[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Hawkeye, I'm sorry to inform you that the Vatican has gone their own direction on the meaning of this commandment, and that their direction is in opposition to the Hebrew we have available to us in the Torah.

No matarás.

The Vatican disagrees in all languages. Matar == kill, while asesinar == murder.

Support for that translation is in Prov 22:13 and Joshua 20:3

Surely a lion cannot murder a person. It is quite obvious that ratsach has a broad meaning, as does the word kill. Murder is a narrow and precise meaning that is not a fitting translation to ratsach. Also Christ makes it clear that killing is wrong and therefore further underlines that killing *is in fact wrong* As a Jew that isn't very important to you but Christ is a prophet to Moslems, who should heed his words and actions. Christ tought by example.

If you enjoy playing word-games, be my guest but it is quite clear that the meaning in the Old Testament of the fifth commandment (as we Christians count them) is that you shall not kill.

cheers

W-Y

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

No matarás.

The Vatican disagrees in all languages. Matar == kill, while asesinar == murder.

Support for that translation is in Prov 22:13 and Joshua 20:3

Surely a lion cannot murder a person. It is quite obvious that ratsach has a broad meaning, as does the word kill. Murder is a narrow and precise meaning that is not a fitting translation to ratsach. Also Christ makes it clear that killing is wrong and therefore further underlines that killing *is in fact wrong* As a Jew that isn't very important to you but Christ is a prophet to Moslems, who should heed his words and actions. Christ tought by example.

If you enjoy playing word-games, be my guest but it is quite clear that the meaning in the Old Testament of the fifth commandment (as we Christians count them) is that you shall not kill.

cheers

W-Y

ummm, IIRC the old testament you use is translated from Hebrew. Which kinda makes it irrelevant what your translation says. It's the original meaning that is the most important.

[Kevin]

Wey, there is going to be a lot of "killing" going on in the end days. How is that justified?

For example, say someone was about to shoot your wife in the head. And you stop him by stabbing him with a roll of carpet and kill him.

Do you think God would look poorly on you?

Jesus also says to obey the laws of the land, or suffer the outcome.

I also believe that commandment to mean "Murder" as well. With intent.

[von Wrangell]

Very wise words coming from a 15 year old:

We should not even pay attention to the cartoons.

This caricaturist is an artist. He could have used his art in a much better way.

If he had reflected a little more, he could have drawn something for the benefit of Christians.

Then Christians could have come and said, "You did something good".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...row/html/1.stm

[Sky Captain]

And there are some Muslims that will continue produce insults against the Jews.

In their opinion, it is democratic, but in our opinion it is a complete insult, and in no way can we remain quiet against this insult.

First of all, it was to insult our holy prophet.
We will resist to the end and they can’t do a damn thing against us.

I came because our prophet and our imams were insulted.

But imagine if we had stayed quiet, the day after tomorrow they would do something much worse than this against our beliefs.

Hippocracy.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Very wise words coming from a 15 year old:

The artists did do something good. They revealed the true threat of the Islamic world for all to see. The world must stand up to Islam and their fascist ideas.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Quote:
But imagine if we had stayed quiet, the day after tomorrow they would do something much worse than this against our beliefs.

Worse than a cartoon ?



Holy cow, these primitive loons are dangerous.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Very wise words coming from a 15 year old:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...row/html/1.stm

That's all nice and dandy. I'm glad there are many Muslims like him in this world. It's 5-7 that I'm worried about, particularly number 7, the 10-year-old.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

That's all nice and dandy. I'm glad there are many Muslims like him in this world.

It's funny you mention that because this cartoon business has revealed to me what religion certain posters are on other forums that I visit. As far as I'm concerned, 99.9% of people who are arguing against Free Speech and siding with the crazy rioters are Muslims. No sane person would be on the side of the rioters, unless there's a religious connection going on, which is not all that surprising.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

ummm, IIRC the old testament you use is translated from Hebrew. Which kinda makes it irrelevant what your translation says. It's the original meaning that is the most important.

You realize the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew? The translation is from the original text. Its original meaning is apparent and known.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wey, there is going to be a lot of "killing" going on in the end days. How is that justified?

For example, say someone was about to shoot your wife in the head. And you stop him by stabbing him with a roll of carpet and kill him.

Do you think God would look poorly on you?

Jesus also says to obey the laws of the land, or suffer the outcome.

I also believe that commandment to mean "Murder" as well. With intent.

Could you explain your meaning better Kevin. What are these end days? What do they have to do with shooting someone's wife in the head?

I cannot understand your post completely as it is, I'm sorry.

As for what you believe, I am not here to change that, but you are wrong. Translation has nothing to do with faith, but understanding.

Regardless, I am intrigued by your first two sentences. Please explain them, if you would be so kind.

cheers

W-Y

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Could you explain your meaning better Kevin. What are these end days? What do they have to do with shooting someone's wife in the head?

Nothing to do with shooting ones wife in the head. I am speaking about the killing that goes on.
You know, God does make provisions for War. So ALL killing cannot be in-step here.

MURDER on the other hand..

God many times accepts killing. It's the muder he was against. So in taking the Bible as a whole one could see how the murder/killing descrepencies stand.

As for what you believe, I am not here to change that, but you are wrong.

You mean you THINK I am wrong. It's not a fact. Neither one of us has the "facts"

Translation has nothing to do with faith, but understanding.

Yes, but how do you know that isn't what I used?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Nothing to do with shooting ones wife in the head. I am speaking about the killing that goes on.
You know, God does make provisions for War. So ALL killing cannot be in-step here.

MURDER on the other hand..

God many times accepts killing. It's the muder he was against. So in taking the Bible as a whole one could see how the murder/killing descrepencies stand.
You mean you THINK I am wrong. It's not a fact. Neither one of us has the "facts"
Yes, but how do you know that isn't what I used?

Slow down there. You mentioned someone shooting one's wife in the head, let's keep it there. Alternatively you could perhaps explain why you mentioned it if it has nothing to do with 'end days' and God and killing. Or perhaps how it has nothing to do with that subject?

I know God views killing as wrong, that could not be clearer. It is the fifth commandment. I also know that He will judge. If there was no ambiguity He would not need to judge. Wars often involve killing and since that is wrong, one will have to hope the war one wages is just and honorable because one will be judged off one participates in it and kills. One has to repent those killings truly for in hope of forgiveness, as a Christian. It seems a contradiction but it isn't really. Everyone has had to do things he knows he'll regret. Sometimes killing falls under that, but it should of course be avoided as humanly possible.

You write: "MURDER on the other hand.. "

Perhaps you were going to finish that sentance? I'm curious to hear how it ends, if you don't mind. My mind-reading isn't what it used to be.

As for the translation of the Hebrew text, I am not here to convince you either way since you are free to believe whatever you like. I care not. You are wrong though, but it is ok to be wrong. If you were genuinely curious as to why you are wrong you could find out. Or not.

cheers

W-Y

[Rolling Bones]

All this over fairy tales.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

All this over fairy tales.

