophet, Muslims say that Jesus talked about a prophet after him, which they claim is Mohammed.

Because Jesus has now ascended the next time he will return will be to bring immortal life to everyone, which is when the world ends. An interesting side point is according to Christianity at this point we will become part of God. Most people consider heaven is actually a real place, but according to the bible, it isn't. The bible says the holy realm is not bound by time, space, or location. Therefore it really doesn't exist as a place. The original pre-translation parts of the bible literally say that heaven isn't a place near god, they say that heaven is when you are part of god. This is very similar to some Hindu viewpoints of Brahma.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by goMac

Yes.

This is why Muslims spend a lot of time trying to find evidence in the Bible that Jesus talked about prophets after him. Christians say that Jesus was the last prophet, Muslims say that Jesus talked about a prophet after him, which they claim is Mohammed.

Because Jesus has now ascended the next time he will return will be to bring immortal life to everyone, which is when the world ends. An interesting side point is according to Christianity at this point we will become part of God. Most people consider heaven is actually a real place, but according to the bible, it isn't. The bible says the holy realm is not bound by time, space, or location. Therefore it really doesn't exist as a place. The original pre-translation parts of the bible literally say that heaven isn't a place near god, they say that heaven is when you are part of god. This is very similar to some Hindu viewpoints of Brahma.

Yuo got a few verses to back up your claims about what the Bible says? NIV, NASB, NKJ translations would be preferred please.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Yuo got a few verses to back up your claims about what the Bible says? NIV, NASB, NKJ translations would be preferred please.

Well, this is from a Priest with a Theology degree. I'll go look for actual evidence but I probably won't be finding it on many Christian sites.

Edit: Didn't mean to say I'M the Priest. A Priest actually talked about it in lecture (which pissed a lot of people off).

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by goMac

Well, this is from a Priest with a Theology degree. I'll go look for actual evidence but I probably won't be finding it on many Christian sites.

Edit: Didn't mean to say I'M the Priest. A Priest actually talked about it in lecture (which pissed a lot of people off).

A priest from which denomination? And was that preist employeed in the service of any church at the time?

You shouldn't need to be looking in any Christian sites to back up your claim. You are claiming that the Bible says certain things. The only place you should have to search is a bible. http://www.biblegateway.com is an excellent site with many different translations available. You could look there.

Where was the lecture? Why were people "pissed off"?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Iran is a wonderful place for everyone.

Everyone except perhaps young girls.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publ...cle_8652.shtml

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=4046

Or, perhaps you think Morrocco is wonderful:

http://hrw.org/women/ -- "Women in Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia face government-sponsored discrimination that renders them unequal before the law - including discriminatory family codes that take away women's legal authority and place it in the hands of male family members - and restricts women's participation in public life.

Abuses against women are relentless, systematic, and widely tolerated, if not explicitly condoned. "

Chauvinism is one deviation of many from Islam and the quranic message. . While the Quran definitely gives a bit more rights to men than to women, it gives at the same time a bit more duties to men than women. Unfortunately some muslims and islamic countries have interpreted those verses that give a bit more right to men as meaning that men are worth more and that they can do what they want with their wifes, which is off course a deviation. But at least Morocco seems to have found a way to change legislation in order to combat chauvinism:

Today's Front Page
This Edition's Front Page
Search Archives | News Calendar

Weather | Recipes | Premium Subscription | Free Newsletter
Advertise on our site | Apply for sales job




New Family Code: protecting women, children and families
Morocco, Politics, 2/5/2004

Provisions in the new family Code, formerly known as the Mudawana, which was first announced by king Mohammed VI on October 10, and unanimously adopted by both parliament chambers, come to uphold equality between men and women in terms of family responsibility and protect the rights of children and the family cell.

The new code places the family under the joint responsibility of the husband and the wife instead of the husband only and suppresses the stipulation submitting women to the guardianship of a male member of the family.

It also establishes equality between men and women with respect to the minimum age for marriage, which is now set at 18 years for both instead of 15 years for women and 18 for men, under the old legislation.

Repudiation and divorce will become a prerogative that can be exercised as much by the husband as by the wife while under the old legislation they were left to the discretion of the husband only, and were often exercised in an arbitrary way. The new law adopts the principle of divorce by mutual consent and under judicial supervision.

