NationStates Jolt Archive

Many people here have consistantly claimed that Chrisitianity is an extremely intollerant and evil faith but I dont think Chrisitanity has anything in its Dogma quite so intollerant as this

http://answering-islam.org.uk/NonMuslims/rights.htm

Could any Muslims on the forum please explain exactly what these laws are and where they come from in Muslim doctrine.

Both religions are intolerant. Christianity has mellowed out quite a bit since the enlightenment, but there are still some Christians who want to impose their beleifs on others, just as there are Muslims who want to impose theirs.

Both religions are intolerant. Christianity has mellowed out quite a bit since the enlightenment, but there are still some Christians who want to impose their beleifs on others, just as there are Muslims who want to impose theirs.

You have avoided the issue

I am adressing Muslim dogma here. As far as I can see there is nothing in Christian dogma that comes close to this. So what I want to know here is an answer to the following questions.

1) Is this dogma active (IE is it part of the Qu'ran or other text which is relevent or is it debunked, like the Old covant of the Bible)

2) Where is it found in Muslim Dogma?

As far as I can see there is nothing in Christian dogma that comes close to this.
The Christian Reconstructionists?

Anyway, I'm off-topic, so I won't talk about it here.

As far as I can see there is nothing in Christian dogma that comes close to this.

Far be it from me to be the defender of Islam, but there aren't any theocratic Christian states that come to mind either- I imagine if there were, they would be similarly abusive of the religious rights of others (as has been demonstrated time and again throughout history).
But yes, those doctrines look more extreme than anything I've seen in Christian teaching.

This is an interesting article which also analyises some of these themes

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005810.php

Many people here have consistantly claimed that Chrisitianity is an extremely intollerant and evil faith but I dont think Chrisitanity has anything in its Dogma quite so intollerant as this

http://answering-islam.org.uk/NonMuslims/rights.htm

Could any Muslims on the forum please explain exactly what these laws are and where they come from in Muslim doctrine.

I'm not muslim, but theat piece is the equivilant of Ann Coulter's "Burn down their cities, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" quote. It dosen't fit in the reiligon.

This is an interesting article which also analyises some of these themes

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005810.php

I wonder if there is a "crusadewatch.org"

Far be it from me to be the defender of Islam, but there aren't any theocratic Christian states that come to mind either- I imagine if there were, they would be similarly abusive of the religious rights of others (as has been demonstrated time and again throughout history).
But yes, those doctrines look more extreme than anything I've seen in Christian teaching.
Vatican City is an independent nation from Italy as i remember

I'm not muslim, but theat piece is the equivilant of Ann Coulter's "Burn down their cities, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" quote. It dosen't fit in the reiligon.

By Christian dogma, I am not refering to what other Christians have written about Christianity. I'm refering to the Bible. I am asking if these ideas are actually an intrinsic part of the Muslim faith or if they are something else, and if so what else

Vatican City is an independent nation from Italy as i remember

I dont think it violoates human rights on this scale.

By Christian dogma, I am not refering to what other Christians have written about Christianity. I'm refering to the Bible. I am asking if these ideas are actually an intrinsic part of the Muslim faith or if they are something else, and if so what else


Well, Christianity does advocate stoning adulters, and it did kind of jump-start the Crusades.

Vatican City is an independent nation from Italy as i remember

True, but Vatican City doesn't act as a state so much as it does a beaurecratic body for the Catholic Church.

Old dogmas have no place in the modern world. Today...this is nothing but fanaticism.

Well, Christianity does advocate stoning adulters, and it did kind of jump-start the Crusades.

Yes, but that dogma is debunked (old/new covanant). What I am asking here is if this dogma has been debunked and if it hasnt, what is it?

Many people here have consistantly claimed that Chrisitianity is an extremely intollerant and evil faith but I dont think Chrisitanity has anything in its Dogma quite so intollerant as this

http://answering-islam.org.uk/NonMuslims/rights.htm

Could any Muslims on the forum please explain exactly what these laws are and where they come from in Muslim doctrine.

Great so you found a religion that is more intolerant that Christianity. Good find. That makes all the Christian intolerance okay now.

Great so you found a religion that is more intolerant that Christianity. Good find. That makes all the Christian intolerance okay now.

Perhaps I haven't explained myself properly. This site makes the case that this piece is about Islamic doctrine. Chrisitan doctrine (the Gospels and the Bible) is far from intollerant. Now I wont deny that Christian has an intollerant past, but the active dogma is not intollerant (Inactive dogma = Old Covanant, active dogma = New covanant). What I am asking here is is this doctrine part of Muslim active dogma. And if so where does it come from.

I read some, while I admit not all of the link you provided. To me the Islamic laws appear to be in many ways the same as Christian laws were not even a 100 years ago. Given that Islam is 1400 years behind Christianity in forming it's religion, I'd say being only about 100 years behind in dogma isn't actually that bad.

Much work needs to be done to bring Christian and Islamic religions into the 21st century. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day. It will come in time. At least we can only hope.

please summarize what you found to be intolerant muslim dogma. and also state why you are attacking Islam for their beliefs.

This brings up a matter of deduction I've always wondered about...

...So the Virgin Mary, who supposedly never had sex in her life, conceived of a child Jesus. There are two conclusions that someone can come to:
1) Perhaps Mary wasn't a virgin after all. It's not like they had security cameras back then.
2) She spontaneously conceived! God must have floated down from Heaven and impregnated her, like Zeus used to do in Greek myths!

I was always taught in Church to believe the latter, even though the former seemed much more likely to me and still does. My ability to suspend disbelief only goes so far.
But I still wonder why so many people dismiss the more obvious conclusion as being heresy, refusing to even consider it and getting angry at those who do. Are they themselves uncomfortable with the more mystical conclusion, the one that's been unquestionably accepted by most Christians for two thousand years?

Aother thing could be that Christianity is older than Islam. Therefore, it still has active theocracies, as were there Christian theocracies 300 years ago. Also, eurocentrism could factor in to that, as industrialization, as social revolutions failed to occur outside of europe

"Islam intollerant"

Well, DUH! This comes as some sort of shock to you???

please summarize what you found to be intolerant muslim dogma. and also state why you are attacking Islam for their beliefs.

Well for one thing, there is the Jizya, the tax that all non Muslims have to pay, on the fair economic grounds that they are not Muslim.

Then theres the whole section on the Zimmi's (religous non Muslims, Chrisitans, Jews, Hindu's etc). Which says they are not allowed to build churchs, read prayers allowed, publish Bibles, witness in a trial etc.

Then there is the section on what Zimmi's and Muslims can and cannot do while interacting

Frankly the number of human rights this violates is astonishing. Where exactly in Islamic theology does this sort of thing come from.

Well for one thing, there is the Jizya, the tax that all non Muslims have to pay, on the fair economic grounds that they are not Muslim.

Then theres the whole section on the Zimmi's (religous non Muslims, Chrisitans, Jews, Hindu's etc). Which says they are not allowed to build churchs, read prayers allowed, publish Bibles, witness in a trial etc.

Then there is the section on what Zimmi's and Muslims can and cannot do while interacting

Frankly the number of human rights this violates is astonishing. Where exactly in Islamic theology does this sort of thing come from.
It isn't found in the theology. It's muslim legal scholarship that is based on interpretations of certain incidents from hadith and certain verses from the koran. Not all muslims subscribe to it, and there are different forms of sharia depending on which line of legal thought one follows. Yes, it's a horribly oppresive system of law, but so were the rules during the inquisition. Both religions have attrocities in their past. Christianity has become more benign as of late, so has Islam, but Islam seems to still have a large number of zealots who want to return to the old ways. Both religions suck.

Well for one thing, there is the Jizya, the tax that all non Muslims have to pay, on the fair economic grounds that they are not Muslim.

Then theres the whole section on the Zimmi's (religous non Muslims, Chrisitans, Jews, Hindu's etc). Which says they are not allowed to build churchs, read prayers allowed, publish Bibles, witness in a trial etc.

Then there is the section on what Zimmi's and Muslims can and cannot do while interacting

Frankly the number of human rights this violates is astonishing. Where exactly in Islamic theology does this sort of thing come from.

this doesnt sound too far out to me. they have an islamic state and they are tryign to keep it that way. why should they allow other religions try to take hold there? what rights should other religions have in a islamic theocracy and why? frankly, if you want more freedom of religion you should not be living under the theocracy of another.

christians want to put christian dogma all over our public govt buildings and make laws to force people to live by christian morals - (gays can't marry because homosexuality is a sin) and we dont even live in a theocracy!!!!

also, what human rights are universal anyway?

also, what human rights are universal anyway?
Human rights will be universal once cultural imperialism destroys the barbaric cultures and replaces them with good, solid western culture.

BTW, I'm serious when I say that, and I'm looking foreward to that day.

this doesnt sound too far out to me. they have an islamic state and they are tryign to keep it that way. why should they allow other religions try to take hold there? what rights should other religions have in a islamic theocracy and why? frankly, if you want more freedom of religion you should not be living under the theocracy of another.

christians want to put christian dogma all over our public govt buildings and make laws to force people to live by christian morals - (gays can't marry because homosexuality is a sin) and we dont even live in a theocracy!!!!

Legislating Chrisitanity is not part of Christian dogma. People are entitled to lobby a democratic government on behalf of religion and it is pheasable that a democratic government could legislate on Christian morals but not legislate against other religions (IE could legislate agaisnt homosexual marriage but not outlaw Islam to be prothysised in the country)

Legislating Chrisitanity is not part of Christian dogma. People are entitled to lobby a democratic government on behalf of religion and it is pheasable that a democratic government could legislate on Christian morals but not legislate against other religions (IE could legislate agaisnt homosexual marriage but not outlaw Islam to be prothysised in the country)


good point, I wasn't looking at it that way - although if I didn't agree with where I lived, I would move instead of trying to demonize the entire govt and make them change to suit my beliefs. If there was nowhere to go then I would start bitching and cause a rukus. The humans right abuses they are encountring in islamic states are the fault of those who choose to live there no? therefore they are strippign themselves of their rights.

good point, I wasn't looking at it that way - although if I didn't agree with where I lived, I would move instead of trying to demonize the entire govt and make them change to suit my beliefs. If there was nowhere to go then I would start bitching and cause a rukus. The humans right abuses they are encountring in islamic states are the fault of those who choose to live there no? therefore they are strippign themselves of their rights.

I would agree with you there, but my queery is, are these abuses actually supported by Islamic docrtine or not. And if so, why?

Where's Keruvalia when you neeed him?

I wonder if there is a "crusadewatch.org"

I just checked and it said "Coming Soon!" :D

You can thank the stupid DoD for that one. They only nixed the Crusader SP Howitzer after we'd invaded Iraq, and only for logistical reasons. It would have been capable of landing eight 155mm shells on a target at once. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/

Imagine how pissed we'd be if Egypt were about to invade us with Jihadi J-120 heavy armor. We were better off with non-provocative names like 'Phantom' and 'Raptor'.

I would agree with you there, but my queery is, are these abuses actually supported by Islamic docrtine or not. And if so, why?

If this helps I attended Islamic school for about five years and I was never taught any of the stuff mentioned in that link. Well, except the part about not being able to work, eat at, shop at, or own a place that sells pork or liquor. I don't know if thats the answer you were looking for, lol.

Well for one thing, there is the Jizya, the tax that all non Muslims have to pay, on the fair economic grounds that they are not Muslim.

Then theres the whole section on the Zimmi's (religous non Muslims, Chrisitans, Jews, Hindu's etc). Which says they are not allowed to build churchs, read prayers allowed, publish Bibles, witness in a trial etc.

Then there is the section on what Zimmi's and Muslims can and cannot do while interacting

Frankly the number of human rights this violates is astonishing. Where exactly in Islamic theology does this sort of thing come from.

I don't think it is Islamic theology, it just sounds like an "administrative" interpretation/extrapolation of the Koran.

Its the way that Greece was administered under the ottoman empire. Frankly, the choice was either venetian or ottoman rule. The Ottoman rule was the prefered, because they didn't force greeks to convert (whereas Venetians tried to convert them to catholicism - just as bad as islam, if you were orthodox). Just as an aside, in the ottoman empire Muslims were not able to give loans or something (I'm not exactly sure what the rule is), but that meant that all the "banking" was run by non-muslims, and many made a lot of money.

Perhaps I haven't explained myself properly.Its all very clear..you are using Jewish(or whoever hates islam that much) site to promote your own antisemitism.

One of those philisophical questions.

What's wrong with intolerance?

this doesnt sound too far out to me. they have an islamic state and they are tryign to keep it that way. why should they allow other religions try to take hold there? what rights should other religions have in a islamic theocracy and why? frankly, if you want more freedom of religion you should not be living under the theocracy of another.

christians want to put christian dogma all over our public govt buildings and make laws to force people to live by christian morals - (gays can't marry because homosexuality is a sin) and we dont even live in a theocracy!!!!

Remember: Islam has every right to establish an oppressive theocracy, but anything close to a Christian one is a neo-fascist totalitarian police state.

{Crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, crap}^googleplex.

So you want insight into Islamic philosophy and Islamic politics, and you go to the two most rotten sources on this freaking net, answering-islam and jihadwatch? That's like promoting www.masada2000.org as an objective, non-biased source of facts regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's just bullshit.

The jizya is mandatory. It is tax levied on non-Muslims who reside and do dealings in the Islamic state. It happens to be equivalent to the tax Muslims themselves pay to the "Biat Al-Mall", or Central Bank, which is a portion of their income. It is also like the "Zakkah", or alms, which Muslims have to pay to the poor regularly. It's just a freaking tax, to control the money supply and keep rampant wealth under control, if you will..

But people do NOT understand, at all, the Muslim nature of dealing with society itself, and phenomena in society such as rape, murder, homsexuality, incest, etc, etc, etc. People believe Islam's answer to EVERYTHING is stoning or beheading, which is so untrue it is disgusting.

People who reside within the Islamic state do not automatically fall into the "Zimmi" category! They do NOT have to live in isolation, hiding their beliefs from Muslims, with no right to read their scripture or practice their religions. They HAVE THE RIGHT to build their places of worship, and to worship whatever god(s) they choose to please.

