OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 29, 2014, 08:19:25 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Feel free to ask me anything about Islam...  (Read 26681 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
essene19
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Islam
Posts: 45


« Reply #540 on: April 29, 2013, 12:58:35 PM »

Sorry, but this is one of the worst arguments I have heard. Lets take for example the conquest of Jerusalem. What was the injustice done to the people in Jerusalem so that the Muslims had to intervene against the Eastern Roman Empire? I can not remember any. In fact, the Byzantines protected the Christians there from the attacks of the Persians. And in 1099, the Muslims there destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and many other Christian objects. That does not sound like justice to me at all.

How did the Byzantines treat the so called "heretical" Christians, especially in Syria?  I'll tell you: like crap.

As for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, what the Muslims did in 1099 was shameful and wrong - but it happened in 1099, far removed from the time of the first 4 caliphs.  Read about the Caliph Umar's entry intro Jerusalem and how he treated the churches there.  And before anyone brings up the Pact of Umar - it is a forgery that was posthumously attributed to him (at least according the academics I studied with in college).  It probably belongs in the Umayyad era rather than the first generation.

I already mentioned that what later Muslims did, starting with the Umayyad dynasty, is when imperialism and downright supremacism really steeped in.
Logged
DuxI
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Macedonian Orthodox Church
Posts: 140



« Reply #541 on: April 29, 2013, 01:15:57 PM »

Sorry, but this is one of the worst arguments I have heard. Lets take for example the conquest of Jerusalem. What was the injustice done to the people in Jerusalem so that the Muslims had to intervene against the Eastern Roman Empire? I can not remember any. In fact, the Byzantines protected the Christians there from the attacks of the Persians. And in 1099, the Muslims there destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and many other Christian objects. That does not sound like justice to me at all.

How did the Byzantines treat the so called "heretical" Christians, especially in Syria?  I'll tell you: like crap.

As for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, what the Muslims did in 1099 was shameful and wrong - but it happened in 1099, far removed from the time of the first 4 caliphs.  Read about the Caliph Umar's entry intro Jerusalem and how he treated the churches there.  And before anyone brings up the Pact of Umar - it is a forgery that was posthumously attributed to him (at least according the academics I studied with in college).  It probably belongs in the Umayyad era rather than the first generation.

I already mentioned that what later Muslims did, starting with the Umayyad dynasty, is when imperialism and downright supremacism really steeped in.

If you read carefully, I did not mention Syria, Egypt, I mentioned Jerusalem. Leave Syria out of this argument, because i did not mention the Muslim conquest of Syria. I mentioned Jerusalem . For the conquest of Jerusalem, none of the justifications you numbered matches.
Logged
essene19
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Islam
Posts: 45


« Reply #542 on: April 29, 2013, 01:33:37 PM »

Sorry, but this is one of the worst arguments I have heard. Lets take for example the conquest of Jerusalem. What was the injustice done to the people in Jerusalem so that the Muslims had to intervene against the Eastern Roman Empire? I can not remember any. In fact, the Byzantines protected the Christians there from the attacks of the Persians. And in 1099, the Muslims there destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and many other Christian objects. That does not sound like justice to me at all.

How did the Byzantines treat the so called "heretical" Christians, especially in Syria?  I'll tell you: like crap.

As for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, what the Muslims did in 1099 was shameful and wrong - but it happened in 1099, far removed from the time of the first 4 caliphs.  Read about the Caliph Umar's entry intro Jerusalem and how he treated the churches there.  And before anyone brings up the Pact of Umar - it is a forgery that was posthumously attributed to him (at least according the academics I studied with in college).  It probably belongs in the Umayyad era rather than the first generation.

I already mentioned that what later Muslims did, starting with the Umayyad dynasty, is when imperialism and downright supremacism really steeped in.

If you read carefully, I did not mention Syria, Egypt, I mentioned Jerusalem. Leave Syria out of this argument, because i did not mention the Muslim conquest of Syria. I mentioned Jerusalem . For the conquest of Jerusalem, none of the justifications you numbered matches.

Jerusalem was a part of Syria for the Muslims - The region known as al-Sham (Greater Syria) in Islamic vocabulary also includes all of Palestine.  They didn't refer to it as Syria during the conquests, they referred to it as al-Sham.  It was always considered important, due to the fact that so many Prophets lived there (in Jerusalem specifically), and al-Sham was believed to be where Jesus would eventually return. 

In addition to the reasons I mentioned for the conquest of Persian and Roman territory, I forgot to mention the idea of a pre-emptive strike.  Umar might have wanted to hit at the Romans first before they did, assuming that he had received intelligence at that time indicating the Romans were preparing for such an attack.  The geopolitics of that time isn't known to us in great detail, so both you and I are at a disadvantage when it comes to examining the why and how of the initial conquests.

However, there is very little disagreement with regard to what the Umayyads did amongst academics - it was nonstop warfare and expansion.
Logged
DuxI
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Macedonian Orthodox Church
Posts: 140



« Reply #543 on: April 29, 2013, 02:00:10 PM »

Sorry, but this is one of the worst arguments I have heard. Lets take for example the conquest of Jerusalem. What was the injustice done to the people in Jerusalem so that the Muslims had to intervene against the Eastern Roman Empire? I can not remember any. In fact, the Byzantines protected the Christians there from the attacks of the Persians. And in 1099, the Muslims there destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and many other Christian objects. That does not sound like justice to me at all.

How did the Byzantines treat the so called "heretical" Christians, especially in Syria?  I'll tell you: like crap.

As for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, what the Muslims did in 1099 was shameful and wrong - but it happened in 1099, far removed from the time of the first 4 caliphs.  Read about the Caliph Umar's entry intro Jerusalem and how he treated the churches there.  And before anyone brings up the Pact of Umar - it is a forgery that was posthumously attributed to him (at least according the academics I studied with in college).  It probably belongs in the Umayyad era rather than the first generation.

I already mentioned that what later Muslims did, starting with the Umayyad dynasty, is when imperialism and downright supremacism really steeped in.

If you read carefully, I did not mention Syria, Egypt, I mentioned Jerusalem. Leave Syria out of this argument, because i did not mention the Muslim conquest of Syria. I mentioned Jerusalem . For the conquest of Jerusalem, none of the justifications you numbered matches.

Jerusalem was a part of Syria for the Muslims - The region known as al-Sham (Greater Syria) in Islamic vocabulary also includes all of Palestine.  They didn't refer to it as Syria during the conquests, they referred to it as al-Sham.  It was always considered important, due to the fact that so many Prophets lived there (in Jerusalem specifically), and al-Sham was believed to be where Jesus would eventually return. 