Another provision drops an obsolete tribal tradition favoring male heirs in the sharing of inherited land, making it possible for the grandchildren on the daughter's side to inherit from their grandfather, just like the grandchildren on the son's side.

The girl just like the boy, shall have the possibility to freely choose her custodian at the age of 15. This article suppresses the bias in favor of the boy, who can currently choose his custodian at the age of 12, whereas the girl must wait until she is 15.

Polygamy, another sensitive issue in Islamic societies, is allowed, but subject to the judge's authorization and to stringent legal conditions. The judge must make sure that there is no presumption of iniquity. He must be convinced of the husband's ability to treat the second wife and her children on an equal footing with the first, and also ensure that they enjoy similar living conditions. The woman now has the right to condition her acceptance of marriage upon a pledge by her husband-to-be to refrain from taking other wives.

As a further protection of the family cell, the Family Law provides for the public prosecutor to be a party to every legal action involving the enforcement of Family Law stipulations. It also calls for taking arrangements to deal with emergency cases during week-ends and holidays. The creation of family courts and the establishment of a family mutual assistance fund are other arrangements that shall contribute to effective enforcement of the Family Law.

The new legislation protects women's rights by making repudiation conditional upon the court's prior authorization and enhances the chances for reconciliation, both through the family and the judge. It also requires that all monies owed to the wife and children be paid in full by the husband before divorce can be duly registered.

Verbal repudiation by the husband is no longer valid, as divorce is now subject to a court ruling. Under current legislation, repudiation has been an exclusive and unrestricted right of the husband.

A novelty introduced by the new law lies in the sharing, between husband and wife, of the property acquired during marriage. While confirming the principle of separate estate, the law makes it possible for the couple to agree, in a document other than the marriage contract, on how to manage and develop assets acquired during marriage. In case of disagreement, they shall refer to the judge, who shall use elements of evidence to assess each party's contribution to the household capital acquired during marriage.

Concerning for Moroccans residing abroad, marriage procedures are to be simplified as the marriage contract is to be drawn up in the presence of two Muslim witnesses and in accordance with the procedures in force in the country of residence. It is then registered with the proper Moroccan consular or judicial authorities. The new family Law also recognizes the legal validity of foreign divorce documents concerning Moroccans residing abroad, provided they are in keeping with the relevant general regulations in force in the Kingdom. Under the old legislation, Moroccans residing abroad would go by the procedures and conditions applicable to their fellow citizens in Morocco in order for the marriage contract to be valid. This results in countless disputes and litigations between husband and wife as well as with the authorities in the country concerned.

In addition, provisions containing a reference to international agreements on children's rights ratified by Morocco, have been inserted.

As regards child custody, the law innovates by giving the woman the possibility to retain custody of her child, under certain conditions, even upon remarrying or moving out of the area where her husband lives. She may also regain custody if the reason (voluntary or otherwise) which caused her to lose this right disappears. Under the old legislation, the woman irrevocably loses child custody in such conditions.

The new law protects the child's right to acknowledgement of paternity in case the marriage has not been officially registered for reasons beyond control, by expanding the scope of the legal evidence to be submitted to the judge. In the past, there was no provision for recognition of children born out of wedlock. The only accepted proof to establish paternity has been the testimony of 12 witnesses, a complicated and archaic exercise.

The Family Code also includes provisions ensuring that the child gets suitable accommodation consistent with his or her living conditions prior to the parents' divorce. This requirement is separate from the other alimony obligations (nafaqa). The alimony used to consist of a paltry lump sum and did not specify how much should be allocated to the child's accommodation.

The new law also enshrines the principle that Moroccan Jews shall be governed by the provisions of the Hebraic Moroccan Family Law.

The new Family Law uses a modern form of wording removing degrading or debasing terms for women. Thus, women become men's partners in rights and obligations, in accordance with the firm determination of His Majesty the King to ensure that women are treated fairly, to enhance the protection of children and to preserve the dignity of men.

I can only hope that Morocco keeps this new familiy-code and implements and acts accordingly to it.