AND THERE IS NO LAW, I repeat, NO LAW, that states a "non-Muslim cannot become the ruler of the Ummah". It is just that, the way of choosing a ruler in Islam is through Shura, or elections. And it is highly unlikely that a non-Muslim will be chosen to command the state by the some two thousand million Muslims who follow the religion. It has just never happened. It is NOT a rule set in stone, it's just taken for granted because no non-Muslim will BOTHER to run. It's like an Iraqi immigrant to the US running in American elections. It is just bound to fail.

And I challenge anyone to establish the fact, through appropriate interpretation of the Quran, or even the Hadith, that Islam is a radical philosophy "bent on conquering the world", or even that Muslims are people who seek to convert the world to their vision of Islamofascism. Hell! I challenge you to establish the fact that the Islamic doctrine is intolerant in even ONE aspect of life. Just ONE.

{Crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, crap}^googleplex.

So you want insight into Islamic philosophy and Islamic politics, and you go to the two most rotten sources on this freaking net, answering-islam and jihadwatch? That's like promoting www.masada2000.org as an objective, non-biased source of facts regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.....or like following US elections with the "fair and Balanced" TVnetwork :D :D :D :D

And I challenge anyone to establish the fact, through appropriate interpretation of the Quran, or even the Hadith, that Islam is a radical philosophy "bent on conquering the world", or even that Muslims are people who seek to convert the world to their vision of Islamofascism. Hell! I challenge you to establish the fact that the Islamic doctrine is intolerant in even ONE aspect of life. Just ONE.

Well, according to the Quran, Allah encourages the waging of Jihad upon the infidels, aka, anyone not Muslim. Now, I think that shows intolerenace on an aspect of life...

Excerpts from the Quran (still haven't invented a way to put books into a comupter, so my copy of the Quran's just gonna stay on my shelf for now :D ):

191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

The Noble Qur'an 8:72-74
72. Verily, those who believed, and emigrated and strove hard and fought with their property and their lives in the Cause of Allâh as well as those who gave (them) asylum and help, - these are (all) allies to one another. And as to those who believed but did not emigrate (to you O Muhammad SAW), you owe no duty of protection to them until they emigrate, but if they seek your help in religion, it is your duty to help them except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, and Allâh is the All-Seer of what you do.

73. And those who disbelieve are allies to one another, (and) if you (Muslims of the whole world collectively) do not do so (i.e. become allies, as one united block with one Khalifah - chief Muslim ruler for the whole Muslim world to make victorious Allâh's Religion of Islâmic Monotheism), there will be Fitnah (wars, battles, polytheism, etc.) and oppression on earth, and a great mischief and corruption (appearance of polytheism).

74. And those who believed, and emigrated and strove hard in the Cause of Allâh (Al-Jihâd), as well as those who gave (them) asylum and aid; - these are the believers in truth, for them is forgiveness and Rizqun Karîm (a generous provision i.e. Paradise).




Those do?

http://answering-islam.org.uk/NonMuslims/rights.htm

Could any Muslims on the forum please explain exactly what these laws are and where they come from in Muslim doctrine.

You just don't give up, do you? Is the only way you can feel good about yourself acheived through the denegration of others? You're a sad, pathetic man Neo.

You just don't listen to Jesus, do you? Remember that thing about mote and beam and eye? Look it up and stop with the assholery.

Now to address your ignorance:

1] Answering Islam and Jihadwatch are the worst, most vile hate-filled anti-Muslim websites in existence. They are not a good source for anything.

2] Name one .... JUST ONE .... example of any non-Muslim living in a Muslim country who is treated as a second class citizen just for not being Muslim. Use a direct source, like a personal webpage where someone who is Christian talking about their life in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or any Muslim country where Shariah is law.

3] Ooooh ... Muslims are supposed to be in charge of Muslim countries. Hey, go figure. Name 3 non-Christian/non-White/non-Male US Presidents.

4] I have shown you the Constitution of Saudi Arabia. Now you show me on the Saudi official website where Christians and Jews are to be treated unfairly.

5] All 5 of the sources cited as references at the bottom of that site are either works of fiction or op/ed peices published by a magazine.

Go study your own religion. Learn everything about it, inside and out. Learn its history, learn its languages, learn its culture, and learn its texts enough that you've memorized them. Leave other peoples' religion alone.

No Muslim has ever once done anything bad to you. No Muslim country holds reign over you. Nowhere in Qur'an are you mentioned as being evil and worthy of death (although in at least 6 places in your Bible, I am mentioned as being "worthy of death" ... asshole). Islam has nothing against you, but every thread you make is nothing but another vent for you to express your hatred of something you DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND.

You're an ass and you're a pathetic child. Go hide under your bed and suck your thumb and pray to Jesus that the bad, bad, evil towel-heads don't find you and butt rape you with dynamite.

Frankly, I am sick of you.

Edit: Go ahead and report the flaming, you snivelling little bitch. At this point I couldn't possibly care less because all you can do is flame. So fuck yo mama and leave my people alone.

Edit Edit: You've also done this exact same thing before.

Exact: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=408965

Fun Reverse Spin: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404921

Cut it out.

4] I have shown you the Constitution of Saudi Arabia. Now you show me on the Saudi official website where Christians and Jews are to be treated unfairly.

Because everyone knows that constitutions always get adhered to and a government site is the best place to find injustices against the minorities.

The Druidic Clans, I love you.

Find my favorite quote that is particularly against the form of christianity I practice (Roman Catholicism. This also applies to Eastern Orthodoxy [My Grandma is Russian Orthodox]). The one that talks about making war on the infidels who believe in three gods in one.

That passage got me kinda pissed. Quick someone find it for me. I don;t mean to encourage hate against muslims. I'm sure they are fine people, it's just their religion I don't like...

I'm a borderline athiest, but I don't see anything wrong with religions usually. But certain Protestant Christian sects and Islam... gagh!

The Druidic Clans, I love you.

Find my favorite quote that is particularly against the form of christianity I practice (Roman Catholicism. This also applies to Eastern Orthodoxy [My Grandma is Russian Orthodox]). The one that talks about making war on the infidels who believe in three gods in one.

That passage got me kinda pissed. Quick someone find it for me. I don;t mean to encourage hate against muslims. I'm sure they are fine people, it's just their religion I don't like...

I'm a borderline athiest, but I don't see anything wrong with religions usually. But certain Protestant Christian sects and Islam... gagh!

Aww, I love me too! :D But um, can you be more specific? Such as what part? It's a really looooong book...

Heh heh... my friend showed it to me while skimming it

:fluffle:

Er, think I found what you mean, this sounds like it: (Sura-5. The Table, by the way)

Infidels now are they who say, "God is the Messiah, Son of Mary;" for the Messiah said, "O children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever shall join other gods with God, God shall forbid him the Garden, and his abode shall be the Fire; and the wicked shall have no helpers.

They surely are Infidels who say, "God is the third of three:" for there is no God but one God: and if they refrain not from what they say, a grievous chastisement shall light on such of them as are Infidels

*Various angry statemens*

You completely missed the issue. All I was asking is where do these people get these ideas from. I do sincerely believe that Islam is at its core a decent ideology but I get concerned when I read about this kind of stuff. Now I am happy to discuss with you anything where you consider Christian ideology flawed (and have on frequent ocations) but here I am asking you. Where do these ideas come from

I personally believe that religion is a negative influence... but if people want to attend congregations and perform rituals, that's fine. As long as it's not hurting anyone, the government has no business legislating against it.

That being said, the forms of religion that do hurt people, or that encourage the hurting of people (e.g., Wahhabi Islam, GodHatesFags.com, and the followers of Meir Kahane) should have a close eye kept on them.

Since any rational government must assume that God is non-existent until proven existent, religions believing God is more important than the individual/society ought to be treated the same way as groups believing unicorns are more important than the individual/society.

Infidels now are they who say, "God is the Messiah, Son of Mary;" for the Messiah said, "O children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever shall join other gods with God, God shall forbid him the Garden, and his abode shall be the Fire; and the wicked shall have no helpers.

They surely are Infidels who say, "God is the third of three:" for there is no God but one God: and if they refrain not from what they say, a grievous chastisement shall light on such of them as are Infidels


All those statements are passive; they say what shall happen to the infidels, but they fails to specify who shall do it.

The only non-passive statement there specifies that it is God who shall judge the infidels, and that it is God who shall condemn them to Hell instead of Heaven.

As long as those passages aren't appropriated by lunatics and used as justifications for worldly violence, they merely speak to an afterlife that does not exist, and are irrelevant to those who don't believe in them.

Islam and christianity both condemn non-believers to hell, so they are both intolerant.

Religion bites.

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

2: The cow
6 As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not.
7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.

Islam is not Sheri'a. And Sheri'a is not Islam. Islam is a very tolerant religion, Sheri'a is a very intolerant regime. It is true Sheri'a once based on Islam, but later, it was modified by people to gain political/economical power. The article, refers to Sheri'a, but incorrectly names it as Islam. To learn more about "pure" Islam just read Qu'ran.

Islam is not Sheri'a. And Sheri'a is not Islam. Islam is a very tolerant religion, Sheri'a is a very intolerant regime. It is true Sheri'a once based on Islam, but later, it was modified by people to gain political/economical power. The article, refers to Sheri'a, but incorrectly names it as Islam. To learn more about "pure" Islam just read Qu'ran.

So these laws are not actually part of Islam but something else (Sheri'a)?

Thank you, thats what I wanted to understand. Could you explain more about Sheri'a?

2] Name one .... JUST ONE .... example of any non-Muslim living in a Muslim country who is treated as a second class citizen just for not being Muslim. Use a direct source, like a personal webpage where someone who is Christian talking about their life in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or any Muslim country where Shariah is law.

Cliky thing (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14012.htm)

In early 2002 in the eastern city of Abqaiq, 2 Filipino Christian residents were arrested and imprisoned in Dammam for conducting a Roman Catholic prayer group in their home. In April 2002, the 2 Filipinos were sentenced to 150 lashes and deportation following a 30-day jail sentence, allegedly for their religious beliefs. They were deported in late May 2002.


There's lots more in the report. I am sure there are plenty of other good examples if you wanted to look.

To be fair though, I agree with this policy however. I would just extend it to anyone caught engaging in any type of religious activity whatsoever. Religious people have uniformly proven that they can't play nicely together, so I recommend that the rest of us should take away their toys.

Just wanted to point out that any translation of Qur'an that says "there is no God but God" is an automatic bad translation.

Allah is not the Arabic word for god. Ilah is the Arabic word for god. Allah is the name of the one true god. "God" is a title and a descriptor, Allah is a name.

I am the only adult male living in my house. Hence, there is no man but James. Saying "there is no Man but Man" is just stupid.

Also, the word "Infidel" is not used once in Qur'an. "Unbeliever" does not refer to non-Muslims, because Christians and Jews are believers in the one true god, Allah.

It's amazing how many people accuse Islam of being intolerant without even understanding it. If you don't understand it, how do you know anything about it? Answer: By what someone else has told you. No wonder Jesus referred to you as sheep.

Many people here have consistantly claimed that Chrisitianity is an extremely intollerant and evil faith but I dont think Chrisitanity has anything in its Dogma quite so intollerant as this

http://answering-islam.org.uk/NonMuslims/rights.htm

Could any Muslims on the forum please explain exactly what these laws are and where they come from in Muslim doctrine.


Well, this is the hardliner view of Islam... Thats what people who want totally Muslim states have actually achieved and placed into practise.

It worked very well for the Greek Orothodox Christianity out of Constantiople/Byzantium/Istanbul during the Fall of Rome. Byzantium, as it was called, survived because it combined Church as state. As well, the Edyptians, the Greeks use the gods as Parables, as did the Romans.

Now, there is only one fundementalist Christian nation on earth, that I know of, (except for the Untited States who "claims" one thing but in practise "does" another) is the Vatican.

Of course, if you see those policies on paper, like they were presented, you get freaked out, because your mind is conditioned to think of anything beyond a captialist "quasi-democracy" as completely alien and inherently subject to the fear part of your brain which probably screams "Commie commie commie!"....

But remember that Israel is a Jewish state, which has much similar laws... Individuals coming from states like those decribe in detail how the relgion is something you live and breathe. (Yeah, a common citizen of the Vatican may be allowed to participate in its governence? Riiight...)

That's what happen when state gets involved with government, they have the two most powerful forces directly aiding each other which gives them the power to control the masses. Fear becomes the mindset of these nations and generally the people respond to whatever their governments tell them. Line up the socio-economic factors with them (like, employers and business) and you would be hard pressed to find anything that can stop that kind of indoctrination and control.

Churchs want more parishoners... Scared people pray... Politians want more votes... Scared people vote for the guy that says, I'm going to fight!... Business wants more money... Scared people will buy more stuff if they are afraid of everything and the government will buy for the military if theres a war. Media wants more readers and higher advertising rates... Scared people watch TV like hawks just to watch the bombs fall...

Like I said... The US Gov is only pretending to be non-christian... First you screw over the brown people and the islamic (that are not already in bed with you *Saudi Arabia*) and bomb them and stuff... Then you create more fear at home (Homeland SS, we learned from the best Stazi warcriminals money could buy!)... And you have Jesse Jackson and all these freakin Fundementalists running around shooting their mouth off about some scarey shit and Everyones win win... Right?

Oh, except for the people.... And the homeless, and the bankrupt (mostly from medical bills) and the poor, and labourers, and the environment...

While we're on the subject, this page might be worth a look...

http://www.answering-christianity.com/human.htm

And as for all those verses which supposedly command muslims to kill all non-believers - those verses only apply to those who are actively fighting against Islam and oppressing it's believers (something that was happening a lot during Muhammad's time, peace be upon him). The following verse applies at all other times:-

It may be that Allah will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For Allah has power (over all things); And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.
Quran 60:7-9

While we're on the subject, this page might be worth a look...

http://www.answering-christianity.com/human.htm

And as for all those verses which supposedly command muslims to kill all non-believers - those verses only apply to those who are actively fighting against Islam and oppressing it's believers (something that was happening a lot during Muhammad's time, peace be upon him). The following verse applies at all other times:-

I thought the Muslims during and after Muhammed were pretty aggressive. Didn't they conquer and convert Persia, Most of North Africa, and Spain in that time?

I thought the Muslims during and after Muhammed were pretty aggressive. Didn't they conquer and convert Persia, Most of North Africa, and Spain in that time?