Over culture and psychology actually. This conflict has nothing directly to do with religion. It is playing second fiddle only, although the band wouldn't sound the same without it

cheers

W-Y

[swrate]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Tariq Ramadan, a man refused entry to the United States due to his links to supporting terrorism. Ramadan has a family history of terror. His maternal grandmother was a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. His father left Egypt for Sweden after a crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

A DHS spokesman, Russ Knocke, later explained this (revocation of his work visa) had been done in accord with a law that denies entry to aliens who have used a "position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity." The revocation, Mr. Knocke added, was based on "public safety or national security interests."

He has praised the brutal Islamist policies of the Sudanese politician Hassan Al-Turabi. Mr. Turabi in turn called Mr. Ramadan the "future of Islam."
Mr. Ramadan was banned from entering France in 1996 on suspicion of having links with an Algerian Islamist who had recently initiated a terrorist campaign in Paris.
Ahmed Brahim, an Algerian indicted for Al-Qaeda activities, had "routine contacts" with Mr. Ramadan, according to a Spanish judge (Baltasar Garzón) in 1999.
Djamel Beghal, leader of a group accused of planning to attack the American embassy in Paris, stated in his 2001 trial that he had studied with Mr. Ramadan.
Along with nearly all Islamists, Mr. Ramadan has denied that there is "any certain proof" that Bin Laden was behind 9/11.
He publicly refers to the Islamist atrocities of 9/11, Bali, and Madrid as "interventions," minimizing them to the point of near-endorsement.
And here are other reasons, dug up by Jean-Charles Brisard, a former French intelligence officer doing work for some of the 9/11 families, as reported in Le Parisien:

Intelligence agencies suspect that Mr. Ramadan (along with his brother Hani) coordinated a meeting at the Hôtel Penta in Geneva for Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy head of Al-Qaeda, and Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh, now in a Minnesota prison.
Mr. Ramadan's address appears in a register of Al Taqwa Bank, an organization the State Department accuses of supporting Islamist terrorism.


The Guardian hired a supporter of terrorism. Dilpazier Aslam, was working for the Guardian as recently as June of last year, when he was writing for the Hizb Ut Tahrir magazine. The email address given for Mr. Aslam is at the 1924.org domain, which belongs to that organisation.

From the magazine's mission statement:

"We maintain that the ‘Clash of Civilisations’ is not only inevitable but imperative."



CAIR, who is a Hamas front organization, and has had numerous people in CAIR leadership linked to terrorism.

*U.S. Senator Richard Durbin: "[CAIR is] unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect"

*U.S. Senator Charles Schumer: "we know [CAIR] has ties to terrorism"

From Sept. 2003 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology and Homeland Security

Senior CAIR employee Randall Todd Royer, a/k/a “Ismail” Royer, pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for participating in a network of militant jihadists centered in Northern Virginia. He admitted to aiding and abetting three persons who sought training in a terrorist camp in Pakistan for the purpose of waging jihad against American troops in Afghanistan. Royer’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed with CAIR.

CAIR's Director of Community Relations, Bassem Khafagi , was arrested by the United States due to his ties with a terror-financing front group. Khafagi pled guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt. Khafagi’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed by CAIR.

On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas, a founder of the Holy Land Foundation, and a brother-in-law of Musa Abu Marzook , was arrested by the United States and charged with, among other things, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist organization, conspiracy and money laundering. Ghassan Elashi committed his crimes while working at CAIR, and was found Guilty.

CAIR Board Member Imam Siraj Wahaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing, has called for replacing the American government with an Islamic caliphate, and warned that America will crumble unless it accepts Islam.

Rabih Hadid served as a CAIR Fundraiser. Haddad was co-founder of the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”). GRF was designated by the US Treasury Department for financing the Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations and its assets were frozen by the US Government on December 14, 2001.

With moderates like these, who needs extremists?

Yes, I was also denied once entry to the US, it happens, for nothing linked to terrorism. Visa procedures……

At the regret of many here, he quit UNI FR to accept a challenging post in a the Institute for International Peace, Indiana in the US.
Tariq had his Visa, when at the last moment the working permit was denied for patriot act reasons. He had bought a house for his wife and 4 kids, he had quit his job here in June.

If one studies, or teaches students, automatically one has many contacts. This does not make you a terrorist. Anyway, Tariq is moderate, against violence, a philosoph, and his goal is to change Islam from the inside.
The Brotherhood is based on non violent activities, with radical views of Islam. They are a on and off recognized party. Recognized as a religion under the control of the government. In Egypt, that faction is growing, over 20%? Right wingers again.
Tariq Ramadan is moderate in his radicalism, he is teaching now in UK
.
BTW, he filed legal action against the Patriot Act, with ACLU a complaint to Madame Rice.

http://www.tdg.ch/tghome/english_cor...l?dbt=27012006

He is a tolerant person and in the many debates I heard, he speaks of dialogue and non violence, tolerance towards the others.
you had to come up with that most wanted WMD list……


The French press has attacked him a lot, often quoting out of context. There is a difference between what he says Ramadan/Sarkozy, i.e. and what the press related. I don’t always agree with his ideas, but I think he has good analyses
:

Dans le livre « L’Islam en questions », Babel-Actes Sud, 2002, p. 96) Ramadan écrit : « Il faut reconnaître l’horreur que fut le génocide, en étudier la portée et respecter la blessure et la souffrance qui ont façonné la conscience juive au XXe siècle. On ne peut nier ce qui s’est passé en Europe et il faut reconnaître cette souffrance, cela ne fait aucun doute. »

“One has to recognize the horror that was the genocide, study it’s depth and respect the wound who has built the Jews conscience in the 20 th century. One cannot deny what has happened in Europe and one must recognize this suffering, without any doubt.”


http://www.islamlaicite.org/article140.html

Annexe : un entretien avec la presse israélienne
« Haaretz Daily » Sunday, May 26, 2002 “My fellow Muslims, we must fight anti-Semitism”
In France, Muslim intellectuals and religious leaders have come out against attacks on Jews and Jewish religious institutions. Outstanding among them is Tariq Ramadan, who explains his beliefs.