Taliesin

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by goMac

Well, it was destroyed by either Roman Christians, Roman Christians in the first Crusades, or Christians in the last Crusades. I would think that every time the Christians came in they destroyed a bit more of the library, until there was nothing left.

goMac, you have claimed that Christians and Christianity is responsible for destroying the Library of Alexandria. Ill admit thats the first time i ever heard that claim. Surely you can back your words up with some link to some website/encyclopedia apart from wikkepeidia ? There's a wealth of information on the internet, and im sure there must be some encyclopedia or hystorical archive o nthe web with that information seeing as how it's such a big part of our collective history.

Now im sure "uve heard" or "someone told you" or "you read it somewhere" or "you saw it on TV", etc,etc....something of this significance should be documented somewhere credible, if it fact it happened the way you described it. So i'm still waiting for a link, and up until then, ill take your testimony as speculation.

As far as America being intolerant. ive lived in both places for long periods of time. An Arab-muslim can move to the US, get citizenship, practice his/her faith, have the right to free speach and "advertize" his/her faith to other, as well as vote and is affored all the rights and priveledges of non-muslims equally. Their children can grown up, and maybe even run for presidency. None of that works the other way around(When non-muslims move to a muslim country).

Cheers

PS>> seeing as how christianity is so notorious in history. i wonder what happened in Israel that drove all the Jews out, or to the Zorastrians in Persia(Iran) or to the Budhists in Afghanistan, or the Christians in Constantenople ? i wonder where all that art, history and architecture might have gotten to. Also, i think it's important to note...that we in the west have the opportunity, or the priveledge to criticize our own past and hopefully learn from it. Things like the inquisition, and other things we arent exactly proud of. We admit(with some difficulty naturally), we learn, we improve...thats why the west is where it is today. Notice the way the muslim countries handle their own war torn history where they too persecuted non-muslims and drove off civilizations. Not only will they not admit to atroticities(Turkey for example), the arguments here seem to suggest they see it as their God given right to do so and claim territory and resources from others....and to some extent are disillusioned that they did it in a 'peaceful' way. Maybe thats why majority of world conflict today(with different civilizations) involves Muslim countries ? How do you expect to acheive any form of 'peace' with that sort of attitude ?

[mojo2]

Ruling Concerning Greeting a Disbeliever

Question: How shall we respond to a disbeliever if he greets us?

Answer: It is confirmed that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said. ."Do not be the first to greet a Jew or Christian with peace. And if you come across them in the walkway, force them to the edges." Muslim recorded this in his Sahih. He (peace be upon him) also said, .'If the People of the Book greet you with peace. say, 'Wa alaikum (and unto you).'" This was recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim. The People of the Book are the Jews and Christians. The ruling concerning the other disbelievers is the same as the ruling of the Jews and Christians in this matter since there is no evidence to show otherwise. In general, one does not first greet a disbeliever. However, if he starts the greeting, then one must respond by our statement, "And upon you", in accord with the order from the Messenger (peace be upon him). There is no prohibition to say after that, something like, "How are you? How are your children?" Some of the scholars, including ibn Taimiya, has said that this is permissible. This is especially acceptable if there is some Islamically sanctioned reason for that, such as hoping the person will become Muslim or making him susceptible to your calling him to Islam. Allah has stated, "Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom (of the Quran) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better" (al-Nahl 16: 125). Allah has also said, ."And argue not with the People of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) unless it be in a way that is better, except with such of them as do wrong" (al-Ankabut 29:46).'

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

goMac, you have claimed that Christians and Christianity is responsible for destroying the Library of Alexandria. Ill admit thats the first time i ever heard that claim. Surely you can back your words up with some link to some website/encyclopedia apart from wikkepeidia ? There's a wealth of information on the internet, and im sure there must be some encyclopedia or hystorical archive o nthe web with that information seeing as how it's such a big part of our collective history.

Now im sure "uve heard" or "someone told you" or "you read it somewhere" or "you saw it on TV", etc,etc....something of this significance should be documented somewhere credible, if it fact it happened the way you described it. So i'm still waiting for a link, and up until then, ill take your testimony as speculation.