In addition to the reasons I mentioned for the conquest of Persian and Roman territory, I forgot to mention the idea of a pre-emptive strike.  Umar might have wanted to hit at the Romans first before they did, assuming that he had received intelligence at that time indicating the Romans were preparing for such an attack.  The geopolitics of that time isn't known to us in great detail, so both you and I are at a disadvantage when it comes to examining the why and how of the initial conquests.

However, there is very little disagreement with regard to what the Umayyads did amongst academics - it was nonstop warfare and expansion.

Essene19, all this that you have mentioned about the conquest of Jerusalem is not a justified reason to attack and take something from someone. Not even according to your standards, because you know very well that this arguments can be used to justify the First Crusade too.
So, in this attack, I can not see anything different than imperialism and political interests.
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #544 on: April 29, 2013, 03:34:25 PM »


Well, this is going to lead to a very long theological debate, but I will keep it simple.  Those who will to be misguided, who have a "disease" in their hearts, those who are not interested in truth but in spreading dissension, it is those insincere people that Satan will deceive and lead astray.  Of course, that can all change if they repent and change their ways - the door of repentance is always open in Islam.  As you yourself would agree, it's about free-will.

And why is the idea that God allows Satan to operate so problematic, especially for a Christian such as yourself?  Because if Satan is his own independent entity that is opposing God, can't God just stop him if He is all-powerful?  And if He can't, then what does that say about God in the first place?  The problem of evil is solved in Islam in this sense - both good and bad come from God, meaning that whatever befalls you can only befall you with His permission.  You will find this idea echoed strongly in The Didache. What is seemingly evil or bad to us can lead to a great good, you may never know..  Human foresight is limited and weak.

God says in the Quran that Satan is an enemy to mankind and we are not to follow him.  Simple as that.  Everything also is God's business, as far as I'm concerned.

My question was rhetorical and aimed to prove the weakness of your former argument.

I do believe that those other faiths have elements of truth but got corrupted over time.  As I mentioned in another post, Muslims believe that a total of 124,000 prophets were sent to mankind, which would definitely account for all the different religions we see all over the world.  If you look at some Native American tribes and their beliefs, you will find very monotheistic elements, which says something.

...but you are trying to evade my question. What if Islam is one of such false religions? Actually, I believe Islam to be a false and cheap version of Judaism applied to Arabs and combined with several pagan elements. I also believe that the Qur'an is but a distorted version of the Bible. This is why it has little truth in itself (for instance, it endorses Jesus' miraculous conception, but presents a modified version of the accounts taken from the non-canonical Gospels of Infancy).

Could you please name at least 100 of those supposed prophets and tell me the place and time of their mission?

The Qur'an identifies clearly who and what the Satanic figure is - he is a jinn, not a fallen angel.  It answers why Satan became Satan and how he became an enemy to the human race.  And the Quran talks about what the jinn are and what they do - they are basically the entities you know as demons in the Christian tradition.

and this story is taken from Talmudic Judaism. The Torah focuses on the creation and fall of mankind rather than the origin of Satan.

It IS possible to consider Satan a fallen angel in accordance with the following Qur'an verse:

And when We said unto the angels: Prostrate yourselves before Adam, they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He demurred through pride, and so became a disbeliever. (Surah 2:34)

Wa-ith qulna lilmala-ikati osjudoo li-adama fasajadoo illa ibleesa aba waistakbara wakana mina alkafireena

Thus, the Qur'an is not clear on the identity of Iblis.

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of the verses of the Quran are devoted to Resurrection Day, the Final Judgment, and the Hereafter.  Moreso than any other scripture in the world, Islam talks about the significance and purpose of death, and what the after-life is going to be like.  It  goes into more detail regarding the nature of the Final Judgment than any other scripture.  Judaism hinted at it, Christianity brought it to the forefront, and Islam expanded on it further.  It's like a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end.  According to the Islamic tradition, Muhammad is the final prophet because he is the prophet of the End Times - his very coming initiated the End Time (we've all been living in it our whole lives - the countdown to Judgment Day has already begun).  A thousands years for man is nothing in the sight of God.  There will no more authentic prophets after him that bring a new Revelation to expand on what God has already taught man.   Everything that has been needed to be said has been said, its up to humans now to do the work of ascertaining Truth.

This is rather natural when we remember that Islam came many centuries after Judaism and even Christianity. All the major stories presented as evidence for bodily resurrection in the Qur'an are taken either from Judaic or Christian sources. For instance, the verse relating the bodily resurrection of an unidentified man (Surah 2:259) was clearly taken from the Legends of the Jews. http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/jftl/jftl19.htm

Another outstanding story concerning the resurrection of youths in a cave (Surah 18:9) was plagiarized from Christian martyrology (Seven Sleepers of Ephesus). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_sleepers

Wrong.  

Cite the verse if you are truthful. There is not a single verse in the Qur'an that says Jesus will return on the Day of Judgment. (I must remind you once more that I am not a Christian who has never studied Islam in his life, but an ex-Muslim who converted to Christianity many years ago).

There are very strong allusions in the Quran to Jesus's return

These depend on the reader's personal interpretation, not the text itself.

and the hadiths that detail his descend in the End of Time have been considered to be mutawatir (meaning that they came from so many different chains of transmission that the likelihood of them being fabricated is pretty much impossible).  Of course, there are Muslims who have argued the opposite, that the return of Jesus is a fabrication, but I don't find their arguments to be convincing.

That too is a personal conclusion. I could also put forward theories to debunk those "presumptions". Besides, I wrote that the Islamic tradition regarding Jesus' second coming was not of Quranic origin. You cannot deny this fact unless you have a different Qur'an version. Since I did not say anything about the Hadith on this issue, your response looks like a red herring. The Hadith cannot prove that this tenet or tradition came from the Qur'an. Wink
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
essene19
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Islam
Posts: 45


« Reply #545 on: April 29, 2013, 03:49:37 PM »

Sorry, but this is one of the worst arguments I have heard. Lets take for example the conquest of Jerusalem. What was the injustice done to the people in Jerusalem so that the Muslims had to intervene against the Eastern Roman Empire? I can not remember any. In fact, the Byzantines protected the Christians there from the attacks of the Persians. And in 1099, the Muslims there destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and many other Christian objects. That does not sound like justice to me at all.

How did the Byzantines treat the so called "heretical" Christians, especially in Syria?  I'll tell you: like crap.

As for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, what the Muslims did in 1099 was shameful and wrong - but it happened in 1099, far removed from the time of the first 4 caliphs.  Read about the Caliph Umar's entry intro Jerusalem and how he treated the churches there.  And before anyone brings up the Pact of Umar - it is a forgery that was posthumously attributed to him (at least according the academics I studied with in college).  It probably belongs in the Umayyad era rather than the first generation.