By Joseph Algazy
In the middle of April, during the Israel Defense Forces campaign in the West Bank, a group of 57 Muslim, Christian and Jewish religious leaders and intellectuals published a call in the French media “to stop the fighting.”
Among the signatories to this call was Tariq Ramadan, who lectures on philosophy at the College of Geneva and on Islamic Studies at Fribourg, Switzerland ; the Grand Mufti of Marseilles, Soheib Bencheikh ; the Catholic Bishop of Ivry, Michel Dubost ; the President of the Protestant Federation of France, Jean-Arnold de Clermont ; Orthodox priest Michel Evdokimov ; the Chief Rabbi of France Gilles Bernheim and the former president of the representative council of the Jewish organizations in France, Henri Hajdenberg.
The public call stated : “The blood that is being spilled on the land that was sanctified by the Torah, the Gospels and the Koran is causing humanity to despair.” The signatories also warned that “the Israeli-Palestinian war has awakened criminal tendencies in France that endanger human lives and places of worship, including Jewish synagogues.”
Ramadan, 39, is not only an outstanding Muslim intellectual but also the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hassan Al-Bana, who was murdered in his own country in 1949. He firmly condemns the anti-Semitic incidents that took place during the past year in France, Belgium and other European countries, such as attacks on synagogues and Jewish institutions. “Too few Muslims have spoken out against these anti-Semitic and Judeophobic phenomena,” he says.
In his opinion, any attempt to afford legitimization to anti-Semitism on the basis of texts taken from the Islamic tradition, and as an expression of protest against the suffering of the Palestinians, must be firmly rejected.
“To my regret, anti-Semitic utterances have been heard not only from frustrated and confused young Muslims, but also from certain Muslim intellectuals and imams,” he says, “who in every crisis or political backsliding see the hand of the ‘Jewish lobby.’ There is nothing in Islam that gives legitimization to Judeophobia, xenophobia and the rejection of any human being because of his religion or the group to which he belongs. Anti-Semitism has no justification in Islam, the message of which demands respect for the Jewish religion and spirit, which are considered a noble expression of the People of the Book.”
Even when he identifies urges that have their source in economic distress and social frustration, or the desire to protest against Israel’s oppressive policy, among people who express themselves in an anti-Semitic way and are involved in anti-Semitic acts, Ramadan refuses to demonstrate understanding or forgiveness toward them. He says : “The social and political forces in the Muslim communities must act to educate toward the delegitimization of elements of anti- Semitism. Leaders and imams have the responsibility to disseminate an unequivocal message about the profound connections between Islam and Judaism and Islam’s recognition of Moses and the Torah.”
“Despite what is happening today in Israel and Palestine, despite [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon’s policy, despite the feelings of anger and frustration - those responsible for all the Muslim political and social organizations must open a clear dialogue that distinguishes between criticism of Israel’s policy, and anti-Semitic and Judeophobic statements and actions. This is lacking today and this is a great responsibility.”
The statements made by Muslim leaders so far do not satisfy him ; these saw the anti-Semitic acts as deeds of a local nature, behind which there have been no national organizations and which derived from a sense of economic and social frustration. “The neighborhoods and suburbs must take educational action to clear out phenomena of Judeophobia and of the attaching of labels and stigmas ; it is necessarily to criticize mercilessly the theses of the extreme right ad not to abandon the arena to dangerous political forces,” says Ramadan.
Self-criticism
Ramadan warned, in his interview with Ha’aretz that two dangerous phenomena exist side by side : one is criticism of and protest against the Israeli government’s policy toward the Palestinians that are accompanied by declarations that deny that the Holocaust took place and the other defines any criticism of Israel as anti-Jewish propaganda and as ignoring the memory of the Holocaust.
“Recently, in a public debate that was held in Brussels on the war in the Middle East,” related the Muslim philosopher, “a woman in the audience challenged : ‘Why do you always bring up the Holocaust ?’
”I replied immediately, ‘It is possible to be against Israel’s policy in Palestine, but we must take into account the real memory of the Jews’ suffering in the 20th century and evince special sensitivity to the Holocaust. This is an obligation of conscience and ethics. We must remember what happened so that it will never happen again.’
“From a different perspective, it is our obligation to tell every Jew or Zionist who supports Israel’s official policy that it is impossible to make systematic use of the Holocaust and the memory of the victims to give legitimization to Israel’s oppressive policy in Palestine. This is forbidden. The fact that there are people who use the memory of the Holocaust to justify Israel’s actions, which many define as state terror against the Palestinian people, does not justify others not taking into account the memory of the Holocaust. Both approaches must be condemned.”
Ramadan says that this opinion is shared by various elements in the Jewish communities of Europe, including that in France, as well as in the United States and Canada. “Even though they are still a minority,” he says, “they are making their voices heard. They are not afraid of self-criticism and are making a clear distinction between the official Israeli policy and their belonging to Judaism and the Jewish tradition. We must hear an identical position in principle from non-Jewish intellectuals as well, Muslims and non-Muslims, that will lead to staunch opposition to criticism of the state of Israel that is accompanied by statements and actions against Jews.
“There is an urgent need for Jewish and Muslim representatives in Europe to hold a frank and serious dialogue about the spirit of malaise that prevails between their communities. This is in order to put a stop to expressions of hostility, introversion, and mutual stigmatization that could hurt their ability to live together. The self-criticism must be mutual.”
According to him, criticism of the policies of Sharon’s government does not mean the expression of disrespect toward Judaism and Jews, just as criticism of regimes and dictatorships in Muslim states does not mean an attack on Islam.
Enthusiastic response
Asked how his Muslim listeners, including intellectuals, respond to his positions, he replies : “Many of them were surprised by my opinions. Though I have not been defined as a traitor, there have been Muslims who have accused me of ‘playing into the enemy’s hands’ with my statements. My reply to them is that any position of self- criticism works to the benefit of he who expresses it and can correct and improve himself, and does not play into the hands of any enemy.
“The public and educational activity that I have undertaken is very difficult, as it deals with a subject that is emotionally loaded and demands a lot of patience. I also encounter responses of understanding and enthusiasm from Muslim intellectuals, including people from Arab states, who are encouraging me and telling me : ‘It’s good that you are showing the courage to express your opinions ; they must be stated.’”
Asked whether he sees a contradiction between his tolerance and the ideological heritage of his grandfather Hassan Al-Bana, the founder and leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members persecuted Jews in Egypt during the 1940s, Ramadan replies : “In my opinion it is necessary to present each of the positions, my grandfather’s and my own, in their political and historical context. Al-Bana lived at time when the state of Israel was being formed and he, like others, defined its establishment as an act of colonization which in his opinion justified resistance. This was a very difficult period for the Palestinians.
“Clearly there is a difference between what he said in his day and what I am saying today. I am living and speaking out more than 50 years after he was assassinated, that is, in a different era and in a different historical context. Over the years there have been various developments that I am taking into account in formulating my positions, positions that are congruent with my principles. There are some things of my grandfather’s with which I agree and others with which I don’t agree. I have taken from my grandfather what in my opinion is part of Muslim reformism. Al-Bana often said that ideas must not stand still. In the social realm, my grandfather’s ideology was reformist. Sometimes I express a critical position toward some of my grandfather’s ideological heritage and I take full responsibility for this. Therefore, my grandfather would not necessarily have agreed today with everything that I am saying now.”