Cheers

Unfortunately there is no clear proof who is ultimately responsible for the destruction of the library of Alexandria. What is though clear is that the library of Alexandria consisted of many libraries set up throughout the town and not one central like most people imagine it today, and it's also clear that the libraries of Alexandria suffered from multiple destructions of which one is attributed to Cesar's invasion in pre-christian-times, while other destructions took place after Jesus' appearance. The consensus seems to be among scholars that the most severe destruction occured in the 400's after Jesus.

Middle-age-christianity though tried to put the blame of the destruction of the libraries on Omar, the calif of Bagdad, even with forged proof for obvious political and propaganda-reasons of showing the barbaric nature of the "Sazarenes" and some websites today seem to cling onto that debunked story.

Taliesin

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I really don't know what you are talking about. I have the feeling we are talking right beside from each other. Could you please rephrase and elaborate upon your question about the rules regarding slaves in the Torah or in the Quran?

Taliesin

I wasn't quoting from the Quran. it was from the booklet credited below. A such, the writer has indicated his indirect support for people to live in freedom and the support of human rights, yet, there are those who believe in the Quran ONLY. Or, those who use the discrepancy between what a hadith might say and what the Quran says and in the grey area of ambiguity simply do as he wishes, "Look here, Syufy, it says you CAN be my slave! Nevermind what anything else might say."

EPILOGUE

A principal feature of the Holy Prophet's Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam teachings is the emphasis upon every class, group or individual to fulfil the rights of others, with a full sense of responsibility, and consider it a source of good fortune in both worlds.

In the light of all that has been explained, it can confidently be said that our indifference to one another's rights is, to a great extent, the cause of our misfortune. Furthermore the root cause of all trouble, at the various levels social, economical, legal, educational, political, etc. - is due to the disregard of the rights of others (i.e. not fulfilling them and not attaching an importance to them.) There can be no real peace and happiness, until we all attach an equal importance to the rights and claims of others upon us, as we attach to our rights and claims on them.

May Allah the Almighty grant us all, the understanding and the guidance to fulfil our rights and duties to one another, in the manner that has been explained to us by the Holy Prophet Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam and may He create the bond of true and Sincere Unity between us all.

AAMEEN.

The above contents was scanned in its entirety from a freely distributed book called Social Conduct of a Muslim by by Shaikh Musa Ibrahim Menk, published by Africa Muslim Agency and may be contacted at P.O. Box 42802, Fordsburg 2033, Transvaal, South Africa. Any typos are the result of scanning errors and my failure to discover them. Let me know of any errors at [email protected].

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Q...a00000046.aspx

Oh, and the ambiguity that exists between a Muslim who uses the word, jihad to mean struggle and those who use jihad to mean war is very subtle and even the same person might use the same word to mean either definition.

I notice the regular use of ambiguity on THIS point at LEAST!

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Unfortunately there is no clear proof who is ultimately responsible for the destruction of the library of Alexandria. What is though clear is that the library of Alexandria consisted of many libraries set up throughout the town and not one central like most people imagine it today, and it's also clear that the libraries of Alexandria suffered from multiple destructions of which one is attributed to Cesar's invasion in pre-christian-times, while other destructions took place after Jesus' appearance. The consensus seems to be among scholars that the most severe destruction occured in the 400's after Jesus.

Middle-age-christianity though tried to put the blame of the destruction of the libraries on Omar, the calif of Bagdad, even with forged proof for obvious political and propaganda-reasons of showing the barbaric nature of the "Sazarenes" and some websites today seem to cling onto that debunked story.

Taliesin

That sound more logical and probably to me.

I wonder why someone would claim that Christians are solely to blame for that, and i wonder what it does to their credibility in this discussion now.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I wasn't quoting from the Quran. it was from the booklet credited below. A such, the writer has indicated his indirect support for people to live in freedom and the support of human rights, yet, there are those who believe in the Quran ONLY. Or, those who use the discrepancy between what a hadith might say and what the Quran says and in the grey area of ambiguity simply do as he wishes, "Look here, Syufy, it says you CAN be my slave! Nevermind what anything else might say.
"http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Q...a00000046.aspx

Slavery was widely practiced in the islamic world as well as the jewish and christian world, and sometimes if not often with abusing practices against these slaves which is off course against scripture's orders and sinful.
There are strict rules in the Torah for the protection of slaves from abuse and there are rules in the Quran for the protection of slaves from abuse, and orders for freeing up from slavery, if the slave wishes so or if the slave is a believer in God.
Is that what you want to say?
I still can't point down what you want to say on this topic.