The wars that Muhammad fought only occured due to the persecution he and his followers were facing - if they didn't fight back, they would've been wiped out.

After that there were some wars, but the expansion of Islam was largely peaceful. Forcible conversion is prohibited in the Quran - all faith has to be sincere.

It was during this time that muslims lived in peace with Jews and defended them from persecution. It was the muslims who allowed them back into Jerusalem after 600 years of being banned by the Byzantines. It was the muslims who sheltered them during the Spanish Inquisition - thats why there are jewish communities in places like Morroco and Tunisia.

You just don't give up, do you? Is the only way you can feel good about yourself acheived through the denegration of others? You're a sad, pathetic man Neo.

You just don't listen to Jesus, do you? Remember that thing about mote and beam and eye? Look it up and stop with the assholery.

Now to address your ignorance:

1] Answering Islam and Jihadwatch are the worst, most vile hate-filled anti-Muslim websites in existence. They are not a good source for anything.

2] Name one .... JUST ONE .... example of any non-Muslim living in a Muslim country who is treated as a second class citizen just for not being Muslim. Use a direct source, like a personal webpage where someone who is Christian talking about their life in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or any Muslim country where Shariah is law.

3] Ooooh ... Muslims are supposed to be in charge of Muslim countries. Hey, go figure. Name 3 non-Christian/non-White/non-Male US Presidents.

4] I have shown you the Constitution of Saudi Arabia. Now you show me on the Saudi official website where Christians and Jews are to be treated unfairly.

5] All 5 of the sources cited as references at the bottom of that site are either works of fiction or op/ed peices published by a magazine.

Go study your own religion. Learn everything about it, inside and out. Learn its history, learn its languages, learn its culture, and learn its texts enough that you've memorized them. Leave other peoples' religion alone.

No Muslim has ever once done anything bad to you. No Muslim country holds reign over you. Nowhere in Qur'an are you mentioned as being evil and worthy of death (although in at least 6 places in your Bible, I am mentioned as being "worthy of death" ... asshole). Islam has nothing against you, but every thread you make is nothing but another vent for you to express your hatred of something you DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND.

You're an ass and you're a pathetic child. Go hide under your bed and suck your thumb and pray to Jesus that the bad, bad, evil towel-heads don't find you and butt rape you with dynamite.

Frankly, I am sick of you.

Edit: Go ahead and report the flaming, you snivelling little bitch. At this point I couldn't possibly care less because all you can do is flame. So fuck yo mama and leave my people alone.

Edit Edit: You've also done this exact same thing before.

Exact: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=408965

Fun Reverse Spin: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404921

Cut it out.

Go Keru. :) If I were you I'd have lost my temper in a spectacular fashion by now.

Why does Neo always single out Islam? Christianity, as we all know has it's fair share of loonies and nutjobs, and some even more insidious elements who don't seem quite so crazy but want to control other people... *cough*Tony Abbott*cough* And hey, right wing Hindu's are amng some of the nastiest folk you'll ever meet. Why not write threads about "intollerant (sic) Hinduism?" The same goes for pretty much any religion...

Go Keru. :) If I were you I'd have lost my temper in a spectacular fashion by now.

Why does Neo always single out Islam? Christianity, as we all know has it's fair share of loonies and nutjobs, and some even more insidious elements who don't seem quite so crazy but want to control other people... *cough*Tony Abbott*cough* And hey, right wing Hindu's are amng some of the nastiest folk you'll ever meet. Why not write threads about "intollerant (sic) Hinduism?" The same goes for pretty much any religion...Same reason why alot of posters here 'Single out' Christianity. however, I really only saw a couple of people answer his question... Keru, unfortunatly, was not one of them.

Go Keru. :) If I were you I'd have lost my temper in a spectacular fashion by now.

Why does Neo always single out Islam? Christianity, as we all know has it's fair share of loonies and nutjobs, and some even more insidious elements who don't seem quite so crazy but want to control other people... *cough*Tony Abbott*cough* And hey, right wing Hindu's are amng some of the nastiest folk you'll ever meet. Why not write threads about "intollerant (sic) Hinduism?" The
same goes for pretty much any religion...

Yes, but whenever anyone points out the barbaric nature of hinduism, vast quantities of abuse are usually thrown at the poster.

Frankly, these forums have convinced me that religion is just a massive burden on the rest of us who do not believe, and want to be left alone.

Religious people are constantly involving the rest of the world in their inter-mural squabbles, often with tragic results.

I propose that the non-believers of the world give the religious six months to come up with a single uniform creed they can all follow, and another six-months to implement it. If they fail to accomplish this within the time limit, then all religion thereafter will be banned. (And I mean all of it, from the stupid duplicitous lying Dalai Lama on down.)

Think how much calmer the world would be after that. :)

Think how much calmer the world would be after that. :)

Yeh ... cuz Atheists never fight. At least the religious have a reason. ;)

Why does Neo always single out Islam?

I honestly don't know. He never once has ever answered a single question I have ever posed to him, so I guess I'll never know. My guess is that a hot Muslim girl rejected him for being too grotesque.

I honestly don't know. He never once has ever answered a single question I have ever posed to him, so I guess I'll never know. My guess is that a hot Muslim girl rejected him for being too grotesque.
In some Christian circles there is an anger against Islam due to 9/11, the treatment of Christian minorities in some muslim countries, and the desire of some muslim organizations to impose sharia.

I can understand the anger and I share it, but I try to direct it at those muslim groups and governments who are guilty, not at all muslims in general.

Islam and christianity both condemn non-believers to hell, so they are both intolerant.what about Judaism?
and what about the other religions?

what about Judaism?
and what about the other religions?
All religions are worthless and counterproductive.

Many people here have consistantly claimed that Chrisitianity is an extremely intollerant and evil faith but I dont think Chrisitanity has anything in its Dogma quite so intollerant as this

http://answering-islam.org.uk/NonMuslims/rights.htm

Could any Muslims on the forum please explain exactly what these laws are and where they come from in Muslim doctrine.

I'm not sure what your point is, Neo.

You obviously have some issue with Islam, or you wouldn't be reviewing anti-Islam essays... but I'm not sure what it is about Islam that has specifically upset you.

Your link takes us to an essay - which means we are not looking at doctrine, but at impressions of doctrine.

If there is a specific pronouncement in the Qu'ran that you think is more disagreeable than any of the Biblical pronouncements, why not point it out?

Also - take a seconf to gain some perspective. Islam (as an organised religion in it's own right) is about 600 years YOUNGER than 'christianity'.

Try comparing modern Islam with the brand of 'christianity' most popular in the 1300-1400 period.

To me, every faith has their fanatics, each religion has their dirty laundry. each Religion has a deed in the past that is less than glowing.

and unfortunatly that includes Athiesm as well as Agnostics even tho they are not 'Religions'

so I say, choose a path you can follow. if you try multiple paths, then good luck to you.

By Christian dogma, I am not refering to what other Christians have written about Christianity. I'm refering to the Bible. I am asking if these ideas are actually an intrinsic part of the Muslim faith or if they are something else, and if so what else

If you had read your own link, it would be rather obvious that these are not tenets of the Muslim faith, but rules which a Muslim leader has laid down for an Islamic government. There is no reason to equate a political ideology with tenets of faith.

To me, every faith has their fanatics, each religion has their dirty laundry. each Religion has a deed in the past that is less than glowing.

and unfortunatly that includes Athiesm as well as Agnostics even tho they are not 'Religions'

so I say, choose a path you can follow. if you try multiple paths, then good luck to you.

I must have missed the history lesson about oppression at the hands of militant agnostics...

Also - not too sure about the idea of Atheist religious persecution... the nearest I can think of is the like of the Soviet Union... but that wasn't an 'Atheist' government... it was a totalitarian regime that forbade religion... different thing entirely.

Wouldn't an Atheist have to persecute in the name of nothing? Athos, maybe? The 'spirit' of Atheism?

If you had read your own link, it would be rather obvious that these are not tenets of the Muslim faith, but rules which a Muslim leader has laid down for an Islamic government. There is no reason to equate a political ideology with tenets of faith.

If its in any nature Islamic, the idea's must come from somewhere within the doctrine. Thats what I am trying to find out here, where exactly these ideas come from.

If its in any nature Islamic, the idea's must come from somewhere within the doctrine. Thats what I am trying to find out here, where exactly these ideas come from.


So the inquisition and the crusades and all the other nasty atrocities of christianity over the years must have a valid basis in the bible?

Do you hold islam to a special, double standard?

If its in any nature Islamic, the idea's must come from somewhere within the doctrine. Thats what I am trying to find out here, where exactly these ideas come from.

Just because it happens in a society that has Muslims, doesn't equate to it being 'Islamic' in nature.

People get drunk in 'Christian' nations... so getting drunk is condoned by the Bible, yes?

That's the 'logic' you are using.

So the inquisition and the crusades and all the other nasty atrocities of christianity over the years must have a valid basis in the bible?

Do you hold islam to a special, double standard?

I think this is just one more attack in what seems to be Neo's 'jihad' on Islam.

Perhaps I haven't explained myself properly. This site makes the case that this piece is about Islamic doctrine. Chrisitan doctrine (the Gospels and the Bible) is far from intollerant. Now I wont deny that Christian has an intollerant past, but the active dogma is not intollerant (Inactive dogma = Old Covanant, active dogma = New covanant). What I am asking here is is this doctrine part of Muslim active dogma. And if so where does it come from.
Yeah, so the bible doesn't advocate converting non-christians? It doesn't ever advocate doing harm to pagans (i.e. witches)? Just like it doesn't basically say that women are worth less than men?

Perhaps I haven't explained myself properly. This site makes the case that this piece is about Islamic doctrine. Chrisitan doctrine (the Gospels and the Bible) is far from intollerant. Now I wont deny that Christian has an intollerant past, but the active dogma is not intollerant (Inactive dogma = Old Covanant, active dogma = New covanant). What I am asking here is is this doctrine part of Muslim active dogma. And if so where does it come from.
Yeah, so the bible doesn't advocate converting non-christians? It doesn't ever advocate doing harm to pagans (i.e. witches)? Just like it doesn't basically say that women are worth less than men?

If its in any nature Islamic, the idea's must come from somewhere within the doctrine. Thats what I am trying to find out here, where exactly these ideas come from.

It's already been pointed out, but just to drive this home: If that is true, then the Inquisition must have come from somewhere in Christian doctrine.

Yeah, so the bible doesn't advocate converting non-christians? It doesn't ever advocate doing harm to pagans (i.e. witches)? Just like it doesn't basically say that women are worth less than men?

Had you read my point, I was talking about ACTIVE dogma. I was asking if this comes from active dogma.

It's already been pointed out, but just to drive this home: If that is true, then the Inquisition must have come from somewhere in Christian doctrine.

This is dogma, not an action.

I currently have a friend working in Saudi Arabia (well, he was there, cameback, but will have to return).

At the moment, the gravest problem he had to face, one that has, in his own words, threatened is life is.....

Crossing the street.

Plus, it seems that all that dry weather generates lots of static electricity, and every time he shakes hands with someone, he gets a shock..

Besides that... NOT ONCE was he bothered for not being Muslim. At most, another guy that his also work with him, was called a communist when he told an Arab co-worker that he was agnostic lol.

Besides that.. he didnt found much intolerance. Go figure.




http://aminhavidadavaumfilmeindiano.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_aminhavidadavaumfilmeindiano_archive.html

hey, I see a lot of "Bahrein" on that page.. hmm..

*wanders off to find translator*

This is dogma, not an action.

And you don't think the Inquisition was based on dogma?

You really are going awfully far now in your tirade against all things Muslim, aren't you?

Neo: "My religion is perfect. We never do anything wrong. But Islam is evil, and even though I have been shown that it is not, I am going to search the entire internet to find anything that might make me think it is."

So these laws are not actually part of Islam but something else (Sheri'a)?

Thank you, thats what I wanted to understand. Could you explain more about Sheri'a?
I'd wish to, but I don't have a specific knowledge about it.

However, I have specific knowledge about Islam. Islam has just two rules:
1- Believe (with finding out through reason, science is greatly valued by Islam, if anyone does not believe it to be so, just read Qu'ran)
2- Keep clean (your mind, heart, body, environment etc.).

And If anyone wants to learn anything about Islam, s/he needs to read Qu'ran, before reading anything else (positive/negative opinions). The truth of Islam is in the book, not in anywhere else.

This is dogma, not an action.


What, pray tell, motivated the action?


:rolleyes:

I honestly don't know. He never once has ever answered a single question I have ever posed to him, so I guess I'll never know. My guess is that a hot Muslim girl rejected him for being too grotesque.
Was it Jamil? *shifty* :p :D

What, pray tell, motivated the action?


Don't bother. He won't answer questions, only express hatred.

And If anyone wants to learn anything about Islam, s/he needs to read Qu'ran, before reading anything else (positive/negative opinions). The truth of Islam is in the book, not in anywhere else.

*loooong mothah fuckin' standing ovation*

You mean such great tidbits from the Quran such as:

Surah 2:

39 But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein. Disbelievers are going to hell.

174 Lo! those who hide aught of the Scripture which Allah hath revealed and purchase a small gain therewith, they eat into their bellies nothing else than fire. Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He make them grow. Theirs will be a painful doom. More "tolerance" towards those who do not accept the word of allah.

222 They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness. Menstruation is a sickness?

3 examples of "tolerance" from the Quran. Hopefully, you're sane and do not think everything written is infallible in the Quran, because if you did... then I guess we could call you just as intolerant as christianity.

Neo: "My religion is perfect. We never do anything wrong. But Islam is evil, and even though I have been shown that it is not, I am going to search the entire internet to find anything that might make me think it is."

Dont misquote me. I have never denied that Christianity has a bloody history. However I have denied that Christianity has a vilonet dogma. Here I am attempting to do my best to understand why Islam seems to support these ideas (or indeed if it does at all, and if not then where do these ideas come from).

What, pray tell, motivated the action?


Social greed and religous corruption. Like I said, I do not deny Chrisitianity has a bloody past, which is why in this case I am not judging Islam on the basis of its recent history. What I am looking at is what Islam seems to say about itself. What I want to know is where these things come from within Islam?

Dont misquote me. I have never denied that Christianity has a bloody history. However I have denied that Christianity has a vilonet dogma. Here I am attempting to do my best to understand why Islam seems to support these ideas (or indeed if it does at all, and if not then where do these ideas come from).