* Thème(s) associé(s) à l'article :
Conflit israélo-arabe - Médias

[swrate]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Respect is a two way street and I cannot think of one single good reason why I should repsect the Islamic world, not one single reason. I can think of countless reasons why I should not.

some may not see one single good reason to respect Christian world, or Jewish world, or.... or..... Its all about accepting differences.

[swrate]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

It is good to know the Koran does not deny evolution, for the Bible does not do so either. We can then be in accord about that. Science does not conflict with religion. Not yours and not mine. There are many arguments about it here on MacNN, granted, but those who claim evolution is not compatible with the Bible are not necessarily Christian. They do often call themselves that, but this issue for instance is a dead giveaway. I understand them, I myself did not believe in evolution until I saw it with my own eyes, learned about it and tested it. It is there. However if one's pastor has decided differently and quotes the Bible to support his case it becomes a test of faith for the literalists. Such are many Evangelicals for instance. I'm sure there are Evenagelicals out there who accept evolution. After all it is a non-centralized religion.

***

It is interesting to know that Muslims used to be more open and dare I say liberal in the 40s to 60s and it is sad to hear they have lost that trait. And with that their peace.

“If there is to be peace in the world,
There must be peace in the nations.
If there is to be peace in the nations,
There must be peace in the cities.
If there is to be peace in the cities,
There must be peace between neighbors.
If there is to be peace between neighbors,
There must be peace in the home.
If there is to be peace in the home,
There must be peace in the heart.”

Lao Tzu

cheers

W-Y

you are mistaken, i dont have a religion,

as you say those against evolution theory call themselfs Christians the same way the fanatics call themselves Muslims.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by swrate

you are mistaken, i dont have a religion,

as you say those against evolution theory call themselfs Christians the same way the fanatics call themselves Muslims.

Fair enough, you do not have a religion. What do you have? A personal faith, faith in an unnamed higher being or are you an atheist? Agnostic? If you don't mind me asking.. not many who don't have a religion involve themselves in religious debates like you have.

Curious, but if you'd rather keep it to yourself I understand.

cheers

W-Y

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

You realize the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew? The translation is from the original text. Its original meaning is apparent and known.

cheers

W-Y

I do realize the Old Testament (as you call it- I call it Torah) was written in Hebrew.


Because that's the language I read it in today. Unchanged. No translation needed.

רק העברית

And it really is a commandment to not murder, and not a commandment to not kill.

St. Jerome owes his place in the history of exegetical studies chiefly to his revisions and translations of the Bible. Until about 391-2, he considered the Septuagint translation as inspired. But the progress of his Hebraistic studies and his intercourse with the rabbis made him give up that idea, and he recognized as inspired the original text only. It was about this period that he undertook the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. But he went too far in his reaction against the ideas of his time, and is open to reproach for not having sufficiently appreciated the Septuagint. This latter version was made from a much older, and at times much purer, Hebrew text than the one in use at the end of the fourth century.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Hawkeye, I'm sorry to inform you that the Vatican has gone their own direction on the meaning of this commandment, and that their direction is in opposition to the Hebrew we have available to us in the Torah.

Sure that might be whats in the Torah, and in Jewdaism + Islam. I dont claim to know how to translate either.

Since Christianity and Catholicism in particular were founded by Christ, and since the Vatican is the head of the Catholic church on earth, and since their "translation" says "you shall not KILL", most Christians(in particular Catholics) will try to abide by that rule. And to me that's simple.

Whether Jewdaism or Islam have different intrepretations is not in question. And vW, the "original" does not matter. why ? because the actual text might not change, but over 2000 years, the meaning of the text will change. So you might keep the original caligraphy, but in time culture and language evolve and with that the meaning of the text will also change anyway. Good luck fighting off change. Islam has done a great job of it so far. (sarcasm).

I dont want to get into an argument about translation and "original" vs "translated" cause frankly to me, as a Catholic (as with most Christians) it doesnt matter. Since the Vatican is the authority of the texts for Catholics, i will go by what they say. they state "You shall not KILL" clearly, so there can be no argument from the Christian/Catholic perspective on that.

Cheers

[PacHead]

The violent, primitive, fascist, brainwashed and hypocritical Muslim world has been BUSTED again !

An Egyptian newspaper published the same cartoons in OCT. 2005 and nothing happened at all.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl..._2005#comments

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by swrate

Yes, I was also denied once entry to the US, it happens, for nothing linked to terrorism. Visa procedures……

At the regret of many here, he quit UNI FR to accept a challenging post in a the Institute for International Peace, Indiana in the US.
Tariq had his Visa, when at the last moment the working permit was denied for patriot act reasons. He had bought a house for his wife and 4 kids, he had quit his job here in June.

If one studies, or teaches students, automatically one has many contacts. This does not make you a terrorist. Anyway, Tariq is moderate, against violence, a philosoph, and his goal is to change Islam from the inside.

Just because one is a teacher and has contacts does not mean that you have to associate or have contracts with terrorists or support them. As a free human being, he can choose who he associates with.

The Brotherhood is based on non violent activities, with radical views of Islam. They are a on and off recognized party.

Terrorist groups—including Hamas, Jamaat al-Islamiyya, and al-Qaeda—have historic and ideological affiliations with the Egyptian Brotherhood. In addition, some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists were once Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, including Osama bin Laden’s top deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. The organization is like “stepping stone,” says Evan Kohlmann, an international terrorism consultant. “[For] someone who is interested in dedicating their lives to a radical Islamist cause, it can be a pathway up…to a more serious dealing with Islam.”

Tariq Ramadan is moderate in his radicalism

Oh, he's a MODERATE RADICAL. That fixes everything, doesn't it?

, he is teaching now in UK

Perfect. They got rid of Omar Bakri and now have Tariq Ramadan. I'm unconvinced that one is better than the other.

BTW, he filed legal action against the Patriot Act, with ACLU a complaint to Madame Rice.

http://www.tdg.ch/tghome/english_cor...l?dbt=27012006

He is a tolerant person and in the many debates I heard, he speaks of dialogue and non violence, tolerance towards the others.
you had to come up with that most wanted WMD list……


The French press has attacked him a lot, often quoting out of context. There is a difference between what he says Ramadan/Sarkozy, i.e. and what the press related. I don’t always agree with his ideas, but I think he has good analyses
:

“One has to recognize the horror that was the genocide, study it’s depth and respect the wound who has built the Jews conscience in the 20 th century. One cannot deny what has happened in Europe and one must recognize this suffering, without any doubt.”


http://www.islamlaicite.org/article140.html

You ended your quote too soon:

"From a different perspective, it is our obligation to tell every Jew or Zionist who supports Israel’s official policy that it is impossible to make systematic use of the Holocaust and the memory of the victims to give legitimization to Israel’s oppressive policy in Palestine. This is forbidden. The fact that there are people who use the memory of the Holocaust to justify Israel’s actions, which many define as state terror against the Palestinian people, does not justify others not taking into account the memory of the Holocaust. Both approaches must be condemned.”