Originally Posted by mojo2

Oh, and the ambiguity that exists between a Muslim who uses the word, jihad to mean struggle and those who use jihad to mean war is very subtle and even the same person might use the same word to mean either definition.

I notice the regular use of ambiguity on THIS point at LEAST!

Off course you do, because jihad encompasses non-violent- and violent-aspects. The majority of the meaning lays though on the non-violent-aspects, ie. preaching, doing good, helping others, fighting against the seductions of the devil in the own soul, civil-courage in naming crimes and trying to help justice to come to its right...
and the violent-aspect is fighting a defensive-war or freeing up people from oppression that can't help themselves.

That's all included in the rule to love the neighbour like yourself. If a murderer enters your house and tries to kill your sons and daughters, would you refrain from self-defense? Off course not, because they are your family, you love them and wish for them security and bliss, and to love the nieghbour like yourself means to feel the same like for your family. If your neighbour and family gets attacked and terrorised by criminals and murderers, it's your duty to help him in defending and freeing up from the oppression, and so is it with other towns where people are oppressed for their belief in God, and that's what Jihad means, namely to risk your life for the liberation of others that are oppressed for their faith in God.

Taliesin

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Slavery was widely practiced in the islamic world as well as the jewish and christian world, and sometimes if not often with abusing practices against these slaves which is off course against scripture's orders and sinful.
There are strict rules in the Torah for the protection of slaves from abuse and there are rules in the Quran for the protection of slaves from abuse, and orders for freeing up from slavery, if the slave wishes so or if the slave is a believer in God.
Is that what you want to say?
I still can't point down what you want to say on this topic.

Off course you do, because jihad encompasses non-violent- and violent-aspects. The majority of the meaning lays though on the non-violent-aspects, ie. preaching, doing good, helping others, fighting against the seductions of the devil in the own soul, civil-courage in naming crimes and trying to help justice to come to its right...
and the violent-aspect is fighting a defensive-war or freeing up people from oppression that can't help themselves.

That's all included in the rule to love the neighbour like yourself. If a murderer enters your house and tries to kill your sons and daughters, would you refrain from self-defense? Off course not, because they are your family, you love them and wish for them security and bliss, and to love the nieghbour like yourself means to feel the same like for your family. If your neighbour and family gets attacked and terrorised by criminals and murderers, it's your duty to help him in defending and freeing up from the oppression, and so is it with other towns where people are oppressed for their belief in God, and that's what Jihad means, namely to risk your life for the liberation of others that are oppressed for their faith in God.

Taliesin

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac

Yes.

Christians say that Jesus was the last prophet

No.

Jesus was not a prophet. No Christian would say that He was.

Now, if you can't even get that right how can anything you write be taken seriously?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No.

Jesus was not a prophet. No Christian would say that He was.

Now, if you can't even get that right how can anything you write be taken seriously?

Jesus Rejected at Nazareth
53And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, 54and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" 57And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household." 58And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

Taliesin

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

Yes.

This is why Muslims spend a lot of time trying to find evidence in the Bible that Jesus talked about prophets after him. Christians say that Jesus was the last prophet, Muslims say that Jesus talked about a prophet after him, which they claim is Mohammed.

Because Jesus has now ascended the next time he will return will be to bring immortal life to everyone, which is when the world ends. An interesting side point is according to Christianity at this point we will become part of God. Most people consider heaven is actually a real place, but according to the bible, it isn't. The bible says the holy realm is not bound by time, space, or location. Therefore it really doesn't exist as a place. The original pre-translation parts of the bible literally say that heaven isn't a place near god, they say that heaven is when you are part of god. This is very similar to some Hindu viewpoints of Brahma.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/60min.shtml

[Doofy]

@Taliesin:
So Jesus used an example which the people of the time were familiar with - that of the prophets. Seems He had a habit of using examples which the people would understand - for example, the parables.
Your quote passage is just another example of this kind of teaching.