I already mentioned that what later Muslims did, starting with the Umayyad dynasty, is when imperialism and downright supremacism really steeped in.

If you read carefully, I did not mention Syria, Egypt, I mentioned Jerusalem. Leave Syria out of this argument, because i did not mention the Muslim conquest of Syria. I mentioned Jerusalem . For the conquest of Jerusalem, none of the justifications you numbered matches.

Jerusalem was a part of Syria for the Muslims - The region known as al-Sham (Greater Syria) in Islamic vocabulary also includes all of Palestine.  They didn't refer to it as Syria during the conquests, they referred to it as al-Sham.  It was always considered important, due to the fact that so many Prophets lived there (in Jerusalem specifically), and al-Sham was believed to be where Jesus would eventually return. 

In addition to the reasons I mentioned for the conquest of Persian and Roman territory, I forgot to mention the idea of a pre-emptive strike.  Umar might have wanted to hit at the Romans first before they did, assuming that he had received intelligence at that time indicating the Romans were preparing for such an attack.  The geopolitics of that time isn't known to us in great detail, so both you and I are at a disadvantage when it comes to examining the why and how of the initial conquests.

However, there is very little disagreement with regard to what the Umayyads did amongst academics - it was nonstop warfare and expansion.

Essene19, all this that you have mentioned about the conquest of Jerusalem is not a justified reason to attack and take something from someone. Not even according to your standards, because you know very well that this arguments can be used to justify the First Crusade too.
So, in this attack, I can not see anything different than imperialism and political interests.


Alright, let’s start from the beginning:

One poster asked about why the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet) engaged in wars of expansion.  I pointed out that during the era of the first 4 caliphs, the Rashidun Caliphate, the Muslims only had two targets in their sights: the Eastern Roman Empire and Sassanid Persia.

The question is why, and it is a very interesting historical question that has yet to be fully answered in a satisfactory matter.  It’s a matter of interpretation, especially when you consider the fact that not all of the facts on the ground are available to us.

I proposed three possibilities:
1 – Eschatology
2 – An attempt to end corrupt Sassanid and Roman rule and introduce Islam, especially in Jerusalem due to its prophetic legacy.
3 – A preemptive strike.

I don’t have a final answer because I have not studied the topic in depth.

But here is one thing I want to point out right away.  First, look at a map from the 7th century – both of those empires bordered Arabia.  Even before Muhammad’s death, the Romans had already started amassing troops on the border – this is a threat, and there were already indications that the Romans intended to engage in an offensive attack eventually.  Muhammad did send an army to confront the Romans but it was for defensive purposes.  Even the supposed radical scholar Ibn Taymiyyah said that after examining all of the Prophet’s wars (by mining all the sources available to him), he could only conclude that all of the Prophet’s wars were either defensive in nature or were pre-emptive strikes against tribes who were about to attack.

Secondly, fighting and warfare was a part of everyday life for the Bedouin Arabs, and that explains why Islam did much to incorporate and regulate warfare in its doctrine.  Turning the other cheek would not have been realistic for those people; Muhammad took that desert ethos of the Arabs and transmuted it in order to serve a higher cause.

I have no qualms in admitting that Islam incorporates warfare into its doctrine, but it regulates and limits it.  The killing of civilians, monks, women, children, the elderly, and non-combatants is strictly prohibited.  However, human nature being what it is, that was not always properly implemented in practice.  On numerous occasions, Muslims did engage in massacres and unjust acts against Christians, I don’t deny that.

I do agree that Jesus’s teachings are beautiful and morally superior to follow on an individual basis, but it would not work on a wider societal level that needs law and order.  Even the Byzantine Empire, which some Orthodox Christians love to praise, was ruled at certain times by bloody tyrants who justified their tyranny in the name of God.  The Ottomans were no different.

You say taking something that belongs to someone else is wrong – I agree, but since when did Jerusalem belong to you or anyone else? Muslims took al-Sham by beating the Romans and got the city through warfare.  If we go by your logic, then the Romans had no right to take Jerusalem either.  This is the nature of empire, war, and politics. Jerusalem is no one’s personal property. The same goes for any piece of land on the Earth.  All of the Earth belongs to God and God alone, and people are on a piece of land or territory as long as they can enforce their right to be there.  No nation, so to speak, has the “right” to exist.  You put up a flag, pick up your gun, and protect yourself.  That is pretty terrible, but that’s how the “fallen” world works.

And what about the Old Testament and the war on the Canaanites?  Didn’t the Children of Israel feel mandated by God to take away the land of the Canaanites? I’ve yet to come across any Christian response that is convincing.  You can say that Christ came along and changed that law, but that still does not address the fact that what we see in parts of the Old Testament is very much the complete opposite of the New Testament message.  Old Testament law, some Christians say, was for those unruly and barbaric people.  Okay, let’s accept that argument.  Why can’t the same be said for people of Muhammad’s time and era?  The pre-Islamic pagan Arabs even had sexual relations with their own mothers and consumed urine.   The people of Canaan engaged in cannibalism according to some accounts.  Maybe the Bedouin Arabs weren’t ready for the way shown by the New Testament either, and tough measures were needed to wipe away their idolatry.

You have not addressed the fact that Umar’s treatment of Christians and their property in Jerusalem was exemplary.  Read the story of how he entered Jerusalem and forbid his men from praying inside The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in order to protect it from being converted to a mosque– all you did was bring me an example from 1099, which is irrelevant to this discussion. 

Islam didn’t come to places like China or Indonesia or Malaysia through warfare – it was mostly through travel and trade.  Did the early Muslims conquer Ethiopia?  No, they didn’t, and that itself is very telling, even though Ethiopia (at the time, they called it Abyssinia) was very close to Arabia.  So that brings back the question of why the first Muslims went after Rome and Persia specifically.

As for the first Crusade, it was a political war disguised in the cloak of religion.  The people of Europe were barbarically warring with one another nonstop and the Pope came up with the idea of creating a common enemy in order to unite the European masses at the time.  Regardless of the moral legitimacy of his actions, his policy worked.  Muslims need to get over the Crusades and just shut up about it.   What’s past is past.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,462



« Reply #546 on: April 29, 2013, 03:50:32 PM »

What is your point? Who doesn't say that the Quran doesn't have elements of Judaism, Arabic paganism, and Christianity within in it?

One of the main points of the Quran (it does talk about itself alot) is to return these messages back to their original form. (It is those messages which are abrogated not the Quran itself, BTW, according to the Quran).

Frankly the problem of evil makes almost no sense within way of looking at it in light of typical apology of mainstream Judaism, Islam, or Christianity.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,462



« Reply #547 on: April 29, 2013, 03:51:35 PM »

EDIT: This is in response to Theophilos . . .