This is pretty simple, Neo. Some Muslims support these ideas for the same reason that some Christians supported them in the past. You name it in your next post.

Social greed and religous corruption. Like I said, I do not deny Chrisitianity has a bloody past, which is why in this case I am not judging Islam on the basis of its recent history. What I am looking at is what Islam seems to say about itself. What I want to know is where these things come from within Islam?

After about 1400 years for Islam and 2000 years for Christianity both religions have a sorid past in it's relations with each other. Islam and Christianity also both have periods of tolerance, mostly in their early history. Islam was very tolerant towards other religions including Judaism even more tolerant than Christianity. The quotes from the Koran that you are using may be due to a poor translation. In short during the height of Islamic civilization Jewish culture flurished, as did all other peoples who came to live under its protection. This is well known by unbiased historians.

After about 1400 years for Islam and 2000 years for Christianity both religions have a sorid past in it's relations with each other. Islam and Christianity also both have periods of tolerance, mostly in their early history. Islam was very tolerant towards other religions including Judaism even more tolerant than Christianity. The quotes from the Koran that you are using may be due to a poor translation. In short during the height of Islamic civilization Jewish culture flurished, as did all other peoples who came to live under its protection. This is well known by unbiased historians.

I think you're referring to my quotes, maybe?

I think you're referring to my quotes, maybe?

If you quoted the Quran, then yes.

Surah 2:
39 But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein. Disbelievers are going to hell.

Misquote, but okie dokie. It's not they who "disbelieve" it's they who "reject" and "belie". Belie meaning to picture falsely; misrepresent. You got a problem with that? Or do you think Allah would deem it okie dokie to spread lies about someone's faith considering that whole not bearing false witness thing?


174 Lo! those who hide aught of the Scripture which Allah hath revealed and purchase a small gain therewith, they eat into their bellies nothing else than fire. Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He make them grow. Theirs will be a painful doom. More "tolerance" towards those who do not accept the word of allah.

Again ... a misquote. This is for those who conceal the truths in Qur'an, not for those who disbelieve. Not that dissimilar from the passages concerning building your house on a hill and not concealing light, etc etc.


222 They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness. Menstruation is a sickness?

Not "illness" as in your translation, but a "pollutant" or "unclean". Would you wipe your counters with menstrual fluid? No ... I imagine not. It's not very clean stuff. Why do you think women try so hard to absorb it away and dispose of it?

I don't know where you're getting this translation, but it's sadly inaccurate.

Alright, provide your translation.

Alright, provide your translation.

Here's one that is slightly different. Aren't similiar quotes found in the Bible?

39. "But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be Companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein."

(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 2)

Alright, provide your translation.

Of the same verses?

Mmkay ...

2:39 "But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, They shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein."

2:174 "Those who conceal Allah's revelations in the Book, and purchase for them a miserable profit - they swallow into themselves naught but the Fire; Allah will not address them on the Day of Resurrection nor purify them: grievous will be their penalty."

2:222 "They ask thee concerning women's courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: so keep away from women in their courses and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean." Note: Just so you know, the "keep away" and "approach them" is referring to sexual conduct, not in general.

Source (something you didn't provide): The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an tr. Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Amana Publications.

Alright, provide your translation.

Not not sure which Surah the next quote came from, but here is a quote.

174. Those who conceal Allah's revelations in the Book, and purchase for them a miserable profit, they swallow into themselves naught but fire; Allah will not address them on the Day of Resurrection, nor purify them; grievous will be their penalty.

(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 2)

Here's one that is slightly different. Aren't similiar quotes found in the Bible?


Ah but as any actual christian will tell you, the bible isn't the literal word of God. At best, it is doctorine, at worst nonsense. It is certainly not christian dogma.

Any "christian" that claims the bible is the literal truth and word of god, and futher claims that it is the basis of his/her faith is not a christian, just a misguided individual.

Not that I care, but I wish people could grasp this.

This is the same kind of battle that Christianity has been fighting since the Revelation of Muhammed first recreated the earth. Christianity refused hear the voice of God in the words of Muhammed just as those who lived in the time of Christ refused to hear the voice of God in the words of Christ.

Ah but as any actual christian will tell you, the bible isn't the literal word of God. At best, it is doctorine, at worst nonsense. It is certainly not christian dogma.

Any "christian" that claims the bible is the literal truth and word of god, and futher claims that it is the basis of his/her faith is not a christian, just a misguided individual.

Not that I care, but I wish people could grasp this.

I sorry, but I'm really scratching my head over this one. I'm just not sure what you are saying. What then is Christian dogma? And where did it come from if not from the Bible?

Well for one thing, there is the Jizya, the tax that all non Muslims have to pay, on the fair economic grounds that they are not Muslim.

Then theres the whole section on the Zimmi's (religous non Muslims, Chrisitans, Jews, Hindu's etc). Which says they are not allowed to build churchs, read prayers allowed, publish Bibles, witness in a trial etc.

Then there is the section on what Zimmi's and Muslims can and cannot do while interacting

Frankly the number of human rights this violates is astonishing. Where exactly in Islamic theology does this sort of thing come from.

Two good books that will give you more insight into this as well as references to the origins are: "Why I am Nor a Muslim", and "Islam Unveiled."

As I recall this comes from both the Koran and the Hadiths but I can't quote you chapter and verse. The books mentioned above can.

This is the same kind of battle that Christianity has been fighting since the Revelation of Muhammed first recreated the earth. Christianity refused hear the voice of God in the words of Muhammed just as those who lived in the time of Christ refused to hear the voice of God in the words of Christ.

If it makes you feel better, I am a Christian who believes that the voice of God can be found in many places and that many religions hold quite a bit of truth, all of them most likely holding some. I am planning on getting a copy of the Qu'ran and read it in the near future.

Interestingly enough, the divide between the two is not always as large as you may think. A group of Christian relief workers in Malaysia whom I have recently been in touch with were labelled as "those who had surrendered to Allah through Christ" by some of the locals and have been getting support from the Imans there.

I sorry, but I'm really scratching my head over this one. I'm just not sure what you are saying. What then is Christian dogma? And where did it come from if not from the Bible?

In truth, most "dogma" doesn't come from scripture - in any religion. Most of the dogma of the various Christian churches is derived from councils arguing over the "how", rather than the "why" of the issues.

The humans right abuses they are encountring in islamic states are the fault of those who choose to live there no? therefore they are strippign themselves of their rights.

Most people who live under those conditions are not able to leave, because either the government will not let them or they are to poor to be able to afford to leave. So "no, they are not stripping themselves of their rights."

In truth, most "dogma" doesn't come from scripture - in any religion. Most of the dogma of the various Christian churches is derived from councils arguing over the "how", rather than the "why" of the issues.

yes, I undersand completely and agree. it seemed to me the poster was making some distinction between what Islam teaches and what Christianity teaches on the paticular subject which I am quite convinced are similiar if not identical teachings.

I sorry, but I'm really scratching my head over this one. I'm just not sure what you are saying. What then is Christian dogma? And where did it come from if not from the Bible?


You have to remember that the bible wasn't even compiled until several hundred (around 300) years after christianity began. Also that christianity is the religion of the generally illiterate. (Seriously, that's how it started).

This is dogma.


We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Everything else is just doctorine, and therefore subject to change by the episcopacy. (Although techincally they could change this too I suppose by saying it is not dogma - go figure).

There is a bunch of rituals and shit too. (Like holy communion, penintence etc.) Also some general rules, but what I quoted above is basically the christian faith. In the event that someone comes out telling you that the bible says this, or that, and they have quotes etc. unless they happen to be a bishop speaking as part of body acting with the authority of christ (like the general synod) you can tell them to fuck off. It's meaningless.

Clear now?

One of those philisophical questions.

What's wrong with intolerance?

Intelerance or opression? There is a difference. Live under it as one of the opressed and you will understand. :headbang:

I am still trying to get one question answered here. How do the laws which are explored in the earlier website (in my first post) link to Islam itself.

If it makes you feel better, I am a Christian who believes that the voice of God can be found in many places and that many religions hold quite a bit of truth, all of them most likely holding some. I am planning on getting a copy of the Qu'ran and read it in the near future.

Interestingly enough, the divide between the two is not always as large as you may think. A group of Christian relief workers in Malaysia whom I have recently been in touch with were labelled as "those who had surrendered to Allah through Christ" by some of the locals and have been getting support from the Imans there.

Those is no divide between Islam and Christianity that was not put there by the religious leaders who were and are jealously guarding their postitions. Christ and Muhammed spoke with the same tongue.

I am still trying to get one question answered here. How do the laws which are explored in the earlier website (in my first post) link to Islam itself.

The question has been answered quite a bit, you just didn't like the answer apparently.

They do NOT have to live in isolation, hiding their beliefs from Muslims, with no right to read their scripture or practice their religions. They HAVE THE RIGHT to build their places of worship, and to worship whatever god(s) they choose to please.

Obviously, you have never been to or lived in Saudi Arabia where all of the above is prohibited. Any religious literature symbols, dress, etc are not allowed in the country and cannot be displayed. There are no places of worship other than the Mosque. Even gathering in homes for religious functions, services, prayer, etc is illegal.

The question has been answered quite a bit, you just didn't like the answer apparently.

Iv'e seen some vague idea's, I was hopping for something of a little more substance. So far what I have found though is interesting. I would be very interested to find out how far in relation to the writing of the Quran these laws came about.

Iv'e seen some vague idea's, I was hopping for something of a little more substance. So far what I have found though is interesting. I would be very interested to find out how far in relation to the writing of the Quran these laws came about.

They only seem vague because you are so convinced that you'll find something inherently evil in Islam.

You have to remember that the bible wasn't even compiled until several hundred (around 300) years after christianity began. Also that christianity is the religion of the generally illiterate. (Seriously, that's how it started).

This is dogma.




Everything else is just doctorine, and therefore subject to change by the episcopacy. (Although techincally they could change this too I suppose by saying it is not dogma - go figure).

There is a bunch of rituals and shit too. (Like holy communion, penintence etc.) Also some general rules, but what I quoted above is basically the christian faith. In the event that someone comes out telling you that the bible says this, or that, and they have quotes etc. unless they happen to be a bishop speaking as part of body acting with the authority of christ (like the general synod) you can tell them to fuck off. It's meaningless.

Clear now?

I don't want to belabor the point, but the dogma that you quoted, and I believe it is dogma, wasn't just made up suddenly one day. What you quoted was part of Christian believe before it was written down. It may well be an inaccurate interpetation of what Christ's intent was but it's source does come from the Christian bible, at least in part.

They only seem vague because you are so convinced that you'll find something inherently evil in Islam.

No, vague as in people have said they are interpetations. I am genuinely interested and not (as many people think) just doing this to lambast Islam. I had originally put a question mark in the title of this thread but I accidentally deleted it. What I would like to know now is who's interpretations and more to the point, when they were devised. And if they were just interpretations why are they still true today?

(EDIT I have done this same thread before with the title "Muslims, is this accurate" or something along those lines, but I got very little in the way of expliantion, so I made the title a little more grabbing this time)

Iv'e seen some vague idea's, I was hopping for something of a little more substance. So far what I have found though is interesting. I would be very interested to find out how far in relation to the writing of the Quran these laws came about.

The interesting part of this is that the inspiration for the relationship that Isamic civilization had with other cultures came from Muhammed. This is not found in the words of Christ. So Muhammed was the first Prophet of God to mention or inspire the need for international relations.

Obviously, you have never been to or lived in Saudi Arabia where all of the above is prohibited. Any religious literature symbols, dress, etc are not allowed in the country and cannot be displayed. There are no places of worship other than the Mosque. Even gathering in homes for religious functions, services, prayer, etc is illegal.

This is an example of the corruption if Islam. Muhammed would never have allowed this.

I don't want to belabor the point, but the dogma that you quoted, and I believe it is dogma, wasn't just made up suddenly one day. What you quoted was part of Christian believe before it was written down. It may well be an inaccurate interpetation of what Christ's intent was but it's source does come from the Christian bible, at least in part.

Nope, it doesn't come from the bible. It comes from a council of bishops, who are the succesors of the apostles. It was handed down from the original apostles -who personally got their authority from christ - and formalized to the above creed.

You can be a christian, and never once even look at the bible. I mean it's not disproved of, naturally, but the bible is neither here nor there.

Now, of course, in terms of NS, this sucks, because people can't play clever "gotcha" games, although personally as an atheist, I find that comforting.

BTW, you can't just become a christian. A bishop has to bring you in.

Also that christianity is the religion of the generally illiterate. (Seriously, that's how it started).
As a side note, most religions, not just Christianity, started out as popular among the poor and uneducated. Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and such - in every case a few individuals proclaim themselves to be god/enlightened/prophets/etc., claim a learned monopoly over divine knowledge, and spread their opinions among the masses, who throughout human history have been predominantly illiterate. Only thousands of years after these religions were first formed did the bulk of believers finally become educated.

No, vague as in people have said they are interpetations. I am genuinely interested and not (as many people think) just doing this to lambast Islam. I had originally put a question mark in the title of this thread but I accidentally deleted it. What I would like to know now is who's interpretations and more to the point, when they were devised. And if they were just interpretations why are they still true today?

(EDIT I have done this same thread before with the title "Muslims, is this accurate" or something along those lines, but I got very little in the way of expliantion, so I made the title a little more grabbing this time)

If you are looking for a good book on Islam look for Muhammed and the Course of Islam", it is a fair look at a religion that offered much to the world.

Hi I'm a Muslim. Please tell me which "Muslim dogma" the beginner of this thread is talking about.

2] Name one .... JUST ONE .... example of any non-Muslim living in a Muslim country who is treated as a second class citizen just for not being Muslim. Use a direct source, like a personal webpage where someone who is Christian talking about their life in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or any Muslim country where Shariah is law.

I was in the US military and made several trips to Saudi Arabia between 1985 and 1988. Each of my trips lasted about one month. When we arrived at the Saudi Arabian air base in Riyadh we went through Saudi Arabian customs. We lived in a hotel compound in Riyadh.

We were not by the Saudi Arabian government to bring any religious symbols or literature into the country. We were not allowed by the Saudi Government to possess or read the bible. We were not allowed to wear religious symbols. We were not allowed to gather in public or private for bible study, prayer, or religious service. Why, because it was against Saudi Arabian law and violation of that law would result in our arrest by the Saudi Arabian officials.