Very strange how you muslims take the Bible supremely literally when it suits your stance but disregard what doesn't as "corrupted". Have you never thought to question why you're taught to do this?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

@Taliesin:
So Jesus used an example which the people of the time were familiar with - that of the prophets. Seems He had a habit of using examples which the people would understand - for example, the parables.
Your quote passage is just another example of this kind of teaching.

Very strange how you muslims take the Bible supremely literally when it suits your stance but disregard what doesn't as "corrupted". Have you never thought to question why you're taught to do this?

Actually except for parts of John's* gospel everything from the sysnoptic gospels is compatible to the Quran. On the surface the synoptic gospels talk about son of God... but these are only due to interpretative translations, from the original languages son can also be translated as servant. The other thing that seemed to have confused christians is that sometimes Jesus directly quoted God, so that some got the wrong impression that he were God himself, eventhough it was clear to the jews he preached to that he was speaking as a prophet delivering God's message verbatim, just like Deuteronomy 18 described it.



*There are many hints available that John's gospel is mostly personal interpretation after the experiences of the historic developments of the expelling of jews by the roman empire and the need to distinguish from jews out of fear of the roman empire.

Taliesin

[mojo2]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...ck=1&cset=true

A rare look at secretive Brotherhood in America
Muslims divided on Brotherhood

A group aiming to create Islamic states worldwide has established roots here, in large part under the guidance of Egypt-born Ahmed Elkadi

By Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah, Sam Roe and Laurie Cohen
Tribune staff reporters
Published September 19, 2004

Over the last 40 years, small groups of devout Muslim men have gathered in homes in U.S. cities to pray, memorize the Koran and discuss events of the day.

But they also addressed their ultimate goal, one so controversial that it is a key reason they have operated in secrecy: to create Muslim states overseas and, they hope, someday in America as well.

(...)

While separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of American democracy, the international Brotherhood preaches that religion and politics cannot be separated and that governments eventually should be Islamic. The group also champions martyrdom and jihad, or holy war, as a means of self-defense and has provided the philosophical underpinnings for Muslim militants worldwide.

Many moderate Muslims in America are uncomfortable with the views preached at mosques influenced by the Brotherhood, scholars say. Those experts point to a 2001 study sponsored by four Muslim advocacy and religious groups that found that only a third of U.S. Muslims attend mosques.

In suburban Bridgeview, Ill., some moderates say they quit attending the Mosque Foundation because the leadership became too conservative and dominated by Brotherhood members.

Documents obtained by the Tribune and translated from Arabic show that the U.S. Brotherhood has been careful to obscure its beliefs from outsiders. One document tells leaders to be cautious when screening potential recruits. If the recruit asks whether the leader is a Brotherhood member, the leader should respond, "You may deduce the answer to that with your own intelligence."

Islamic state a long-term goal

Brotherhood members emphasize that they follow the laws of the nations in which they operate. They stress that they do not believe in overthrowing the U.S. government, but rather that they want as many people as possible to convert to Islam so that one day--perhaps generations from now--a majority of Americans will support a society governed by Islamic law. Muslims make up less than 3 percent of the U.S. population, but estimates of their number vary widely from 2 million to 7 million.

Federal authorities say they have scrutinized the U.S. Brotherhood for years. Agents currently are investigating whether people with ties to the group have raised and laundered money to finance terrorism abroad. No terrorism-related charges have been filed.
(...)

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

http://www.lds-mormon.com/60min.shtml

Those are the Mormons. They're ummmm. Different.

(Disclaimer: My dad's side of the family was Mormon)

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

goMac, you have claimed that Christians and Christianity is responsible for destroying the Library of Alexandria. Ill admit thats the first time i ever heard that claim. Surely you can back your words up with some link to some website/encyclopedia apart from wikkepeidia ? There's a wealth of information on the internet, and im sure there must be some encyclopedia or hystorical archive o nthe web with that information seeing as how it's such a big part of our collective history.

Go to Google.

Type in "Library of Alexandria destruction".

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by goMac

Go to Google.

Type in "Library of Alexandria destruction".

What is yout point?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

What is yout point?

My point is there are tons of articles on this. He can find them in Google and read them himself.