What is your point? Who doesn't say that the Quran doesn't have elements of Judaism, Arabic paganism, and Christianity within in it?

One of the main points of the Quran (it does talk about itself alot) is to return these messages back to their original form. (It is those messages which are abrogated not the Quran itself, BTW, according to the Quran).

Frankly the problem of evil makes almost no sense within way of looking at it in light of typical apology of mainstream Judaism, Islam, or Christianity.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #548 on: April 29, 2013, 04:06:10 PM »


What is your point? Who doesn't say that the Quran doesn't have elements of Judaism, Arabic paganism, and Christianity within in it?

Muslims do not believe that the stories in the Qur'an were plagiarized from other texts. They claim them to be of divine origin.

One of the main points of the Quran (it does talk about itself alot) is to return these messages back to their original form. (It is those messages which are abrogated not the Quran itself, BTW, according to the Quran).


This is a mere assumption. Since I do not believe in the Qur'an, I do not buy the corruption theory. Muslims must prove that the Qur'an contains the original version of all those accounts. In order to do that they must find a text that historically predates the Bible and presents the stories in the same way as the Qur'an. In short, they must prove that the Bible is the corrupted version of the Qur'an.

Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,462



« Reply #549 on: April 29, 2013, 04:11:26 PM »


What is your point? Who doesn't say that the Quran doesn't have elements of Judaism, Arabic paganism, and Christianity within in it?

Muslims do not believe that the stories in the Qur'an were plagiarized from other texts. They claim them to be of divine origin.

One of the main points of the Quran (it does talk about itself alot) is to return these messages back to their original form. (It is those messages which are abrogated not the Quran itself, BTW, according to the Quran).


This is a mere assumption. Since I do not believe in the Qur'an, I do not buy the corruption theory. Muslims must prove that the Qur'an contains the original version of all those accounts. In order to do that they must find a text that historically predates the Bible and presents the stories in the same way as the Qur'an. In short, they must prove that the Bible is the corrupted version of the Qur'an.



And they are not plagiarized (Do you know what this word means?). And there is no burden of proof . . .

Why am I arguing with you? You have nothing to offer. Come back when you have some more interesting to offer than what I can find at The First Church of the True Authentic Cross of the Real Calgary's FAQ on Islam.

Your points so far are untrue at best. And unpersuasive at least.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #550 on: April 29, 2013, 04:27:05 PM »


And they are not plagiarized (Do you know what this word means?). And there is no burden of proof . . .

Keep entertaining yourself. There IS burden of proof for every assertion. Since you are unaware of this simple fact, you fall into logical fallacies so often.

Why am I arguing with you?

I do not know. Maybe you want to get rid of your monotonous life by exhibiting your amazing success in arrogance and flawed reasoning.

You have nothing to offer. Come back when you have some more interesting to offer than what I can find at The First Church of the True Authentic Cross of the Real Calgary's FAQ on Islam.

Orders from the fallen king of Babylonia?  Grin

Your points so far are untrue at best. And unpersuasive at least.

Opinions are like ......... Everybody has one.   laugh


Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
essene19
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Islam
Posts: 45


« Reply #551 on: April 29, 2013, 04:38:19 PM »


My question was rhetorical and aimed to prove the weakness of your former argument.

Nice way to evade what I'm saying.

Quote
...but you are trying to evade my question. What if Islam is one of such false religions? Actually, I believe Islam to be a false and cheap version of Judaism applied to Arabs and combined with several pagan elements. I also believe that the Qur'an is but a distorted version of the Bible. This is why it has little truth in itself (for instance, it endorses Jesus' miraculous conception, but presents a modified version of the accounts taken from the non-canonical Gospels of Infancy).

You are entitled to that opinion, and I am not evading your question.

I've considered long and hard the idea that Islam might be a false religion (and there is a lot out there to make one think that its a false religion), but it doesn't add up, at least for me.  The claim that it rips off the Bible is a pedestrian, cop out argument used by nearly everyone - if you actually read the Qur'an holistically, especially in Arabic, you will find a remarkable consistency in its tone, language, and themes.  And this is a revelation that was revealed over a 23 year period.  There are many verses that seemingly deal with the same topic, but once you look at them one by one, you will see how different verses elaborate on different aspects of a given story.

There were early Christians who followed the Mosaic law and were lambasted by other Christians, IMO, unjustifiably.  The one thing that always made me uneasy with the idea of becoming Christian was the abandonment of the Mosaic law - I find the doctrinal justification for this to be very weak, and I don't see any evidence that Jesus would have allowed the eating of pork.  Islam brought back what never should have been removed, which was some form of the Mosaic law.

And just because the infancy Gospels are non canonical doesn't mean that they don't contain truth.  For example, the Qur'an makes it clear that some of its verses are literal and some are allegorical - the story of Jesus as a child making doves out of clay is interpreted allegorically by some Sufis to illustrate a certain spiritual truth: a parallel is drawn between God fashioning man out of clay, and Jesus fashioning doves out of clay, the implication being that Jesus takes God's creation, man (the clay), and gives him spiritual liberation (the dove).  Or it could be actual literal truth, I don't have any final say in the matter.

Quote
Could you please name at least 100 of those supposed prophets and tell me the place and time of their mission?

25 prophets and messengers are mentioned in the Qur'an - as for the rest, I'll answer your question with a verse (40:78):

"And, indeed, We sent forth apostles before thy time; some of them We have mentioned to thee, and some of them We have not mentioned to thee. And it was not given to any apostle to bring forth a miracle other than by God’s leave.  Yet when God’s will becomes manifest, [59] judgment will [already] have been passed in all justice, and lost will be, then and there, all who tried to reduce to nothing [whatever they could not understand]."

The number 124,000 comes from hadith traditions.

That being said, Muslims have debated whether people like Buddha, Confucius, Plato, and even Aristotle might have been prophets sent to their communities. Since there is no certainty on the subject, Muslims have not said anything conclusive about the matter, and they think it is best to leave it to God.

The Qur'an identifies clearly who and what the Satanic figure is - he is a jinn, not a fallen angel.  It answers why Satan became Satan and how he became an enemy to the human race.  And the Quran talks about what the jinn are and what they do - they are basically the entities you know as demons in the Christian tradition.

and this story is taken from Talmudic Judaism. The Torah focuses on the creation and fall of mankind rather than the origin of Satan.