Now, does that meet your criteria for, "Name one .... JUST ONE .... example of any non-Muslim living in a Muslim country who is treated as a second class citizen just for not being Muslim."

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that all Muslims hold to these laws. I am only saying that in a Muslim country, Saudi Arabia, these laws do exist and to deny they exist is the equivalent of my denying the Inquisition.

As a side note, most religions, not just Christianity, started out as popular among the poor and uneducated. Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and such - in every case a few individuals proclaim themselves to be god/enlightened/prophets/etc., claim a learned monopoly over divine knowledge, and spread their opinions among the masses, who throughout human history have been predominantly illiterate. Only thousands of years after these religions were first formed did the bulk of believers finally become educated.

This is not really accurate. Islams adherents quickly became very educated and the civilization was the most advanced of its time. The individuals claimed to speak for God in the day of their Revelation, and also spoke of day when they would return.

As a side note, most religions, not just Christianity, started out as popular among the poor and uneducated. Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and such - in every case a few individuals proclaim themselves to be god/enlightened/prophets/etc., claim a learned monopoly over divine knowledge, and spread their opinions among the masses, who throughout human history have been predominantly illiterate. Only thousands of years after these religions were first formed did the bulk of believers finally become educated.

Actually, out of the religions I know about, I will give christianity one thing, the boiled it down to a little poem you can learn - see above.

They don't really encourage you to waste your time studying scripture like the rest. Probably why christian europe got so far ahead of the rest of the world, not having to spend hours a day reading rubbish. Sadly, these days, people seem to think it is important. :(

Let me tell you something. Islam is more tolerant of Christianity and Judaism than the other way around. When the Muslims conquered Spain, the Caliphs allowed Jews and Christians to worship, to live and build churches and synagogues. Muslim architects were hired to build the churches and synagogues. When the Spaniards reconquered Spain, the Muslims and Jews were horribly oppressed, made to eat ham (which is forbidden in both religions) and then eventually driven out completely. Also, Islam (proper, not fundamentalist) is the only Semitic religion which has a "People of the Book" theory. This says the the followers of Islam, Judaism and Christianity are believers. Notably, there were no Muslim crusades against the Vatican.

This is not really accurate. Islams adherents quickly became very educated and the civilization was the most advanced of its time. The individuals claimed to speak for God in the day of their Revelation, and also spoke of day when they would return.

I call bullshit. China was way ahead at that point.

Unless of course burning the library at alexandria counts as being 'most advanced'.

Sadly, Muslims, Jews, blacks and homosexuals have joined the "Oppressed Peoples' Club" of the world.

Let me tell you something. Islam is more tolerant of Christianity and Judaism than the other way around. When the Muslims conquered Spain, the Caliphs allowed Jews and Christians to worship, to live and build churches and synagogues. Muslim architects were hired to build the churches and synagogues. When the Spaniards reconquered Spain, the Muslims and Jews were horribly oppressed, made to eat ham (which is forbidden in both religions) and then eventually driven out completely. Also, Islam (proper, not fundamentalist) is the only Semitic religion which has a "People of the Book" theory. This says the the followers of Islam, Judaism and Christianity are believers. Notably, there were no Muslim crusades against the Vatican.

Good, well I'll get my ass over to the hagia sophia for holy communion then.

Oh... that's right. :rolleyes:

Both muslims and christians are, historically, pricks. One's as bad as the other.

Unfortunate, really. Very, very unfortunate.

Up yours.
What've we done, then?

This is not really accurate. Islams adherents quickly became very educated and the civilization was the most advanced of its time. The individuals claimed to speak for God in the day of their Revelation, and also spoke of day when they would return.
Mass literacy is a rather modern phenomenon, because past rulers did not want their subjects to be too educated lest they rebel against unjust conditions. Islam's period of enlightenment was limited to wealthier people and the elite... most medival MUslims did not know how to read. Similarly, the prosperity of the Christian renaissance did not spread to European peasants, and even at the height of Chinese civilization, ordinary Chinese were still poor and uneducated. Unless you have some statistics proving high literacy rates among the medieval Islamic nations, I highly doubt that ordinary Muslims were any more or less educated than the populations in old Europe or China.

I call bullshit. China was way ahead at that point.
True, but the Muslim world was still one of the most advanced civilizations at that point. Certainly more advanced than anything going on in Europe.

Unless of course burning the library at alexandria counts as being 'most advanced'.

Every civilization has made at least one grand mistake.

Good, well I'll get my ass over to the hagia sophia for holy communion then.

Oh... that's right. :rolleyes:

Both muslims and christians are, historically, pricks. One's as bad as the other.
Are you an atheist by any chance?

Nope, it doesn't come from the bible. It comes from a council of bishops, who are the succesors of the apostles. It was handed down from the original apostles -who personally got their authority from christ - and formalized to the above creed.

You can be a christian, and never once even look at the bible. I mean it's not disproved of, naturally, but the bible is neither here nor there.

Now, of course, in terms of NS, this sucks, because people can't play clever "gotcha" games, although personally as an atheist, I find that comforting.

BTW, you can't just become a christian. A bishop has to bring you in.

I know who decide upon the Creed. I had to memorize it as a kid. I was a Christian from birth and then babtized as a small child. I found the dogma unsatisfiying and then found a religion that was meant for the New Day we live in--the Bahai Faith.

Mass literacy is a rather modern phenomenon, because past rulers did not want their subjects to be too educated lest they rebel against unjust conditions. Islam's period of enlightenment was limited to wealthier people and the elite... most medival MUslims did not know how to read. Similarly, the prosperity of the Christian renaissance did not spread to European peasants, and even at the height of Chinese civilization, ordinary Chinese were still poor and uneducated. Unless you have some statistics proving high literacy rates among the medieval Islamic nations, I highly doubt that ordinary Muslims were any more or less educated than the populations in old Europe or China.
Well said

No-one has told which Muslim dogma people are talking about yet. Can anyone quote it?

Up yours.
What've we done, then?

What? Recently, or in general?

No-one has told which Muslim dogma people are talking about yet. Can anyone quote it?

Go to the first post and look at the link

I know who decide upon the Creed. I had to memorize it as a kid. I was a Christian from birth and then babtized as a small child. I found the dogma unsatisfiying and then found a religion that was meant for the New Day we live in--the Bahai Faith.

Well then you should understand that the bible is not the final authority,

Both muslims and christians are, historically, pricks. One's as bad as the other.
this is true. People end up being assholes no matter what race, religion, or ideology.

Dont misquote me. I have never denied that Christianity has a bloody history. However I have denied that Christianity has a vilonet dogma. Here I am attempting to do my best to understand why Islam seems to support these ideas (or indeed if it does at all, and if not then where do these ideas come from).
How many Muslims do you know? Of them, how many support this dogma?

What? Recently, or in general?
One thing we've dont that other civilisations haven't.

[QUOTE=Lacadaemon]Well then you should understand that the bible is not the final authority,[/QUOT

Yes, I understand. If I could shout it I would.

BTW, whos upports the state of Israel?

Anyone?

How many Muslims do you know? Of them, how many support this dogma?

Not Muslims, Islam. I am looking at the materials linked to the faith, not the people (though as a side note, I believe Saudi Arabia uses a great many of these rules)

Anyone?

Me. Can you tell me a good reason why I shouldnt

(I support the nation of Israel existing, I dont support the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but I do believe that Israel should be able to defend itself from suicide attacks)

Mass literacy is a rather modern phenomenon, because past rulers did not want their subjects to be too educated lest they rebel against unjust conditions. Islam's period of enlightenment was limited to wealthier people and the elite... most medival MUslims did not know how to read. Similarly, the prosperity of the Christian renaissance did not spread to European peasants, and even at the height of Chinese civilization, ordinary Chinese were still poor and uneducated. Unless you have some statistics proving high literacy rates among the medieval Islamic nations, I highly doubt that ordinary Muslims were any more or less educated than the populations in old Europe or China.

First you said educated, then you said mass literacy. The Islamic civilization was more advanced than anyother at the height of Islamic civilization. European cities were nothing more than villages and the people tended to throw their nightly duties out the window because they didn't undersand germs and such. Islam had cities that were cleaner, had schools and Universties. I can't stay chat about this. Sorry.

Let me tell you something. Islam is more tolerant of Christianity and Judaism than the other way around. When the Muslims conquered Spain, the Caliphs allowed Jews and Christians to worship, to live and build churches and synagogues. Muslim architects were hired to build the churches and synagogues. When the Spaniards reconquered Spain, the Muslims and Jews were horribly oppressed, made to eat ham (which is forbidden in both religions) and then eventually driven out completely.

Christian nations aren't like that anymore here in the 21st century. While the west and most non-Muslim nations have become more and more tolerant, Islam used to be enlightened but Muslim nations have become more backwards over the centuries. It is useless for you to cite centuries-old examples of Spanish genocide because things are not like that today. Spain today is more educated and tolerant than most Muslim societies. Saudi Arabia outlaws churches and Egypt spreads propaganda about how Jews sacrifice gentile babies.

Notably, there were no Muslim crusades against the Vatican.
There were no Christian crusades against Mecca either.

No-one at all?

Christian nations aren't like that anymore here in the 21st century. While the west and most non-Muslim nations have become more and more tolerant, Islam used to be enlightened but Muslim nations have become more backwards over the centuries. It is useless for you to cite centuries-old examples of Spanish genocide because things are not like that today. Spain today is more educated and tolerant than most Muslim societies. Saudi Arabia outlaws churches and Egypt spreads propaganda about how Jews sacrifice gentile babies.


There were no Christian crusades against Mecca either.
No not against Mecca. But against the "infidels". Basically i'm trying to say there were no Muslim crusades against places important to christianity

First you said educated, then you said mass literacy.
Then read my posts more carefully. I was always talking about the education levels among the masses and ordinary believers, not the wealthy elite.

Here is my original post:

"As a side note, most religions, not just Christianity, started out as popular among the poor and uneducated. Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and such - in every case a few individuals proclaim themselves to be god/enlightened/prophets/etc., claim a learned monopoly over divine knowledge, and spread their opinions among the masses, who throughout human history have been predominantly illiterate. Only thousands of years after these religions were first formed did the bulk of believers finally become educated."

The Islamic civilization was more advanced than anyother at the height of Islamic civilization. European cities were nothing more than villages and the people tended to throw their nightly duties out the window because they didn't undersand germs and such. Islam had cities that were cleaner, had schools and Universties.
Yes, but that wasn't what the original discussion was about. Originally we were talking about how nearly all religions, including Christianity and Islam, start out as movements among the poor and uneducated.

I come from Egypt BTW so don't try any stuff on me. There are quite a few Jews in Egypt.

Anyone?

Me. Can you tell me a good reason why I shouldnt

(I support the nation of Israel existing, I dont support the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but I do believe that Israel should be able to defend itself from suicide attacks)

and after living for eight years in egypt i think i would know if the was any and-Jewish propaganda around. Mind you, the state of Israel gives the jews a bad name.

Me. A Jew-Lover starts a lets-hate-muslims thread...

what-else is new???

No not against Mecca. But against the "infidels".
So? Muslims fought religious wars against infidels too.
Basically i'm trying to say there were no Muslim crusades against places important to christianity
You're forgetting that the Muslims first conquered Jerusalem. but all this is beside the point, which is that Christians and Muslims have both been guilty of horrible crimes over the centuries.

Never mind look at post above

A Jew-Lover starts an muslim hate debate...

what-else is new???

I believe the nation of Israel should exist, thats all. Thats not a religious thing, its political. There is no rearly good reason why it shouldnt exist.

Then read my posts more carefully. I was always talking about the education levels among the masses and ordinary believers, not the wealthy elite.

Yes, but that wasn't what the original discussion was about. Originally we were talking about how nearly all religions, including Christianity and Islam, start out as movements among the poor and uneducated.

And you said it took thousands of years for the believers to become educated. You did not mention literacy. I said it was not completly accurate for Islam. I stand by that statement.

Here is something else to ponder. I realy gotta go.

The beginnings of European civilization date from the seventh century of the Muslim era. The particulars were these: toward the end of the fifth century of the hegira, the Pope or Head of Christendom set up a great hue and cry over the fact that places sacred to the Christians, such as Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth, had fallen under Muslim rule, and he stirred up the kings and the commoners of Europe to undertake what he considered a holy war. His impassioned outcry waxed so loud that all the countries of Europe responded, and crusading kings at the head of innumerable hosts passed over the Sea of Marmara and made their way to the continent of Asia. In those days the Fatimid caliphs ruled over Egypt and some countries of the West, and most of the time the kings of Syria, that is the Saljuqs, were subject to them as well. Briefly, the kings of the West with their unnumbered armies fell upon Syria and Egypt, and there was continuous warfare between the Syrian rulers and those of Europe for a period of two hundred and three years. Reinforcements were always coming in from Europe, and time and time again the Western rulers stormed and took over every castle in Syria, and as often, the kings of Islam delivered them out of their hands. Finally Saladin, in the year 693 A.H., drove the European kings and their armies out of Egypt and off the Syrian coast. Hopelessly beaten, they went back to Europe. In the course of these wars of the Crusades, millions of human beings perished. To sum up, from 490 A.H. until 693, kings, commanders and other European leaders continually came and went between Egypt, Syria and the West, and when in the end they all returned home, they introduced into Europe whatever they had observed over two hundred and odd years in Muslim countries as to government, social development and learning, colleges, schools and the refinements of living. The civilization of Europe dates from that time.

(Abdu'l-Baha, The Secret of Divine Civilization, p. 89)

Me. Can you tell me a good reason why I shouldnt

(I support the nation of Israel existing, I dont support the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but I do believe that Israel should be able to defend itself from suicide attacks)
The pirate state of Israel stole land from under the Palestinians' noses. The British who occupied Palestine at the time of Israel's foundation promised both the survivors of the Holocaust a land for the Jews and promised the Arabs a land of their own. The prime minister of Israel Ariel Sharon was a Zionist gang member before Israel was formally founded. He and his gang went around killing Palestinians and stealing their homes.
BTW if anyone tries to call me an anti-Semite or Nazi, let me tell you that i'm not anti-Jewish, i'm just anti Zionist.