To summarize this, he is equating Israel's actions of defense with a campaign of genocide. He succeeds in making the very insult your quote has him guarding against.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Slow down there.

Slow down there? You say that as if I am actually speaking, and you can't keep up. How am I supposed to "slow down" ? How would me typing slower help you out any?

You mentioned someone shooting one's wife in the head, let's keep it there. Alternatively you could perhaps explain why you mentioned it if it has nothing to do with 'end days' and God and killing. Or perhaps how it has nothing to do with that subject?

I was giving a example of how maybe killing would be justified.

Would killing someone in order to stop them from murdering someone else innocent, be seen as bad?

I don't believe so. Therefore killing itself couldn't be wrong. I don't think it's that black and white.

MURDER however, is a different story.

I know God views killing as wrong, that could not be clearer.

No, you have FAITH he does. God cannot do wrong. And God has killed.

It is the fifth commandment.

Many people see that as "murder"

I also know that He will judge. If there was no ambiguity He would not need to judge. Wars often involve killing and since that is wrong, one will have to hope the war one wages is just and honorable because one will be judged off one participates in it and kills. One has to repent those killings truly for in hope of forgiveness, as a Christian. It seems a contradiction but it isn't really. Everyone has had to do things he knows he'll regret. Sometimes killing falls under that, but it should of course be avoided as humanly possible.

What about when God ORDERED killing? He did you know.

You write: "MURDER on the other hand.. "

Perhaps you were going to finish that sentance? I'm curious to hear how it ends, if you don't mind. My mind-reading isn't what it used to be.

Murder is clear cut in it's motivations. It's not self defense. It was not accidental

As for the translation of the Hebrew text, I am not here to convince you either way since you are free to believe whatever you like. I care not. You are wrong though, but it is ok to be wrong. If you were genuinely curious as to why you are wrong you could find out. Or not.

W-Y you seem to have problems understanding the difference between an IDEA, and a FACT.

You have an IDEA that I am wrong. You certainly have no facts.

I am beginning to think you are just doing this, because you are insecure with your beliefs.

Otherwise you'd not be so desperate to admit you too rely on faith. And NOT fact.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I do realize the Old Testament (as you call it- I call it Torah) was written in Hebrew.


Because that's the language I read it in today. Unchanged. No translation needed.

רק העברית

And it really is a commandment to not murder, and not a commandment to not kill.

I was not replying to you and I do not find it surprising you know the Torah is originally written in Hebrew.

It was a fact that von Wrangell seemed to be unsure of.

I do not call the Torah the Old Testament nor the Old Testament the Torah. They are not the same. The Torah is just part of the Old Testament.

Torah is:

Genesis (בראשית, Bereshit: "In the beginning...")
Exodus (שמות, Shemot: "Names")
Leviticus (ויקרא, Vayyiqra: "And he called...")
Numbers (במדבר, Bammidbar: "In the wilderness..."), and
Deuteronomy (דברים, Devarim: "Words", or "Discourses")

The Old Testament contains much much more. The Tanakh is much closer to what the Old Testament is. Even so the Old Testament does not contain Ketuvim and the Tanakh is does not contain a large number of texts that are found in the Old Testament.

As for the translation, it is easy enough to discern from context whether the word meant "kill" or "murder" when it was written. Kill it is.

So agrees the highest authority in Christianity. The Vatican has had through the ages at its disposal the best of the best translators and the time and patience to discern what the meaning of the Hebrew text would be in Western languages. My reading of the text, the translations I have seen in many languages all agree with the Vatican. Mind you not half of the translations I've seen were Catholic.. Language is science, not faith.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Slow down there? You say that as if I am actually speaking, and you can't keep up. How am I supposed to "slow down" ? How would me typing slower help you out any?

Slow down, as it don't jump so fast from one thing to another. I'm sorry if you didn't understand me, but I'm ready to explain.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I was giving a example of how maybe killing would be justified.

Aha, I see. Thank you for explaining.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Would killing someone in order to stop them from murdering someone else innocent, be seen as bad?

That is for God to decide on the day of judgement according to Christianity. He is a benevolent, loving and understanding Father.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't believe so. Therefore killing itself couldn't be wrong. I don't think it's that black and white.

I think the law is black and white, but life is not. Life is full of shades of grey. That is why I try to stay on the path, follow my best judgement, obey the rules He set, hope that I am of such moral character that I truly repent if I stray from them and then at the day of judgement that He will show mercy should I deserve it.

Originally Posted by Kevin

MURDER however, is a different story.

Murder is killing. It is unjustified and immoral killing. I think we can agree that the world is not black and white, as you mentioned here above and that some killing is worse than others. Even some murders worse than others.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, you have FAITH he does. God cannot do wrong. And God has killed.

Let me rephrase my meaning as it was obviously misinterpreted by you. "I know God views humans killing each other as wrong, that could not be clearer."

God Himself does as He pleases. We are not to question what He does, but to obey what He says. Lucifer, His beloved archangel questioned Him once. Even such a holy being as an archangel can not question His will or His actions. God is God. God has killed and we don't question that nor compare our mortal selves to Him.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Many people see that as "murder"

More people don't.

Originally Posted by Kevin

What about when God ORDERED killing? He did you know.

Yes, I know that. We are not to question, just obey. If God asks us to kill again, we should. We are clearly - as per the commandments - not allowed to make that decision ourselves without facing judgement for it.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Murder is clear cut in it's motivations. It's not self defense. It was not accidental

Thank you for the clarification. Much abliged.

Originally Posted by Kevin

W-Y you seem to have problems understanding the difference between an IDEA, and a FACT.

You have an IDEA that I am wrong. You certainly have no facts.

I know you are wrong. The Vatican agrees with me - or rather I with the Vatican. But you can believe what you want.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I am beginning to think you are just doing this, because you are insecure with your beliefs.

Otherwise you'd not be so desperate to admit you too rely on faith. And NOT fact.

In the case of "murder" vs "kill" I know it to mean "kill". No faith involved, just facts. When it comes to my religion, yes it is built solely on faith. I wouldn't try to extrapolate any conclusions of the strenght of my faith from my writings here on these forums. But you can do as you please.

cheers

W-Y

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

That is for God to decide on the day of judgement according to Christianity. He is a benevolent, loving and understanding Father.

I never said otherwise...

I think the law is black and white, but life is not. Life is full of shades of grey. That is why I try to stay on the path, follow my best judgement, obey the rules He set, hope that I am of such moral character that I truly repent if I stray from them and then at the day of judgement that He will show mercy should I deserve it.

And I agree here.

Murder is killing. It is unjustified and immoral killing. I think we can agree that the world is not black and white, as you mentioned here above and that some killing is worse than others. Even some murders worse than others.

I believe some killing is also justified. Esp when saving the lives of others.