It IS possible to consider Satan a fallen angel in accordance with the following Qur'an verse:

And when We said unto the angels: Prostrate yourselves before Adam, they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He demurred through pride, and so became a disbeliever. (Surah 2:34)

Wa-ith qulna lilmala-ikati osjudoo li-adama fasajadoo illa ibleesa aba waistakbara wakana mina alkafireena

Thus, the Qur'an is not clear on the identity of Iblis.
Quote

You just made it abundantly clear that you never read the Qur'an in its entirety.  Quranic verses should not be taken out of isolation in a way that disregards everything else in the text.  As I mentioned above, the Qur'an repeats certain stories throughout, and each time, it brings up something new.  If you look at all the other verses dealing with Iblis, you will see that he is clearly identified as a jinn.  And the Quran goes into some detail as to who the jinn are and what separates them from angels and humans.  If you're interested to know, a lot of paranormal researchers are now looking into the jinn/demon phenonomenon to explain ghosts, poltergeists, UFO activity, etc.

As for why a jinn was amongst the angels during Creation, that has been a topic for debate.  According to Islamic lore, Iblis himself was once God's greatest servant, and he was considered the teacher of the angels.

There are many truths in the Talmud that the Jews received from other prophetic sources, and the Qur'an is bringing it out to the forefront - there is nothing with that.  Muhammad came to confirm the truth of previous messages, warn about the Hereafter,and make plain concealed or forgotten truths in the scriptures.  He himself did not claim to bring anything new, but rather a continuation and confirmation of what came before.

Quote
This is rather natural when we remember that Islam came many centuries after Judaism and even Christianity. All the major stories presented as evidence for bodily resurrection in the Qur'an are taken either from Judaic or Christian sources. For instance, the verse relating the bodily resurrection of an unidentified man (Surah 2:259) was clearly taken from the Legends of the Jews. http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/jftl/jftl19.htm

Quranic verses also came to answer certain claims and questions that Jews posed to Muhammad, so I'm not surprised that the Quran would mention something in the Talmud - even the verse about "if you kill one person, its as if you killed the whole world" is confirmed by the Quran itself to be a teaching that was given to the Children of Israel.  This does not prove that its plagiarism.  I can argue from the perspective that I presented earlier: Islam is a continuation and an ending.

Judaism: Beginning
Christianity: Middle
Islam: End

But you still didn't address my point regarding ALL of the verses dealing with the topic of Ressurection, the Final Judgment, and Paradise/Hell - making the claim that all of it was taken from Jewish and Christian sources without fully examining the text is just lazy.  And you still didn't answer my point over why the scriptural emphasis we see in Islam for this is not mirrored to the same extent in its two predecessors (the teaching of Jesus being the exception?)  If Muhammad was an imposter, as most here seem to believe, then we was very good one, as he was able to talk about a major topic central to the Abrahamic faiths and bring it to its logical conclusion.

Quote
Another outstanding story concerning the resurrection of youths in a cave (Surah 18:9) was plagiarized from Christian martyrology (Seven Sleepers of Ephesus). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_sleepers

It's not plagiarism in the slightest - the story is reiterated in the Quran to highlight a truth, and the Surah that it takes place in is VERY significant.  The 18th Surah - the Cave.  Muslims are advised by Muhammad to recite and read this surah every friday in order to be protected from the tribulation of the Anti-Christ.  There is much I can say about this Surah, but I will leave it at that for now.

The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus is a legend based on truth, and those seven believers are considered to be true, pious believers in Islam.

Quote
Cite the verse if you are truthful. There is not a single verse in the Qur'an that says Jesus will return on the Day of Judgment. (I must remind you once more that I am not a Christian who has never studied Islam in his life, but an ex-Muslim who converted to Christianity many years ago).


I won't deny your claim, but I have to say, based on what you've said, I don't think you were a very knowledge Muslim when you were one.  And here are the verses:

"He is a Sign of the Hour. Have no doubt about it. But follow me. This is a straight path." (Quran 43:61).  Some Muslims have interpreted the "he" (huwa) in this verse to the refer to the Quran, but if you look at the two preceding verses, it is clear who the Quran is referring to - it's Jesus.

Here's another, which has been debated by some Muslims.  But the general interpretation has been that it talks about Jesus during his second coming:

"There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them " (4:159).
Quote
That too is a personal conclusion. I could also put forward theories to debunk those "presumptions". Besides, I wrote that the Islamic tradition regarding Jesus' second coming was not of Quranic origin. You cannot deny this fact unless you have a different Qur'an version. Since I did not say anything about the Hadith on this issue, your response looks like a red herring. The Hadith cannot prove that this tenet or tradition came from the Qur'an.

How is it a red herring?  You're just evading my point.  I brought up the mutawaatir hadiths in order to show that many authentic hadith traditions elaborate further on what the Qur'an is alluding to regarding the return of Jesus.  Belief in the return of Jesus is even accepted as part of creed of the ahlul-Sunnah wal Jamaa (the proper term for Sunni Muslims).
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #552 on: April 29, 2013, 05:58:10 PM »


Nice way to evade what I'm saying.


This is another way of confessing that you do not know what a rhetorical question is.

I've considered long and hard the idea that Islam might be a false religion (and there is a lot out there to make one think that its a false religion), but it doesn't add up, at least for me.  The claim that it rips off the Bible is a pedestrian, cop out argument used by nearly everyone - if you actually read the Qur'an holistically, especially in Arabic, you will find a remarkable consistency in its tone, language, and themes.  


Why Arabic? Consistency is not bound to a language. It is irrational to claim that the consistency of the Qur'an is limited to Arabic. I have read the entire Qur'an several times from different translations and in different languages and still failed to detect that consistency. Even the two narratives concerning Christ's nativity and infancy in the Qur'an are by no means consistent. The more I read the Qur'an the more I was convinced that it was committed to writing by different hands after major modifications.

And this is a revelation that was revealed over a 23 year period.  There are many verses that seemingly deal with the same topic, but once you look at them one by one, you will see how different verses elaborate on different aspects of a given story.


Some topics occur only once in the Qur'an whereas some of them many times. This too is a sign of inconsistency in my view.

There were early Christians who followed the Mosaic law and were lambasted by other Christians, IMO, unjustifiably.  The one thing that always made me uneasy with the idea of becoming Christian was the abandonment of the Mosaic law - I find the doctrinal justification for this to be very weak, and I don't see any evidence that Jesus would have allowed the eating of pork.  Islam brought back what never should have been removed, which was some form of the Mosaic law.


Islam also abandoned the Mosaic Law and Muhammad bafflingly taught that Jesus came to make some of the previously unclean food clean to Jews. How could you remain a Muslim after reading this Quranic teaching then?

Why did Muhammad leave the Mosaic Law and consider camel a pure animal although it is overtly stated to be impure in the Torah? Sorry, but I do not think you are being sincere now.

And just because the infancy Gospels are non canonical doesn't mean that they don't contain truth.  


This is a straw-man. I never claimed the opposite. I only said that the writer of the Qur'an borrowed a lot from those non-canonical texts and modified their content for their adaptation to Islamic teachings.