A Jew-Lover starts a lets-hate-muslims thread...

what-else is new???


I can't believe what I just read. Is there a bigot here!!! I would hope that we are lovers of Jews and all other people.

BTW, you can't just become a christian. A bishop has to bring you in.

I assume what you really mean here is to become a "Catholic"?

So? Muslims fought religious wars against infidels too.

You're forgetting that the Muslims first conquered Jerusalem. but all this is beside the point, which is that Christians and Muslims have both been guilty of horrible crimes over the centuries.
The leader of the Muslims who conquered Jerusalem (cant remember his name) visited all the churches and synangogues in Jerusalem. made sure they were safe.

And i'm not denying that some "Muslims" and "Christians" have done some really nasty stuff in the name of their religions. I'm just saying that it's not just them.

The pirate state of Israel stole land from under the Palestinians' noses. The British who occupied Palestine at the time of Israel's foundation promised both the survivors of the Holocaust a land for the Jews and promised the Arabs a land of their own. The prime minister of Israel Ariel Sharon was a Zionist gang member before Israel was formally founded. He and his gang went around killing Palestinians and stealing their homes.
BTW if anyone tries to call me an anti-Semite or Nazi, let me tell you that i'm not anti-Jewish, i'm just anti Zionist.

Several flaws in your arguement

1) Palistine was pretty much un populated in the late 18th/early 19th century when the first Alliyah began.

2) The Jewish settlers bought the land of absenntee land holders who lived in Egypt and Syria.

3) The number of Arabs displaced by the creation of Israel was far less than the number displaced by the Aswan dam.

Read "The Case for Israel" tis an excellent book outlining clearly and accurately why Israel should exist.

The pirate state of Israel stole land from under the Palestinians' noses. The British who occupied Palestine at the time of Israel's foundation promised both the survivors of the Holocaust a land for the Jews and promised the Arabs a land of their own. The prime minister of Israel Ariel Sharon was a Zionist gang member before Israel was formally founded. He and his gang went around killing Palestinians and stealing their homes.
BTW if anyone tries to call me an anti-Semite or Nazi, let me tell you that i'm not anti-Jewish, i'm just anti Zionist.

Baha'u'llah has come to renew the world.

I desire for you a universal patriotism. A high soaring bird attaches not its heart to its earth nest and abode. At every dawn it sings a new melody and at every eve it warbles the streams of divine mysteries in a new meadow. At one time it rises above the summit of the green mountains and spreads its imperial wings over deserts and plains and anon it breaks into ideal harmonies and chants the secrets of God.

It is not attached to home and comfort nor is it limited to nest and abode. Nay, rather, it is intoxicated with the wine of the love of God, singing at all times the anthems and praises of the Almighty. This is the habit and custom of heavenly birds; this is the manner and conduct of the nightingale of the rosegarden of the merciful! *

Today firmness in the covenant of servitude is the means of effectively flinging forth the divine proclamation into all horizons and this firmness is conducive to the power of the word of the teacher; for in this day when one arises to herald the Kingdom of Abha, a magnetic power is produced which attracts the rays of confirmation; the hosts of the supreme concourse will make whosoever is sincere victorious and the power of the Holy Spirit will assist him.

The obstacle which prevents the so-called religious man from accepting the teachings of God is literal interpretation. Moses announced the coming of Christ. The Israelites were awaiting him with the greatest impatience and anxiety, but when he came they called him Beelzebub. "The conditions laid down in the Bible for the coming of the expected one were not fulfilled," they said. They did not understand that the conditions were symbolical.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 34)

BTW, whos upports the state of Israel?

The fact that there is an Israel, or the actions of its government?

Not Muslims, Islam. I am looking at the materials linked to the faith, not the people (though as a side note, I believe Saudi Arabia uses a great many of these rules)

A faith is defined by its followers.

Several flaws in your arguement

1) Palistine was pretty much un populated in the late 18th/early 19th century when the first Alliyah began.

2) The Jewish settlers bought the land of absenntee land holders who lived in Egypt and Syria.

3) The number of Arabs displaced by the creation of Israel was far less than the number displaced by the Aswan dam.

Read "The Case for Israel" tis an excellent book outlining clearly and accurately why Israel should exist.
Why couldn't the Jews just stay in their countries? They lived there before.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]The fact that there is an Israel, or the actions of its government?

The fact that there should be one.

And you said it took thousands of years for the believers to become educated. You did not mention literacy. I said it was not completly accurate for Islam. I stand by that statement.

I said "bulk of the believers" meaning ordinary people. Stop twisting my words. Can you show me some statistics disproving that my claim most medieval Muslims were uneducated? I don't know how my statement "only thousands of years after these religions were first formed did the bulk of believers finally become educated" is inaccurate for Islam

Why couldn't the Jews just stay in their countries? They lived there before.

One word "Pogrom"

One word "Pogrom"
Sorry could u explain that sorry, just i'm 13 years old and dunno what it is.

I believe the nation of Israel should exist, thats all. Thats not a religious thing, its political. There is no rearly good reason why it shouldnt exist.the Bloodbath exist because Israel was created in Arabland...AKA M.E. ...were the Palestinans were living in a more peaceful situation.

I do not object to the creation of Israel, I object to the way Palestineans were kicked out of their home..to make place for the creation of an alien State.

I think they (UN,UK,USA) should have chosen another location.

Sorry could u explain that sorry, just i'm 13 years old and dunno what it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom

I can't believe what I just read. Is there a bigot here!!! I would hope that we are lovers of Jews and all other people.you better believe it baby...you better believe it.

I bid you all good night. Sleep well while the Israeli army slays the Palestinian freedom fighters.

The pirate state of Israel stole land from under the Palestinians' noses. The British who occupied Palestine at the time of Israel's foundation promised both the survivors of the Holocaust a land for the Jews and promised the Arabs a land of their own. The prime minister of Israel Ariel Sharon was a Zionist gang member before Israel was formally founded. He and his gang went around killing Palestinians and stealing their homes.
BTW if anyone tries to call me an anti-Semite or Nazi, let me tell you that i'm not anti-Jewish, i'm just anti Zionist.

Your entitled to your own opinion and i doubt anyone here is going to start calling you that. In my opinion both sides could go around settling the problem in better ways. But neither side is going to be leaving there anytime soon so either they need to start sharing or the fight is going to keep going on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom
cheers

Sorry could u explain that sorry, just i'm 13 years old and dunno what it is.

You expect me to debate with a 13 year old as to why the nation of Israel should exist!

Very well. Pogrom is a Russian word but it simpley means an outbreak of anti-semitic vilonce. During the time of the first Alliyah there was a great deal of these and Palistine seemd the logical place as it is not only the Jews native land but at the time it was vastly un-populated. The Jews then proceeded to buy land in palistine (lots of it non arable) of absentee landholders who lived in Syria and Egypt.

A pogrom (from Russian: "погром") is a massive violent attack on people with simultaneous destruction of their environment (homes, businesses, religious centers). In English and most of other languages, historically the term has been used to denote massive acts of violence, either spontaneous or premeditated, against Jews.
[edit]

History

The word became internationally known after a wave of anti-Jewish riots swept southern Russia in 1881–1884, causing world-wide outcry and propelling mass Jewish emigration. According to the records of the history of the Jews in the United States, the Jewish emigration from Russia increased drastically in these years, totalling to about 2 million Russian Jews in period 1880–1920.
1881-1884, much earlier than the state of Israel.

The pirate state of Israel stole land from under the Palestinians' noses. The British who occupied Palestine at the time of Israel's foundation promised both the survivors of the Holocaust a land for the Jews and promised the Arabs a land of their own. The prime minister of Israel Ariel Sharon was a Zionist gang member before Israel was formally founded. He and his gang went around killing Palestinians and stealing their homes.
BTW if anyone tries to call me an anti-Semite or Nazi, let me tell you that i'm not anti-Jewish, i'm just anti Zionist.
Would it be ok if I only called you an ignorant moron who doesn't have a clue? It is quite rare to find someone capable of stuffing so many factual errors into one short post. Not to mention the silly propaganda cliches with which your language is ridden.

You expect me to debate with a 13 year old as to why the nation of Israel should exist!

Very well. Pogrom is a Russian word but it simpley means an outbreak of anti-semitic vilonce. During the time of the first Alliyah there was a great deal of these and Palistine seemd the logical place as it is not only the Jews native land but at the time it was vastly un-populated. The Jews then proceeded to buy land in palistine (lots of it non arable) of absentee landholders who lived in Syria and Egypt.
Ageism lol.

Would it be ok if I only called you an ignorant moron who doesn't have a clue? It is quite rare to find someone capable of stuffing so many factual errors into one short post. Not to mention the silly propaganda cliches with which your language is ridden.
This is a free country. Go ahead.

I can't believe what I just read. Is there a bigot here!!! I would hope that we are lovers of Jews and all other people.
^ what s/he said.

Your entitled to your own opinion and i doubt anyone here is going to start calling you that. In my opinion both sides could go around settling the problem in better ways. But neither side is going to be leaving there anytime soon so either they need to start sharing or the fight is going to keep going on.
Well said. No more fighting.

A faith is defined by its followers.

No, a faith is defined by its beliefs. In the same way I dont judge Muslims to all be terrorists, so you do not judge me in the light of what other Christians do but by what Christianity says I should do.

You expect me to debate with a 13 year old as to why the nation of Israel should exist!
Oh he's 13??? Damn, I shouldn't have been so harsh on the kid.

No, a faith is defined by its beliefs. In the same way I dont judge Muslims to all be terrorists, so you do not judge me in the light of what other Christians do but by what Christianity says I should do.
A faith can't be defined by its followers because all followers believe something different of the faith.

Oh he's 13??? Damn, I shouldn't have been so harsh on the kid.
S'ok, i'm not a baby (anymore) lol.

OK, now i've really gotta go. Sleepy-bed-byes for the little kiddy time!

S'ok, i'm not a baby (anymore) lol.
As far as I am concerned you weren't even born yet :p

The fact that there should be one.

Should be? Irrelevant.

There is, and I am not going to advocate removing power from a sovereign government on the basis of how that nation came to be umpteen years ago anymore than I advocate trashing the US government because we took land from the Native Americans.

I think a much more relevant question would be whether or not I support the actions of the government - which I largely do not.

I am not going to advocate removing power from a sovereign government on the basis of how that nation came to be umpteen years ago.maybe you are not going to, but I will.

maybe you are not going to, but I will.

O good so after the mass genocide in germany and the constant forcing of Jewish citizens from their homes you say lets do it again because Britain screwed up in picking a place to form a new nation for them. Thats a great idea. Disolving the State of Israel is not the answer to solve this problem.

In my humble opinion:

Religions are like governments, there is no religion or government that cannot work well with the right people in leadership positions and followers who try to do the best for all. There is also no governement of religion that is so well constructed that with the wrong people in leadership position or followers that are idiots can't ruin.
There will always be people bright enough to figure out that the law or belief that "All babies who are born without ... should be put on pikes" is a bad idea, and find a way around it, and there will always be people stupid enough to turn "Love one another" into "put babies on pikes".

One of the common themes of Christianity, Judeism, Islam, Buddism etc. pretty much boils down to "Be nice", and look how well we humans have that down.

O good so after the mass genocide in germany....You are too late!!!

I did bet that someone was going to pull the "Nazi Genocide" in less than 2 min...and I lost my bet.

you pro-Israel guys are getting lazy.

Either way, I am very much against genocide...and since Israel is an artificial state...it can be transplanted (disolved and recreated elsewhere) easily.

I said "bulk of the believers" meaning ordinary people. Stop twisting my words. Can you show me some statistics disproving that my claim most medieval Muslims were uneducated? I don't know how my statement "only thousands of years after these religions were first formed did the bulk of believers finally become educated" is inaccurate for Islam


Islam began in about 630 AD. You do the math.

You are too late!!!

I did bet that someone was going to pull the "Nazi Genocide" in less than 2 min...and I lost my bet.

you pro-Israel guys are getting lazy.

Either way, I am very much against genocide...and since Israel is an artificial state...it can be transplanted (disolved and recreated elsewhere) easily.

Wow so i supose if someone said lets transplant all the palestinians you would say thats a valid solution as well?

Wow so i supose if someone said lets transplant all the palestinians you would say thats a valid solution as well?

only if we transplant the Americans and French too

Wow so i supose if someone said lets transplant all the palestinians you would say thats a valid solution as well?I would say that you would have to transplant either all arabs or all Jews out of the M.E.

..they have pretty much proven they cant live peacefully in the same area.

so my answer is yes, thats a valid solution as well.

I would say that you would have to transplant either all arabs or all Jews out of the M.E.

..they have pretty much proven they cant live peacefully in the same area.

so my answer is yes, they are both valid solutions.(BUT only one of them is a practical solution)

:headbang:

The solution is for israel to return to her legal borders and dismantle her illegal settlements.

The solution is for israel to return to her legal borders and dismantle her illegal settlements.

That is part of it. They also should allow displaced palestinians the ability to return to their homes. That and if terrorist groups would be will ing to accept a peace settlement instead of wanting to force all isrealies out.

A recent poll taken shows that about 48% of americans would like to curtail muslim rights.

:headbang:
is that the KoteI you are hitting with you head?

:headbang: :sniper: :mp5:
what you all fail to see is that the underlying reason for all nations going to war in whatever format if God. When are we going to progress to the point were we can acknowledge that there is no god and religion is just a form of manipulation and forced guilt. All religion should be outlawed. Just look at the science people, there is no devine creation just evolution of the genetic code over millions of years.

:headbang: :sniper: :mp5:
what you all fail to see is that the underlying reason for all nations going to war in whatever format if God. When are we going to progress to the point were we can acknowledge that there is no god and religion is just a form of manipulation and forced guilt. All religion should be outlawed. Just look at the science people, there is no devine creation just evolution of the genetic code over millions of years.really... all the wars... so Iraq has a Religious connotation... and so was Vietnam... and the First Gulf War... and WW2... WW1... French-Indian War... Russo-Japanese war... all for religion... :rolleyes:

Many people here have consistantly claimed that Chrisitianity is an extremely intollerant and evil faith but I dont think Chrisitanity has anything in its Dogma quite so intollerant as this

http://answering-islam.org.uk/NonMuslims/rights.htm

Could any Muslims on the forum please explain exactly what these laws are and where they come from in Muslim doctrine.