Let me rephrase my meaning as it was obviously misinterpreted by you. "I know God views humans killing each other as wrong, that could not be clearer."

God Himself does as He pleases. We are not to question what He does, but to obey what He says. Lucifer, His beloved archangel questioned Him once. Even such a holy being as an archangel can not question His will or His actions. God is God. God has killed and we don't question that nor compare our mortal selves to Him.

I wasn't questioning him.

More people don't.

Subjective, and cannot simply be proven. And pretty much irrelevant.

Yes, I know that. We are not to question, just obey. If God asks us to kill again, we should. We are clearly - as per the commandments - not allowed to make that decision ourselves without facing judgement for it.

Again, it's up to God what he judges. I am saying it's not a clear cut case.

I know you are wrong. The Vatican agrees with me - or rather I with the Vatican. But you can believe what you want.

Ok, again. You don't KNOW that I am wrong. The Vatican is fallible. They have been in the past. So it's not so hard to understand them being so any other time.

In the case of "murder" vs "kill" I know it to mean "kill". No faith involved, just facts. When it comes to my religion, yes it is built solely on faith. I wouldn't try to extrapolate any conclusions of the strenght of my faith from my writings here on these forums. But you can do as you please.

Again, you know it to mean "kill" because you have faith. Not because it's something you can solidly prove.

[Weyland-Yutani]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4692318.stm

"Many moderate Muslims in Denmark have been shocked by the violence and deaths around the world prompted by the row over Danish cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad."

Well well, looks like they're finally realizing (at least part of them) that what has been committed in the name of Islam the last fortnight is unacceptable. It is also a dead end street that will cost moderate moslems more than they thought. If they had reacted like this from day one then their reputation might not have suffered as it already has.

Still, good news. The moslems are dividing. High time too.

cheers

W-Y

[Spliffdaddy]

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4692318.stm

"Many moderate Muslims in Denmark have been shocked by the violence and deaths around the world prompted by the row over Danish cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad."

Well well, looks like they're finally realizing (at least part of them) that what has been committed in the name of Islam the last fortnight is unacceptable. It is also a dead end street that will cost moderate moslems more than they thought. If they had reacted like this from day one then their reputation might not have suffered as it already has.

I'm going to call BS on their statements here - I reckon it's just a regrouping or damage limitation tactic.

Already we have the fruits of their recent work popping up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4694090.stm

Muslim scholars who gathered for an emergency meeting have called for changes to the law to stop images of the Prophet Muhammad being published.
Members of the Muslim Action Committee (MAC) who met in Birmingham called for changes to the Race Relations Act and the Press Complaints Commission code.

They are to stage a protest march in London on 18 February, expected to attract 20,000 to 50,000 people.

The MAC met to form a response to the publication of cartoons of Mohammad.

Shaikh Faiz Saddiqi, who chaired the meeting, said Wednesday's gathering of about 300 Islamic religious leaders was the largest meeting of its kind he knew of in his 25 years of living in the UK.

There's more to this than meets the eye, I'm sure of it.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

If God asks us to kill again, we should. We are clearly - as per the commandments - not allowed to make that decision ourselves without facing judgement for it.

Eww, now you're scaring me. So if god told Bush to wage war in Iraq he should just do it? No questions asked, regardless whether it makes sense or not?

That's exactly the problem I have with religious people. When at some point they give up their own mind and do what they believe is god's will and then there's no possibility for rational arguing any more. This is really a scary thought to me, that you are willing to do the most atrocious things, just because you somehow got the idea that some god wants it like that. Basically you are a ticking time-bomb just like radical Muslims are ticking time-bombs. Maybe the Muslim ones are easier to trigger because more radicals are running around and lighting the fuse for their political gain, but in principle I see no difference.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Eww, now you're scaring me. So if god told Bush to wage war in Iraq he should just do it? No questions asked, regardless whether it makes sense or not?

Rest calm

You just wandered right into hypothetical theology. AFAIK God hasn't told anyone to go to war since the days of the Old Testament. With the New Covenant He changed His style a lot.



cheers

W-Y

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

AFAIK God hasn't told anyone to go to war since the days of the Old Testament.

Are you so sure about that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pre.../06/bush.shtml

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

With the New Covenant He changed His style a lot.

And he could change his style again.

There are suicide bombers who blow themselves and others up and believe they are doing god's will. There were violent Christian sects that murdered and believed they were doing god's will. For a hypothetical theology this attitude is causing a lot of grievance.

Whenever you give up your own mind and reason for a religion, this is a very dangerous thing.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Yes, as sure as I can be. Every war God told someone to wage was won so utterly and convincingly because God gave His blessing (and assistance?). Either way, that is how the stories were told in the Old Testament.

Bush's wars have not been quite that successful.

God changing His style will not happen according to Christ. The New Covenant applies to the end.

I agree with your last sentance, but God does not ask one to give one's mind nor reason. Just to follow the law, respect Him and be as kind as one can. Life is not the be all end all of existance. One is to lead one's life as best one can, follow His teachings, learn, love and appreciate God's creation.

You shall not kill, steal, commit adultery etc. Love thy neighbor.. if that is insanity then I am striving to be insane

cheers

W-Y

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I was not replying to you and I do not find it surprising you know the Torah is originally written in Hebrew.

It was a fact that von Wrangell seemed to be unsure of.

I do not call the Torah the Old Testament nor the Old Testament the Torah. They are not the same. The Torah is just part of the Old Testament.

Torah is:

Genesis (בראשית, Bereshit: "In the beginning...")
Exodus (שמות, Shemot: "Names")
Leviticus (ויקרא, Vayyiqra: "And he called...")
Numbers (במדבר, Bammidbar: "In the wilderness..."), and
Deuteronomy (דברים, Devarim: "Words", or "Discourses")

ba'midbar means in the desert.
Dvarim means things. (milim are words.)

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by swrate

some may not see one single good reason to respect Christian world, or Jewish world, or.... or..... Its all about accepting differences.

Really ? Nothing but the most vile, hateful, nazi propaganda has been coming from the Islamic World and their press for ages now. I don't think they have anything legitimate to complain about.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Yes, as sure as I can be. Every war God told someone to wage was won so utterly and convincingly because God gave His blessing (and assistance?).

Exactly, prophet Muhammad was commanded by God to lead a defensive war against the war started by polytheistic Mecca and he and his followers won the war completely because of God's assistance.

That's also the problem with radical islamists, they try to justify offensive wars, which should according to them not be fought on the battlefield against soldiers, but more against innocent civilians, because they lose every battle against soldiers.

What's more condemning is that there is no polytheistic regime trying to abolish monotheism and to enforce idol-worship.

But you are wrong with your idea that God changed his style with the New Testament, He did not change, only the historic/political context was a different one. Jesus was a jew preaching to jews inside a state with law and order. His message to the jews was one of salvation by bringing them back to God's path that the jews under the pharisees left.