For example, the Qur'an makes it clear that some of its verses are literal and some are allegorical - the story of Jesus as a child making doves out of clay is interpreted allegorically by some Sufis to illustrate a certain spiritual truth: a parallel is drawn between God fashioning man out of clay, and Jesus fashioning doves out of clay, the implication being that Jesus takes God's creation, man (the clay), and gives him spiritual liberation (the dove).  Or it could be actual literal truth, I don't have any final say in the matter.


The real question: who decides which verses are allegorical and which are literal?

25 prophets and messengers are mentioned in the Qur'an - as for the rest, I'll answer your question with a verse (40:78):

"And, indeed, We sent forth apostles before thy time; some of them We have mentioned to thee, and some of them We have not mentioned to thee. And it was not given to any apostle to bring forth a miracle other than by God’s leave.  Yet when God’s will becomes manifest, [59] judgment will [already] have been passed in all justice, and lost will be, then and there, all who tried to reduce to nothing [whatever they could not understand]."

The number 124,000 comes from hadith traditions.


What is the point of giving that weird number if even 100 of those supposed prophets cannot be named?

That being said, Muslims have debated whether people like Buddha, Confucius, Plato, and even Aristotle might have been prophets sent to their communities. Since there is no certainty on the subject, Muslims have not said anything conclusive about the matter, and they think it is best to leave it to God.


This is debatable too. Nothing in the Qur'an to support or debunk these presumptions.


You just made it abundantly clear that you never read the Qur'an in its entirety.  


Quoting a single Qur'an verse does not mean that I am not aware of all the other verses on this issue or I have not read the Qur'an in its entirety. I only quoted a verse to show that the writer of the Qur'an was confused about this topic and reflected his uncertainty.

Quranic verses should not be taken out of isolation in a way that disregards everything else in the text.  As I mentioned above, the Qur'an repeats certain stories throughout, and each time, it brings up something new.  If you look at all the other verses dealing with Iblis, you will see that he is clearly identified as a jinn.  


In all the verses except for Surah 2:34 then. A person reading this verse naturally thinks that Iblis was one of the angels. The writer of the Qur'an could have been clearer and prevented this confusion.

And the Quran goes into some detail as to who the jinn are and what separates them from angels and humans.  If you're interested to know, a lot of paranormal researchers are now looking into the jinn/demon phenonomenon to explain ghosts, poltergeists, UFO activity, etc.

As for why a jinn was amongst the angels during Creation, that has been a topic for debate.  According to Islamic lore, Iblis himself was once God's greatest servant, and he was considered the teacher of the angels.


Yet the Qur'an does not explain why in Surah 2:34 Iblis is reckoned as one of the angels.

There are many truths in the Talmud that the Jews received from other prophetic sources, and the Qur'an is bringing it out to the forefront - there is nothing with that.  


There is something wrong with that: presenting the Talmud as the authoritative word of God.

More, I do not believe that the Jews received some truth in the Talmud from "other prophetic sources".

Finally, why don't you bellieve in the entirety of the Talmud if it is true and reliable?

Muhammad came to confirm the truth of previous messages, warn about the Hereafter,and make plain concealed or forgotten truths in the scriptures.  He himself did not claim to bring anything new, but rather a continuation and confirmation of what came before.


That is what he claimed. Yet he failed to prove his assertions and showed that he was a false prophet. The stories in the Talmud were never a part of the Torah or Tanakh. They were written several years later in the same way as the Qur'an.


Quranic verses also came to answer certain claims and questions that Jews posed to Muhammad, so I'm not surprised that the Quran would mention something in the Talmud - even the verse about "if you kill one person, its as if you killed the whole world" is confirmed by the Quran itself to be a teaching that was given to the Children of Israel.
   

Yet this was taken from the Talmud and born from a Rabbi's interpretation of the plural use of the word "damim" in the Torah. This teaching cannot be found in the Torah. Thus, what the Qur'an mistakenly confirmed was not the Tanakh, but a Rabbi's personal commentary.

This does not prove that its plagiarism.  I can argue from the perspective that I presented earlier: Islam is a continuation and an ending.

Judaism: Beginning
Christianity: Middle
Islam: End


There is no evidence for that. A follower of Bahaism could do what you are doing now to claim that Bahaullah is a true prophet.

You must prove that the Qur'an contains the genuine version of the stories.

But you still didn't address my point regarding ALL of the verses dealing with the topic of Ressurection, the Final Judgment, and Paradise/Hell - making the claim that all of it was taken from Jewish and Christian sources without fully examining the text is just lazy.
 And you still didn't answer my point over why the scriptural emphasis we see in Islam for this is not mirrored to the same extent in its two predecessors (the teaching of Jesus being the exception?)  


First, the fundamental tenet of Christianity is that Jesus rose on the third day.

Second, the reason underlying the emphasis on the theme of resurrection in the Qur'an is the fact that Muhammad's ancestors and Meccan paganism did not believe in the bodily resurrection, considering it ridiculous and constantly deriding the idea. Thus, the environment and what Muhammad's opponents mainly believed or disbelieved had a great effect on the content of the Qur'an. 

If Muhammad was an imposter, as most here seem to believe, then we was very good one, as he was able to talk about a major topic central to the Abrahamic faiths and bring it to its logical conclusion.


What logical conclusion is that? Muhammad himself believed in the life after death and tried to convince the idolaters. That is so simple.

It's not plagiarism in the slightest - the story is reiterated in the Quran to highlight a truth


yet that story cannot be found in the New Testament.

and the Surah that it takes place in is VERY significant.  The 18th Surah - the Cave.  Muslims are advised by Muhammad to recite and read this surah every friday in order to be protected from the tribulation of the Anti-Christ.  There is much I can say about this Surah, but I will leave it at that for now.


I am not interested in what the Surah says or how Islamic tradition interprets it. It is a story taken from Christian sources.


Your claim: Islam lays more emphasis on bodily resurrection than the other two faiths. However, the stories you can pick up to prove your argument were borrowed from Judaism and Christianity. This shows that your argument is not logical.

Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #553 on: April 29, 2013, 06:13:16 PM »


I won't deny your claim, but I have to say, based on what you've said, I don't think you were a very knowledge Muslim when you were one.  And here are the verses:

"He is a Sign of the Hour. Have no doubt about it. But follow me. This is a straight path." (Quran 43:61).  Some Muslims have interpreted the "he" (huwa) in this verse to the refer to the Quran, but if you look at the two preceding verses, it is clear who the Quran is referring to - it's Jesus.

I am well aware of this verse and know that it has nothing to do with Jesus. Surah 43:59 stops talking about Jesus as Surah 43:60 is about angels:

And had We willed We could have set among you angels to be viceroys in the earth.