What I've read there is a part of Shiar'a law. That's far right Islam. The Quran suggests treating unbelievers nicely and equaly, because Allah will take care of them later. Most Islamic states, Iraq for example, follow Bathist law, which is very equal to all people (while women in the US were fighting for equal pay women in Iraq were teaching at univercities). The worst part is that now in Iraq the extremist have been elected and will probably start implementing these laws into the Iraqi constitution.

No, a faith is defined by its beliefs. In the same way I dont judge Muslims to all be terrorists, so you do not judge me in the light of what other Christians do but by what Christianity says I should do.

There is no set "Christianity". Everyone interprets it differently - and, as such, the faith is defined by those who have faith in it.

A faith can't be defined by its followers because all followers believe something different of the faith.

...which is exactly why it *is* defined by the followers.

There is no set "Christianity". Everyone interprets it differently - and, as such, the faith is defined by those who have faith in it.


*sigh* there is a set christianity. 1.1 billion people follow it. I am sick of explaining.

You cannot interpret it. It is given to you. Anyone who quotes the bible and gives you their interpretation is not a christian. Alrighty.

*sigh* there is a set christianity. 1.1 billion people follow it. I am sick of explaining.

You cannot interpret it. It is given to you. Anyone who quotes the bible and gives you their interpretation is not a christian. Alrighty.

There is not a single person on this planet who truly follows a religion and doesn't follow their own personal version of it.

And I'm just guessing here but, you aren't Jesus Christ, are you? Because that is the only way you would have the ability to state who is and is not Christian.

And I'm just guessing here but, you aren't Jesus Christ, are you? Because that is the only way you would have the ability to state who is and is not Christian.

No, I am, in fact an atheist.

But I was raised in the church, and it was made abundantly clear that there are a group of people who carry the authority of christ. And they decide who is and who is not a christian. So, out of the 1.8 billion or so self-described christians, only 1.1 billion actually are part of the communion. The other 700,000,000 - which actually comprise most of the trouble makers these days - don't qualify.

You can't just *become* a christian on a whim you know.

I wish people around here would realize that.

No, I am, in fact an atheist.

Then you likely have no idea of faith.

But I was raised in the church, and it was made abundantly clear that there are a group of people who carry the authority of christ.

Never mind that those people have never fully agreed on anything, from the very beginning of the church. I guess they neglect to teach you church history in the church? Oh wait, having talked to enough Catholics, I know they do.

And they decide who is and who is not a christian. So, out of the 1.8 billion or so self-described christians, only 1.1 billion actually are part of the communion. The other 700,000,000 - which actually comprise most of the trouble makers these days - don't qualify.

I love the fact that you (or someone who does believe in God) thinks that they can speak for God. It is really quite cute.

Meanwhile, I will reiterate. Only Christ himself can determine who is and who is not Christian - a term which literally means "one who follows the teachings of Christ."

You can't just *become* a christian on a whim you know.

Who said anything about a whim?

I wish people around here would realize that.

I wish people would stop acting like the Catholic church has ever been the "one, true, unifed" church, but I doubt it'll happen.

Meanwhile, if you have no faith in God, I don't really see why you care what those who do believe.

As a side note, most religions, not just Christianity, started out as popular among the poor and uneducated. Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and such - in every case a few individuals proclaim themselves to be god/enlightened/prophets/etc., claim a learned monopoly over divine knowledge, and spread their opinions among the masses, who throughout human history have been predominantly illiterate. Only thousands of years after these religions were first formed did the bulk of believers finally become educated.

You first said illiterate, which is certainly true since there were few books in those days. Education is another matter. Before there were books to read people were educated. Islamic culture on a whole was more educated than other civilizations of the period. But enough of this.

Then you likely have no idea of faith.



Never mind that those people have never fully agreed on anything, from the very beginning of the church. I guess they neglect to teach you church history in the church? Oh wait, having talked to enough Catholics, I know they do.



I love the fact that you (or someone who does believe in God) thinks that they can speak for God. It is really quite cute.

Meanwhile, I will reiterate. Only Christ himself can determine who is and who is not Christian - a term which literally means "one who follows the teachings of Christ."



Who said anything about a whim?



I wish people would stop acting like the Catholic church has ever been the "one, true, unifed" church, but I doubt it'll happen.

Meanwhile, if you have no faith in God, I don't really see why you care what those who do believe.


Fine, have it your way then, if you self identify, ergo you must be part of the religion.

By that logic, islam is responsible for 3,500 dead people in my back yard (practically).


carry on.

Fine, have it your way then, if you self identify, ergo you must be part of the religion.

By that logic, islam is responsible for 3,500 dead people in my back yard (practically).

No more than every single American is responsible for the deaths that occur in wars.

The particular Muslims who committed the crime are responsible for the deaths. Unless you can demonstrate that all Muslims were involved, then Islam is not.

No more than every single American is responsible for the deaths that occur in wars.

The particular Muslims who committed the crime are responsible for the deaths. Unless you can demonstrate that all Muslims were involved, then Islam is not.

Oh no, stop twisting, they claimed it was their religious duty. Thus Islam is responsible. And by your logic they were muslims.

Just like people bitch about christianity because ass-hats knock on their door and try and convert them.

And as to your point about every american being responsible for deaths in wars, yes, we are. I don't think any reasonable person would deny it.

And as to your point about every american being responsible for deaths in wars, yes, we are. I don't think any reasonable person would deny it.every American? I dont think so

I have made up my mind that I will never serve in the Military...unless we are invaded.

and I will never vote for any candidate that is pro war.

Furthermore I swear that I will pay as little Tax as possible (while the Bushites are in charge)...and whatever tax I pay...I will compensate to Amnesty International and other humanitarian orgs...(10% or whatever goes to the military)

every American? I dont think so

I have made up my mind that I will never serve in the Military...unless we are invaded.

and I will never vote for any candidate that is pro war.

Furthermore I swear that I will pay as little Tax as possible...and whatever tax I pay...I will compensate to Amnesty International and other humanitarian orgs...


Your still responsible. If you feel that strongly about it, you can go to the state department and surrender you citizenship.

Until then you are still part of the US.

Your still responsible.that is your opinion.

Oh no, stop twisting, they claimed it was their religious duty. Thus Islam is responsible. And by your logic they were muslims.

I'm not the one who is twisting here -t hat is all your domain.

Meanwhile, they were Muslims if they were following the teachings of Muhammed, who began Islam. My guess is that they believed they were, whether it was true or not. As such, they *were* Muslims, but were not in any way representative of all Islam.

Just like people bitch about christianity because ass-hats knock on their door and try and convert them.

Which is equally idiotic. What they are really bitching about is the particular Christian individuals who knock on their door and try to convert them, not Christianity as a whole.

When I bitch about my ex-boyfriend, am I automatically blaming all men for his actions? I think not.

And as to your point about every american being responsible for deaths in wars, yes, we are. I don't think any reasonable person would deny it.

That is the most idiotic thing you have said yet. One is only responsible for actions they cause. If someone voted for Bush because they thought he might start a war, then and only then are they personally responsible.

I'm not the one who is twisting here -t hat is all your domain.

Meanwhile, they were Muslims if they were following the teachings of Muhammed, who began Islam. My guess is that they believed they were, whether it was true or not. As such, they *were* Muslims, but were not in any way representative of all Islam.



Which is equally idiotic. What they are really bitching about is the particular Christian individuals who knock on their door and try to convert them, not Christianity as a whole.

When I bitch about my ex-boyfriend, am I automatically blaming all men for his actions? I think not.

Obviously we are talking at cross purposes then. If that truly is you attitude I have no problem with it. My larger point is that: just as muslims rightly exclude terrorists from their faith - and people accept that position - thus christians can also have that option. You choose to judge on a case by case basis, and I am fine with that also. Fair enough?



That is the most idiotic thing you have said yet. One is only responsible for actions they cause. If someone voted for Bush because they thought he might start a war, then and only then are they personally responsible.

Here is where I disagree with you, there are many things that the US has done which I am ashamed of. And I am ashamed because it is my country, and I want it to be better. I don't believe that you can that easily wash your hands of responsibility.

I am ashamed of slavery, I am ashamed of our treatment of the native population, I am ashmed of segregation, I am ashamed of our historic treatment of women, I am ashamed of racism. I could go on but I think you get the point.

And I am responsible for all these, because it is my duty as an American to make sure that those things never happen again. And it is my duty to make sure that we learn our lessons from the past and try and move our country towards a better society. Thus, I cannot wash my hands and claim; "it has nothing to do with me."

It's not, america love it or leave it. It's america love it or change it.

I hardly think that this is an 'idiotic' attitude. But whatever. At least I don't shirk the past.

Obviously we are talking at cross purposes then. If that truly is you attitude I have no problem with it. My larger point is that: just as muslims rightly exclude terrorists from their faith - and people accept that position - thus christians can also have that option. You choose to judge on a case by case basis, and I am fine with that also. Fair enough?

Fair enough.

Here is where I disagree with you, there are many things that the US has done which I am ashamed of. And I am ashamed because it is my country, and I want it to be better. I don't believe that you can that easily wash your hands of responsibility.

There is a difference between finding such things abhorrent and being personally ashamed of them. I, for one, make a point of not being ashamed for something I had nothing to do with. Thus, while I find many past actions abhorrent, I had no power over them and am thus not personally ashamed.

And I am responsible for all these, because it is my duty as an American to make sure that those things never happen again.

Being responsible for ensuring that it doesn't happen against is a far cry for being responsible for the actual actions.

And it is my duty to make sure that we learn our lessons from the past and try and move our country towards a better society. Thus, I cannot wash my hands and claim; "it has nothing to do with me."

It's not, america love it or leave it. It's america love it or change it.

I hardly think that this is an 'idiotic' attitude. But whatever. At least I don't shirk the past.

I agree, but I don't see how that makes individuals responsible for actions they tried to prevent. If someone is about to get hit by a drunk driver, and I attempt to push them out of the way, am I responsible if I am unable to do so? If I am nowhere in sight, but drive down that road later, does that make me responsible?

Again, acknowledging the past and trying to prevent future occurences is a far cry from being personally responsible for something you did not do.

I agree, but I don't see how that makes individuals responsible for actions they tried to prevent. If someone is about to get hit by a drunk driver, and I attempt to push them out of the way, am I responsible if I am unable to do so? If I am nowhere in sight, but drive down that road later, does that make me responsible?

Again, acknowledging the past and trying to prevent future occurences is a far cry from being personally responsible for something you did not do.

Again, I think we are at cross purposes. I don't feel that I should stand trial, or be punished for those things in the past. But I still feel responsible, because they happened once, and I believe I have a duty to try and prevent them from happening again. Nor should I try and make excuses for them. In other words I am responsible, because I have a responsiblity, not because I am personally to blame.

I think it is a case here of differing in style, not in substance perhaps. I am sure that both of us feel a duty not to allow those things to happen again, but we express that differently. Therefore it is not really important and we shouldn't argue, but get on with it.

(Also, I am embarrased that some of it is my cultural past, because I wish it was otherwise).

Either way, I am very much against genocide...and since Israel is an artificial state...it can be transplanted (disolved and recreated elsewhere) easily.
:rolleyes:

Israel is no more "artificial" than the US, France or Egypt. People who were born here consider it their native land- and are willing to fight for it if need be. We sure as hell won't agree to be "dissolved" any more than any other nation would. And I assure you, we have the means to kick the butt of anyone who tries to force us into "dissolving".

Go to the first post and look at the link

Neo - it has already been pointed out that the first link was nothing more than an essay... someone's OPINION on Islam.

What significance do you REALLY think it has to the ACTUAL doctrine?

Doesn't it say in the Bible that it is good to smash babies' faces against rocks?

Neo - it has already been pointed out that the first link was nothing more than an essay... someone's OPINION on Islam.

What significance do you REALLY think it has to the ACTUAL doctrine?

Doesn't it say in the Bible that it is good to smash babies' faces against rocks?

Its not opinion, read it. It cites actual doctrine.


1) Zimmis (those in custody) are non-Muslim subjects who live in Muslim countries and agree to pay the Jizya (tribute) in exchange for protection and safety, and to be subject to Islamic law. These enjoy a permanent covenant.

2) People of the Hudna (truce) are those who sign a peace treaty with Muslims after being defeated in war. They agree to reside in their own land, yet to be subject to the legal jurisprudence of Islam like Zimmis, provided they do not wage war against Muslims.

3) Musta'min (protected one) are persons who come to an Islamic country as messengers, merchants, visitors, or student wanting to learn about Islam. A Musta'min should not wage war against Muslims and he is not obliged to pay Jizya, but he would be urged to embrace Islam. If a Musta'min does not accept Islam, he is allowed to return safely to his own country. Muslims are forbidden to hurt him in any way. When he is back in his own homeland, he is treated as one who belongs to the Household of War.

If this is somehow an opinion then I think I need to reanalysie the definition of opinion.

No, I am, in fact an atheist.

But I was raised in the church, and it was made abundantly clear that there are a group of people who carry the authority of christ. And they decide who is and who is not a christian. So, out of the 1.8 billion or so self-described christians, only 1.1 billion actually are part of the communion. The other 700,000,000 - which actually comprise most of the trouble makers these days - don't qualify.

You can't just *become* a christian on a whim you know.

I wish people around here would realize that.

I agree with you that most people who describe themselves as 'Christian' live very un-Christ-like lives...

But, what is your basis for the assertion that this one group of people carry the authority of Christ?

Sounds like a flawed assumption to me.

Its not opinion, read it. It cites actual doctrine.

If this is somehow an opinion then I think I need to reanalysie the definition of opinion.

I read your first post, Neo.

I also read the 'document' you linked to.

I also commented on the same document.

You have found a source filed with someone's view of Islam, that just happens to fit in with your own anti-Islam stance. Well done.

That doesn't make that site worth anything more than your own opinion.

Where exactly is it quoting 'actual doctrine' FROM?

I read your first post, Neo.

I also read the 'document' you linked to.

I also commented on the same document.

You have found a source filed with someone's view of Islam, that just happens to fit in with your own anti-Islam stance. Well done.

That doesn't make that site worth anything more than your own opinion.

Where exactly is it quoting 'actual doctrine' FROM?