The jews enjoyed autonomy inside the roman empire regarding most of their affairs and were allowed to stick to monotheism, therefore there was no need to call for fighting.

Don't regard this as facts, it's just my personal analysis.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Sura 9 indicates you're meant to lie in wait and attack the unbelievers. Sura 8 actually is the one I meant, about striking at the necks of the unbelievers. (which is where the 'extremists' get the notion that it's holy to behead the rest of us.)

No, you are wrong again, it's not "unbelievers", but idolators. But beside that, what's your point? How to fight on the battlefield with ambushes should be known to you from the Torah.

Radical islamists, and among them espescially the extreme ones, are surely capable to take that historic and timebound commandment for the conducting on the battlefield against warriors from the idolators, to transfer it to an eternal fight against any one, that is not believing in the Quran.

But they are only able to do so in contradiction and ignorance of most of the rest of the Quran.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Rest calm

You just wandered right into hypothetical theology. AFAIK God hasn't told anyone to go to war since the days of the Old Testament. With the New Covenant He changed His style a lot.

Well we don't really know what he has done since....

And he will eventually do it again we do know.

Originally Posted by TETENAL

There are suicide bombers who blow themselves and others up and believe they are doing god's will. There were violent Christian sects that murdered and believed they were doing god's will. For a hypothetical theology this attitude is causing a lot of grievance.

The difference is, the first is a global problem, and the second is rare compared to the first.

Also, God mostly commands ARMIES to go after ARMIES.

Not civilians attacking innocent civilians.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Sure that might be whats in the Torah, and in Jewdaism + Islam. I dont claim to know how to translate either.

Since Christianity and Catholicism in particular were founded by Christ, and since the Vatican is the head of the Catholic church on earth, and since their "translation" says "you shall not KILL", most Christians(in particular Catholics) will try to abide by that rule. And to me that's simple.

Whether Jewdaism or Islam have different intrepretations is not in question. And vW, the "original" does not matter. why ? because the actual text might not change, but over 2000 years, the meaning of the text will change. So you might keep the original caligraphy, but in time culture and language evolve and with that the meaning of the text will also change anyway. Good luck fighting off change. Islam has done a great job of it so far. (sarcasm).

I dont want to get into an argument about translation and "original" vs "translated" cause frankly to me, as a Catholic (as with most Christians) it doesnt matter. Since the Vatican is the authority of the texts for Catholics, i will go by what they say. they state "You shall not KILL" clearly, so there can be no argument from the Christian/Catholic perspective on that.

Cheers

I hope you realise that you've just said that you accept changing the rules God has laid down to us as well as changing the text that God gave us.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I hope you realise that you've just said that you accept changing the rules God has laid down to us as well as changing the text that God gave us.

I hope you realize that your an idiot and that i never said that.

Chane is inevitable, hopefully for the better. But unfortunately for muslims who follow the Quaran, the guidelines that govern their day-to-day lives seem to be steering them straight to hell. And that, cannot in anyway shape or form, whether original or translated, intentional or not, be the word of God.

But good luck with that fight to fight off change. it's doing the muslim world a whole lot of good.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I hope you realize that your an idiot and that i never said that.

Chane is inevitable, hopefully for the better. But unfortunately for muslims who follow the Quaran, the guidelines that govern their day-to-day lives seem to be steering them straight to hell. And that, cannot in anyway shape or form, whether original or translated, intentional or not, be the word of God.

But good luck with that fight to fight off change. it's doing the muslim world a whole lot of good.

Don't you think that that was a bit over the top?

[swrate]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Just because one is a teacher and has contacts does not mean that you have to associate or have contracts with terrorists or support them. As a free human being, he can choose who he associates with.



Terrorist groups—including Hamas, Jamaat al-Islamiyya, and al-Qaeda—have historic and ideological affiliations with the Egyptian Brotherhood. In addition, some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists were once Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, including Osama bin Laden’s top deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. The organization is like “stepping stone,” says Evan Kohlmann, an international terrorism consultant. “[For] someone who is interested in dedicating their lives to a radical Islamist cause, it can be a pathway up…to a more serious dealing with Islam.”



Oh, he's a MODERATE RADICAL. That fixes everything, doesn't it?


Perfect. They got rid of Omar Bakri and now have Tariq Ramadan. I'm unconvinced that one is better than the other.


You ended your quote too soon:

"From a different perspective, it is our obligation to tell every Jew or Zionist who supports Israel’s official policy that it is impossible to make systematic use of the Holocaust and the memory of the victims to give legitimization to Israel’s oppressive policy in Palestine. This is forbidden. The fact that there are people who use the memory of the Holocaust to justify Israel’s actions, which many define as state terror against the Palestinian people, does not justify others not taking into account the memory of the Holocaust. Both approaches must be condemned.”

To summarize this, he is equating Israel's actions of defense with a campaign of genocide. He succeeds in making the very insult your quote has him guarding against.

Vmarks,

Accusations against Tariq Ramadan are based on rumours people like you generously spread around.
You write he has contracts- did you mean contacts? with terrorists, did you see the contracts?and compare him to the extremist Omar Bakri???? far fetched.
I am expecting proofs of your accusations.
Because one has contacts with people in jail for example does not make one a criminal.

It can be a pathway does not mean it is a pathway.

I always heard him condemn vigorously the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks. Besides I doubt ACLU would support him if they were any doubt.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general...s20060125.html

I think Tariq is right to file a complaint against the Patriot Act.

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissin...=1138652039000

Tariq Ramadan is very appreciated in Universities here (Switzerland) and quit, because he had accepted a position in the Institute of International Peace. After he and his family packed and were ready to move, he was suddenly denied entrance to the US.
He now teaches in Oxford.


I did not cut the quote you mentioned, it is in the article i posted, furthermore, i totally agree with what he says :O
You are rephrasing in your equation your own perspective. (translation?)

It’s better being Jew or Christian nowadays on this planet then Muslim. sad fact.

Following are are Tariq’s advices to Muslims concerning the cartoon episode
http://www.tariqramadan.com/article....le=572&lang=en . http://www.tariqramadan.com/article....le=571&lang=en

[swrate]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Fair enough, you do not have a religion. What do you have? A personal faith, faith in an unnamed higher being or are you an atheist? Agnostic? If you don't mind me asking.. not many who don't have a religion involve themselves in religious debates like you have.

Curious, but if you'd rather keep it to yourself I understand.

cheers

W-Y

Proof is that -to have or not to have- a religion, determines neither opinion, nor faith.



It’s difficult for me to see constant provocations from right wingers defaming their hate over Muslims (1/6 of the planet?). This horrid identification to bomb wearers and to Satan makes me react. Politics using religion. The answer to the provocation so far is just as negative as the cartoons. I hope it changes and solutions through dialogue are found before this turns to turmoil in the M-E. (Iran Iraq Israel....)
I admire Taliesine and vW and many others for staying courteous patient and logic

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I hope you realize ...snip.... and that i never said that.