Even if we took the pronoun as a reference to Jesus (although the flow of the text does NOT make that crucial), we would only believe that Jesus is a sign of the hour. HOW He would be a sign of the hour is not stated in the verse. There is NOTHING implicit about His second coming or descension from heavens. More to the point, Surah 43 belongs to the pre-migration period. The denial of Jesus' crucifixion and the claim that He was taken up to heaven were incorporated into the Qur'an long after the migration. At the time Surah 43 was written, not even Muhammad knew or taught that Jesus was taken up to heaven!!! Thus, it was IMpossible for this verse to refer to Jesus' second coming at that time!  laugh

Here's another, which has been debated by some Muslims.  But the general interpretation has been that it talks about Jesus during his second coming:

"There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them " (4:159).

Again, nothing explicit. There is no reference to His second coming or war on the Anti-Christ.

How is it a red herring?  You're just evading my point.  I brought up the mutawaatir hadiths in order to show that many authentic hadith traditions elaborate further on what the Qur'an is alluding to regarding the return of Jesus.  Belief in the return of Jesus is even accepted as part of creed of the ahlul-Sunnah wal Jamaa (the proper term for Sunni Muslims).


Red herring: you are talking about Hadith whereas I did not even mention Hadith on this issue. I only said that this tenet cannot be found in the Qur'an.

Circular reasoning: Now you are trying to use the Hadith to prove your previous claim that the Qur'an refers to Jesus' second coming!  Grin
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
DuxI
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Macedonian Orthodox Church
Posts: 140



« Reply #554 on: April 29, 2013, 07:30:18 PM »


Alright, let’s start from the beginning:

One poster asked about why the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet) engaged in wars of expansion.  I pointed out that during the era of the first 4 caliphs, the Rashidun Caliphate, the Muslims only had two targets in their sights: the Eastern Roman Empire and Sassanid Persia.

Well, those were the only powerful countries that bordered Arabia. They could not attack any other country, even if they wanted to do that. Attacking Persia and Byzantium while they were vulnerable of the wars between them was the only way for the Muslims to become a true power.

The question is why, and it is a very interesting historical question that has yet to be fully answered in a satisfactory matter.  It’s a matter of interpretation, especially when you consider the fact that not all of the facts on the ground are available to us.

I proposed three possibilities:
1 – Eschatology
2 – An attempt to end corrupt Sassanid and Roman rule and introduce Islam, especially in Jerusalem due to its prophetic legacy.
3 – A preemptive strike.

I don’t have a final answer because I have not studied the topic in depth.

It is very easy to answer it. The Muslims wanted to expand, to establish their country as a power in that area, where the Romans and Persians had influence. Both states were in war at those times, both were weak, so the Muslims used that. It is simple as that.

But here is one thing I want to point out right away.  First, look at a map from the 7th century – both of those empires bordered Arabia.  Even before Muhammad’s death, the Romans had already started amassing troops on the border – this is a threat, and there were already indications that the Romans intended to engage in an offensive attack eventually.  Muhammad did send an army to confront the Romans but it was for defensive purposes.  Even the supposed radical scholar Ibn Taymiyyah said that after examining all of the Prophet’s wars (by mining all the sources available to him), he could only conclude that all of the Prophet’s wars were either defensive in nature or were pre-emptive strikes against tribes who were about to attack.

The Romans indeed spammed troops there, but not to invade Arabia, for them Arabia was lost, but to be ready for quick actions against Persia, because between Persia and the Roman Empire there was never trust, they broke the agreements as quickly as they made them. And, as I once said, I do not speak about the wars that Muhammad's wars, i speak about one case: the conquest of Jerusalem. I am focused on that, not on other wars,
As i said above, i do not speak about Syria, i do not speak about other Roman provinces. So, all those arguments you make about those wars are just for those wars. For that, we can discuss later.

Secondly, fighting and warfare was a part of everyday life for the Bedouin Arabs, and that explains why Islam did much to incorporate and regulate warfare in its doctrine.  Turning the other cheek would not have been realistic for those people; Muhammad took that desert ethos of the Arabs and transmuted it in order to serve a higher cause.

Yes, warfare and vendetta and similar things were part of everyday life of the pagan Arabs. Nobody denies that. And about taking those ethos of the Arabs and the people there, there is a good answer given by st. Cyril the Philosopher, but since we do not talk about that here, i will not mention it.

I have no qualms in admitting that Islam incorporates warfare into its doctrine, but it regulates and limits it.  The killing of civilians, monks, women, children, the elderly, and non-combatants is strictly prohibited.  However, human nature being what it is, that was not always properly implemented in practice.  On numerous occasions, Muslims did engage in massacres and unjust acts against Christians, I don’t deny that.

Do not forget to say that Muslims attacked Christians first too.

I do agree that Jesus’s teachings are beautiful and morally superior to follow on an individual basis, but it would not work on a wider societal level that needs law and order.  Even the Byzantine Empire, which some Orthodox Christians love to praise, was ruled at certain times by bloody tyrants who justified their tyranny in the name of God.  The Ottomans were no different.

Our Lord Jesus Christ never focused to teach on a wider societal level, because His mission was not to focus on laws, politics, authorities etc. but to help the fallen humanity and to free it from the chains of its sins. But, the Apostles did. Especially st. Paul. If you read carefully his Epistels, you will find verses that talk about authority, laws and about societal things.

You say taking something that belongs to someone else is wrong – I agree, but since when did Jerusalem belong to you or anyone else? Muslims took al-Sham by beating the Romans and got the city through warfare.  If we go by your logic, then the Romans had no right to take Jerusalem either.  This is the nature of empire, war, and politics. Jerusalem is no one’s personal property. The same goes for any piece of land on the Earth.  All of the Earth belongs to God and God alone, and people are on a piece of land or territory as long as they can enforce their right to be there.  No nation, so to speak, has the “right” to exist.  You put up a flag, pick up your gun, and protect yourself.  That is pretty terrible, but that’s how the “fallen” world works.

Where did i say that Jerusalem belonged to me? But at that time it belonged to the Christians. Yes, the Romans had no right to take Jerusalem either. But Jerusalem was taken by pagans, so we can not justify or condemn their actions from Christian and Islamic aspect too. But, with this argument you destroyed all your justified arguments you previously offered because indirectly you confessed that the Muslims took something that did not belong to them.
Even if we say the Romans did not have right in Jerusalem, that does not mean that Christians do not have right of that city, because most of the early Christians had Jewish origin.