It is not a view of Islam if it comments on actual fact

Those laws it states cannot be opinions unless they are completely fragulent, which they aren't.

It is not someone elses OPINION because this is what opinion means


a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?"

public opinion: a belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people; "he asked for a poll of public opinion"

a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; "his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page"

the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision; "opinions are usually written by a single judge"

the reason for a court's judgment (as opposed to the decision itself)

And as to your question as to where the laws come from, that is what I have been asking for the entire thread.

We were not by the Saudi Arabian government to bring any religious symbols or literature into the country. We were not allowed by the Saudi Government to possess or read the bible. We were not allowed to wear religious symbols. We were not allowed to gather in public or private for bible study, prayer, or religious service. Why, because it was against Saudi Arabian law and violation of that law would result in our arrest by the Saudi Arabian officials.


And, yet, when I was there in 1991, we were allowed. Go figure.


Now, does that meet your criteria for, "Name one .... JUST ONE .... example of any non-Muslim living in a Muslim country who is treated as a second class citizen just for not being Muslim."

No ... it has to be a Christian citizen of Saudi.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that all Muslims hold to these laws. I am only saying that in a Muslim country, Saudi Arabia, these laws do exist and to deny they exist is the equivalent of my denying the Inquisition.

Trouble is, I'm an American. Saudi Arabia is not really my problem any more than it would be your problem if the Vatican suddenly made it mandatory to have sex with goats.

It is not a view of Islam if it comments on actual fact

Those laws it states cannot be opinions unless they are completely fragulent, which they aren't.

It is not someone elses OPINION because this is what opinion means


Just because someone is discussing someone ELSE's laws... doesn't mean that their interpretation is right.

As I asked you earlier, does the bible not condone the smashing of babies heads against rocks?



And as to your question as to where the laws come from, that is what I have been asking for the entire thread.

And yet, you keep stating that you are discussing 'dogma' and 'doctrine'... whereas, your 'source' is nothing but another person's essay.

You haven't actually referrenced a 'dogmatic' or 'doctrinal' source, have you?

Just some other guy's view of Islam... and you haven't even verified it for yourself.

Many people here have consistantly claimed that Chrisitianity is an extremely intollerant and evil faith but I dont think Chrisitanity has anything in its Dogma quite so intollerant as this

http://answering-islam.org.uk/NonMuslims/rights.htm

Could any Muslims on the forum please explain exactly what these laws are and where they come from in Muslim doctrine.

Neo, do you ever post anything different? Speaking as a fellow Christian, one might hope that you could post a message of hope. Something different.

Bashing Islam is getting old.

Hey Neo, have you actually read the whole Bible yet?

Neo, do you ever post anything different? Speaking as a fellow Christian, one might hope that you could post a message of hope. Something different.

Bashing Islam is getting old.

And, I always thought Christianity was supposed to be a religion of love...

Neo seems to have some problems tolerating differences.

Neo, do you ever post anything different? Speaking as a fellow Christian, one might hope that you could post a message of hope. Something different.

Bashing Islam is getting old.

With that premise in mind:

These are quotes straight from Christian relief workers in Southeast Asia soon after the tsunami. People of different faiths can get along!

A team of volunteers from the states assisted a village in tearing down their mosque the other day. They were not tearing it down because they had lost their faith, but because it was so damaged by the earthquake and tsunami that they could not salvage it. In an area that has been somewhat off limits to foreigners for several years, an invitation from locals to help with such a task is a huge statement of respect. The villagers and volunteers alike were very careful in taking down the mosque so that they might preserve the minaret, the huge dome-like edifice at the top of all mosques.

After the second day of deconstruction, one of the villagers asked a volunteer what faith he was. The volunteer replied that he was a follower of Jesus Christ. Then the volunteer asked if he and his group could pray with and for the villagers. The villager said yes assuming that the volunteers would pray in English and with their eyes closed. The group, however, prayed in the local language, held their hands out, and kept their eyes open in an attempt to respect the local Muslim culture and faith. The villager, so impressed by the volunteers’ hard work and respect, introduced them to the other villagers as “one surrendered to God ‘through Jesus’!!!”

Such a title is huge. The locals did not simply lump these followers of Christ together with other Christians and their stereotypical view of what Christians are—which is typically quite negative. Rather, he created a new way to identify followers of Christ! He recognized that the volunteers were different than the local stereotype and was so impressed by this difference that he used his own title to identify them! Muslim means “one surrendered to God!”"

It is amazing the power that a brightly colored rope bracelet can have, especially when it is given by open, God-filled hearts. One volunteer team brought hundreds of bracelets, which they had prayed over. When they gave a bracelet to someone, they would tell them that the bracelet stood for friendship and then touch the bracelet to their heart. As the team traveled around to villages, the friends they had made would hold up their bracelets and shout hello.

The giving of bracelets to friends has continued with each subsequent team. Just the other day a nurse gave a bracelet to a child that was crying. The child had survived the tsunami with her mother, but the child’s father did not survive. As the nurse slipped the bracelet onto the little child’s wrist, she stopped crying and began to admire the new gift. A gentleman, who had watched the whole scene, gave the nurse a quiet, approving thumbs-up. It was only later that the nurse discovered the gentleman was the Imam (religious leader) of the village.

Then a couple of days later, the same nurse noticed an elderly lady sitting somberly by herself. The nurse, hoping to bring a bit of happiness to the woman, grabbed a bracelet and walked over to her. As she gave the bracelet to the woman, she began to cry and stumble out some words. After the nurse found a translator, she discovered that the woman was overwhelmed by the fact that the nurse was willing to empathize with her, even though they were so different.

Neo, do you ever post anything different? Speaking as a fellow Christian, one might hope that you could post a message of hope. Something different.

Bashing Islam is getting old.

I am trying to get infomation, no one seems to be willing to give it to me. Where do these laws come from. All I have got so far is the idea that they are interpretations of the Quran. Can someone please explain more?

Just because someone is discussing someone ELSE's laws... doesn't mean that their interpretation is right.

As I asked you earlier, does the bible not condone the smashing of babies heads against rocks?.

Yes, in debunked dogma. Thats why (if you read the first page) you will see that I asked about ACTIVE dogma. Its not an interpretation for this simple reason. It talks about actual laws. Can you please somehow explain how it is an interpretation and not a list of laws.


And yet, you keep stating that you are discussing 'dogma' and 'doctrine'... whereas, your 'source' is nothing but another person's essay.

You haven't actually referrenced a 'dogmatic' or 'doctrinal' source, have you?

Just some other guy's view of Islam... and you haven't even verified it for yourself.

It IS NOT just an essay. It contains actual laws refering to an Islamic state. So what I am asking is where do the ideas behind the laws come from. Can you actually explain why the site is invalid.

I am trying to get infomation, no one seems to be willing to give it to me. Where do these laws come from. All I have got so far is the idea that they are interpretations of the Quran. Can someone please explain more?

Neo... I realise this is hard for you to understand... this will be about the fourth time this thread....

YOU made the assertion that this is dogmatic or doctrinal... based on ONE source, which is (of course) a subjective work.

It should be YOUR responsibility to actually check the allegations you throw into the Forum... at the moment, all you are doing is waving someone else's intolerance as a banner, and asking other people to defend themselves against it.

If you really think that Islam is intolerant - how about finding some evidence, rather than just trafficking other people's prejudices?

Answers To The "Whose God is More Vicious" Quiz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Whose god has promised the cruelest fate for people of different religions?
Correct Answer: Both are equally vicious. Both gods have utter disdain for all other religions and condemn the followers of those faiths to eternal damnation. “Surely those who disbelieve . . . Allah has set a seal upon their hearts . . . and there is a great punishment for them” (Koran 2:6-7). “Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men all” (Koran 2:161). [W]hen the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance of them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord . . . (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). “[H]e that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him”(John 3:36).


2. Whose god orders the most violent plight for nonbelievers while on Earth?

Correct Answer: The Christian god because he ordered his followers to kill all those of a different religion, including family members, friends and even their cattle, whereas the Moslem god simply required the enslaving of nonbelievers . “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people . . . If thou shalt hear . . . Certain men . . . have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants ofthat city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy13:6-15). “Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection” (Koran 9:29).


3. Whose god orders the cruelest warfare?

Correct Answer: The Christian god because he ordered his followers to kill all the men inthe towns they invaded, enslaving only the women and children (who sometimes were to be slaughtered as well, along with every other living thing insight.) “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates” (Koran 47:4). “And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones . . . shalt thou take unto thyself . . . But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth”(Deuteronomy 20:13-16).


4. Whose god has the least pity and most contempt for the enemies of his followers?

Correct Answer: Both. “And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both males, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men who were before the house. And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go you forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city” (Ezekiel 9:5-7). “Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice” (Koran 60:8). “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing” (Koran 8:61).


5. Whose god has more contempt for homosexuals?

Correct Answer: Both. “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them”(Leviticus 20:13). “And if two (men) of you commit it, then hurt them both; but if they turn again and amend, leave them alone, verily, God is easily turned, compassionate” (Koran 4:21). “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God”(1 Corinthians 6:9-10). "And there shall wait on them young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls" (Koran 52:24). “They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who will seem like scattered pearls to the beholders" (Koran 76:19).


6. Whose god has prescribed the more vicious physical punishment of sinners?

Correct Answer: The Moslem god because he ordered his followers to apply more lashes to sinners than the Christian god did. “(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement” (Koran 24:2). “And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face . . . Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed”(Deuteronomy 25:2-3).


7. Whose god should you fear most?

Correct Answer: The Christian god because while Allah may be worthy of fear, God not only kills those who rub Him the wrong way but sends them to Hell as well. “What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Apostle, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers” (Koran 9:13). “But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him” (Luke 12:5). “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).


8. Whose god places the least value on the lives of women?

Correct Answer: This is basically a wash. Both gods view women as less worthwhile than men. “Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females; then if they are more than two females, shall have two-thirds of what the deceased has left, and if there is one, she shall they have the half” (Koran 4:11). "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and sayunto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above, if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female, ten shekels" (Leviticus27:1-7).


9. Whose god puts women in their place with the harshest of restrictions on their speech?

Correct Answer: Both. “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" ; (1 Timothy 2:11-12). "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1Corinthians 14:34-35). "Allah has heard and accepted the statement of the woman who pleads with you (the Prophet) concerning her husband and carries her complaint to Allah, and Allah hears the arguments between both of you for Allah hears and sees all things”(Koran 58:1).


10. Whose god is the champion of deceit?

Correct Answer: Both. “Surely Allah is not ashamed to set forth any parable-- (that of) a gnat or any thing above that; then as for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord, and as for those who disbelieve, they say: What is it that Allah means by this parable: He causes many to err by it and many He leads aright by it! but He does not cause to err by it (any) except the transgressors” (Koran2:26). “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2Thessalonians 2:11-12).

Yes, in debunked dogma. Thats why (if you read the first page) you will see that I asked about ACTIVE dogma. Its not an interpretation for this simple reason. It talks about actual laws. Can you please somehow explain how it is an interpretation and not a list of laws.

It IS NOT just an essay. It contains actual laws refering to an Islamic state. So what I am asking is where do the ideas behind the laws come from. Can you actually explain why the site is invalid.

Show me the laws, Neo.

Show me where they exist... not just some guy explaining what they 'mean'.

Then - show me how a given law equates to dogma or doctrine.

By the way - I don't think you really know what you are saying above... you are claiming that much of the content of Old Testament has been 'debunked' by the New?

Do you realise that you 'debunk' something, by proving it to be untrue?

Show me the laws, Neo.

Show me where they exist... not just some guy explaining what they 'mean'.

Then - show me how a given law equates to dogma or doctrine.

By the way - I don't think you really know what you are saying above... you are claiming that much of the content of Old Testament has been 'debunked' by the New?

Do you realise that you 'debunk' something, by proving it to be untrue?

If you believe Paul over Jesus, then you can say the Old Testament is out the window. Otherwise, you have to accept the Old Testament.

"Think not that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away [Note: heaven and earth are still here, so The Law must be too], not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these Commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19 RSV)

Show me the laws, Neo.

Show me where they exist... not just some guy explaining what they 'mean'.


Fine


1)
Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. "Old churches" are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.

2)
Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.

3)
Zimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.

4)
Zimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.

5)
Zimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.

6)
Zimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.

7)
Zimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.

Happy now?


By the way - I don't think you really know what you are saying above... you are claiming that much of the content of Old Testament has been 'debunked' by the New?

Do you realise that you 'debunk' something, by proving it to be untrue?

The laws in the Old Testement are debunked by the new. The Bible thorughly explains this. See here

http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/OldVsNewCovenant.html

It is now inactive dogma, you dont have to do those things that the old Testement demands any more.

Rather than attacking me, how about you actually try and answer my question. Which is how do these laws and ideas link to Islam?

The laws in the Old Testement are debunked by the new. The Bible thorughly explains this. See here

http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/OldVsNewCovenant.html

It is now inactive dogma, you dont have to do those things that the old Testement demands any more.

Rather than attacking me, how about you actually try and answer my question. Which is how do these laws and ideas link to Islam?

They are made inactive only by Paul. Not by Jesus. Unless you want to say that Jesus didn't say what he said.

Islam is intolerant
4: Women

101 And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.

5: The Table Spread

12 Allah made a covenant of old with the Children of Israel and We raised among them twelve chieftains, and Allah said: Lo! I am with you. If ye establish worship and pay the poor-due, and believe in My messengers and support them, and lend unto Allah a kindly loan, surely I shall remit your sins, and surely I shall bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow. Whoso among you disbelieveth after this will go astray from a plain road.
13 And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from all save a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly

Surah 8

65 O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.


And Christianity is no better

Titus 1

1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;



And the Mormons

1 Nephi

[4:13] Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

If you believe Paul over Jesus, then you can say the Old Testament is out the window. Otherwise, you have to accept the Old Testament.

"Think not that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away [Note: heaven and earth are still here, so The Law must be too], not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these Commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19 RSV)

I, personally, have no time for 'christian' theology - that being theology that purports to be Christian, but does not follow Christ.

Thus... 'christian'.

But, Neo KEEPS referring to the Old Testament laws as 'debunked'... his wording is peculiar.. he is not saying 'replaced', he is saying 'proved untrue'.

I agree with you, that SCRIPTURALLY, the Old Law is as 'valid' as the New.