You said this:

And vW, the "original" does not matter. why ? because the actual text might not change, but over 2000 years, the meaning of the text will change

The meaning of the difference in saying "murder" or "kill" hasn't changed. "To murder" has throughout history meant something different than "to kill".

And since you support the wrong translation (as is pretty obvious in this case) you are supporting the changing of God's words. A grave sin indeed.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by swrate

Politics using religion.

Islam is both.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'll believe it when I see it.

Even if it happens, there are many who will choose not to see it

[Y3a]

And it seems that the innocent Muslims have been stirred up by some west-hating talibans or such. Nothing much happened when the cartoons were first published. IN OCTOBER. So it seems like a group has hijacked the Muslim masses to be the destructors and rioters. I Wonder if anything will be done by the true Muslim leaders to stop the violence. They can sure be stirred up easily, which is something that THEY must change for their own good.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You said this:

The meaning of the difference in saying "murder" or "kill" hasn't changed. "To murder" has throughout history meant something different than "to kill".

And since you support the wrong translation (as is pretty obvious in this case) you are supporting the changing of God's words. A grave sin indeed.

A "grave" sin would be leading a life that harms your fellow man. A greater sin would be writing a book, claiming its the word of God, and leading people to kill those not like you. An even graver sin would be not recognizing the wrong, and continuing to base one's life on text that encourages you to harm someone cause the yare different.

Jews claim the Torah is the word of God, Muslims the Quaran, Christians the Bible....then you have Hindus, Budhists, etc.... When in the end, it was a human being who wrote them and claimed it was the "word of God". Religion(any) is a guideline on how to live your day-to-day life. If the world around you changes, the rules must follow.

And as far as "supporting the changing of God's word"....... ummm....... ill gladly change what someone(man/woman) claims to be the "word of God", IF it betters the lives of people who follow it.

You can hold onto ancient societies dogma and texts in the 21st century if you like. Just be aware that every other society has moved on. And it's precicely islam's reluctance to change that has put it in it's position today, which is ... at war with everyone else. But i dont blame the people for that, i blame the Quaran(and it's writer) for that....what i do hold the people accountable for is not realizing the problem and working to solving it. They blindly follow...kinda like in a cult. thing is...most of us non-muslims couldnt give a f*ck about what other's beleive...but seeing as how it's our lives that are at stake....

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I hope you realize that your an idiot and that i never said that.

Chane is inevitable, hopefully for the better. But unfortunately for muslims who follow the Quaran, the guidelines that govern their day-to-day lives seem to be steering them straight to hell. And that, cannot in anyway shape or form, whether original or translated, intentional or not, be the word of God.

But good luck with that fight to fight off change. it's doing the muslim world a whole lot of good.

Sorry, but change is not going to be permitted by the self styled 'guardians' of Muslim, the ones who are keeping it pure.

Remember this word:

JAHILIYYAH.

Jahiliyyah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jahiliyyah is an Islamic concept referring to the spiritual condition of pre-Islamic Arabian society. It is described as a state of ignorance of God's message.
"When a person embraced Islam during the time of the Prophet—peace be on him—he would immediately cut himself off from Jahiliyyah. [The state of ignorance of the guidance from God.] When he stepped into the circle of Islam, he would start a new life, separating himself completely from his past life under ignorance of the Divine Law. He would look upon the deeds during his life of ignorance with mistrust and fear, with a feeling that these were impure and could not be tolerated in Islam! With this feeling, he would turn toward Islam for new guidance; and if at any time temptations overpowered him, or the old habits attracted him, or if he became lax in carrying out the injunctions of Islam, he would become restless with a sense of guilt and would feel the need to purify himself of what had happened, and would turn to the Qur'an to mold himself according to its guidance."
—Sayyid Qutb[1]

Jahiliyya in Radical Western Society

Jahiliyyah has come to have a particular function in some radical Islamic circles, analogous to the idea of false consciousness in secular radical movements. Following Sayyid Qutb, Jahiliyyah has come to be seen as an active force, emanating in particular from the permissive society of the USA, and seducing Muslims away from the Divine Law. Participation in modern liberal capitalist social and political institutions is taken to be a symptom of the infection.
The threat this 'disease' poses to the survival of Islam might justify a more militant attitude towards Western influence in Islam's heartlands, and can be seen as permitting 'real' Muslims to attack Muslims who have succumbed to Jahiliyyah—who are therefore no longer true Muslims.

A Problem Term

Jahiliyya to many scholars is considered a problem term. Although many believe it to be the period of "ignorance" before Islam, it may actually refer to the arrogance and power-hungry nature of the time. The problem with the term essentially resides in the emphasis on the dichotomy of good and bad by using "ignorance" as its primary meaning.

http://www.islamworld.net/justice.html
THE RIGHT TO JUDGE

by SAYYID QUTB


It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya which are current in the world or to co-exist in the same land together with a jahili system. This was not the case when it first appeared in the world, nor will it be today or in the future. Jahiliyyah, to whatever period it belongs, is Jahiliyyah; that is, deviation from the worship of One Allah and the way of life prescribed by Allah.

It derives its system and laws and regulations and habits and standards and values from a source other than Allah. On the other hand, Islam is submission to Allah, and its function is to bring people away from Jahiliyyah towards Islam. Jahiliyyah is the worship of some people by others; that is to say, some people become dominant and make laws for others, regardless of whether these laws are against Allah's injunctions and without caring for the use or misuse of their authority.

Islam, on the other hand, is people's worshipping Allah alone, and deriving concepts and beliefs, laws and regulations from the authority of Allah, and freeing themselves from the servitude to Allah's servants. This is the very nature of Islam and the nature of its role on earth.

Islam cannot accept any mixing with Jahiliyyah. Either Islam will remain, or Jahiliyyah; no half-half situation is possible. Command belongs to Allah, or otherwise to Jahiliyyah; Allah's Shari'ah will prevail, or else people's desires: "And if they do not respond to you, then know that they only follow their own lusts. And who is more astray than one who follows his own lusts, without guidance from Allah? Verily! Allah guides not the people who are disobedient."[28:50]; "Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allah for a people who have firm faith"[5:50].

The foremost duty of Islam is to depose Jahiliyyah from the leadership of man, with the intention of raising human beings to that high position which Allah has chosen for him. This purpose is explained by Raba'i Bin 'Amer, when he replied to the Commander in Chief of the Persian army, Rustum. Rustum asked, "For what purpose have you come?" Raba'i answered," Allah has sent us to bring anyone who wishes from servitude to men into the service of Allah alone, from the narrowness of this world into the vastness of this world and the Hereafter, from the tyranny of religions into the justice of Islam."

We'd better get it through our heads right now...

CHANGE IS NOT AN OPTION TO MUSLIMS.