And what about the Old Testament and the war on the Canaanites?  Didn’t the Children of Israel feel mandated by God to take away the land of the Canaanites? I’ve yet to come across any Christian response that is convincing.  You can say that Christ came along and changed that law, but that still does not address the fact that what we see in parts of the Old Testament is very much the complete opposite of the New Testament message.  Old Testament law, some Christians say, was for those unruly and barbaric people.  Okay, let’s accept that argument.  Why can’t the same be said for people of Muhammad’s time and era?  The pre-Islamic pagan Arabs even had sexual relations with their own mothers and consumed urine.   The people of Canaan engaged in cannibalism according to some accounts.  Maybe the Bedouin Arabs weren’t ready for the way shown by the New Testament either, and tough measures were needed to wipe away their idolatry.

Have you read the Old Testament carefully? Why God gave Canaan to the Israelites? Because in that place lived people that made such sins that the people nearby did not made. The worst of their sins - child sacrifices! So, God, many times said that He patiently waits for those people to do what they will do before giving them in the hands of the Israelites. That is why God commands the Israelites to destroy just those people, not other people and not to oppress people of other nations that dwell among the Israelites. Those people made such big sins, that God punished them by erasing them from the face of the Earth.  If you read the Bible, in many passages even after those events, the prophets announce that God's wrath will fall upon all that offer children as sacrifices. Well, we know what happened to the Aztecs.

You have not addressed the fact that Umar’s treatment of Christians and their property in Jerusalem was exemplary.  Read the story of how he entered Jerusalem and forbid his men from praying inside The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in order to protect it from being converted to a mosque– all you did was bring me an example from 1099, which is irrelevant to this discussion. 

True, he did all of that, i do not deny that, but still, that does not justify his war for Jerusalem. You still did not bring argument that will make the war for Jerusalem justified, even according to your Islamic standard of warfare.  

Islam didn’t come to places like China or Indonesia or Malaysia through warfare – it was mostly through travel and trade.  Did the early Muslims conquer Ethiopia?  No, they didn’t, and that itself is very telling, even though Ethiopia (at the time, they called it Abyssinia) was very close to Arabia.  So that brings back the question of why the first Muslims went after Rome and Persia specifically.

Yes, but it came on the Balkans through warfare, on the Iberian peninsula, north Africa, Sicily and other places. So, it is not just Rome and Persia.  Wink

As for the first Crusade, it was a political war disguised in the cloak of religion.  The people of Europe were barbarically warring with one another nonstop and the Pope came up with the idea of creating a common enemy in order to unite the European masses at the time.  Regardless of the moral legitimacy of his actions, his policy worked.  Muslims need to get over the Crusades and just shut up about it.   What’s past is past.

If the Muslims were peaceful and held their hands off the Christian holy sites, they would not have made Byzantium to appeal to the Pope for help. So, as we say in my country: What you called, that has answered.  Wink
Logged
essene19
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Islam
Posts: 45


« Reply #555 on: April 29, 2013, 07:33:07 PM »


This is another way of confessing that you do not know what a rhetorical question is.

Whatever dude.

Quote
Why Arabic? Consistency is not bound to a language. It is irrational to claim that the consistency of the Qur'an is limited to Arabic. I have read the entire Qur'an several times from different translations and in different languages and still failed to detect that consistency. Even the two narratives concerning Christ's nativity and infancy in the Qur'an are by no means consistent. The more I read the Qur'an the more I was convinced that it was committed to writing by different hands after major modifications.

Because its original language was in Arabic.  You claim to have read the Quran multiple times from multiple translations but still claim that from the Quran, one can come to the conclusion that Iblis was a fallen angel.  Isn't that contradictory?

Quote
Some topics occur only once in the Qur'an whereas some of them many times. This too is a sign of inconsistency in my view.

Maybe because it only needed to be said once.  We can go back and forth on this constantly, since its based on our subjective viewpoints.

Quote
Islam also abandoned the Mosaic Law and Muhammad bafflingly taught that Jesus came to make some of the previously unclean food clean to Jews. How could you remain a Muslim after reading this Quranic teaching then?

Muhammad brought a modified version of the Mosaic law - I mentioned that already

Quote
Why did Muhammad leave the Mosaic Law and consider camel a pure animal although it is overtly stated to be impure in the Torah? Sorry, but I do not think you are being sincere now.

Pure to eat?  I don't recall Muslims eating camels.  However, it is a plain historical fact that camels were necessary for life in Arabia at that time.  The books of jurisprudence go into much more detail about which animals are pure/impure.

Quote
This is a straw-man. I never claimed the opposite. I only said that the writer of the Qur'an borrowed a lot from those non-canonical texts and modified their content for their adaptation to Islamic teachings.

That is your own conjecture, you have no solid evidence to support claims of plagiarism.

Quote
The real question: who decides which verses are allegorical and which are literal?

That's a good question, and its one that has been a subject of debate for Muslim scholars for some time.

Quote

What is the point of giving that weird number if even 100 of those supposed prophets cannot be named?

Are we having a serious discussion here or are you just playing around?  Who are you to say 100 of them should be named?

Quote
This is debatable too. Nothing in the Qur'an to support or debunk these presumptions.

This is just a less fancy way of saying what I just said.

Quote
Quoting a single Qur'an verse does not mean that I am not aware of all the other verses on this issue or I have not read the Qur'an in its entirety. I only quoted a verse to show that the writer of the Qur'an was confused about this topic and reflected his uncertainty.

Your claim can be disproved easily just by looking at the other verses concerning the topic.

Quote
In all the verses except for Surah 2:34 then. A person reading this verse naturally thinks that Iblis was one of the angels. The writer of the Qur'an could have been clearer and prevented this confusion.

If anyone is being insincere here, it sure isn't me.

Quote
Yet the Qur'an does not explain why in Surah 2:34 Iblis is reckoned as one of the angels.

It said that he was amongst the angels, that he WAS an angel.

Quote
There is something wrong with that: presenting the Talmud as the authoritative word of God.

More, I do not believe that the Jews received some truth in the Talmud from "other prophetic sources".

You do realize that Orthodox Jews also believe in the Oral Law given by Moses, right, which contained material not available in the Torah?  The Quran even says that certain Prophets, in addition to the scriptures they received, were also given "the Wisdom" (al-Hikmah).

Quote
Finally, why don't you bellieve in the entirety of the Talmud if it is true and reliable?

I have not read the Talmud in its entirety to give any kind of judgment of this sort on the matter.

Quote
That is what he claimed. Yet he failed to prove his assertions and showed that he was a false prophet.

That is your interpretation.

Quote
Yet this was taken from the Talmud and born from a Rabbi's interpretation of the plural use of the word "damim" in the Torah. This teaching cannot be found in the Torah. Thus, what the Qur'an mistakenly confirmed was not the Tanakh, but a Rabbi's personal commentary.

Read what I said above about the Oral Law.

Quote
There is no evidence for that. A follower of Bahaism could do what you are doing now to claim that Bahaullah is a true prophet.

Bahaism emerged around the same time that the Ahmadis and the Mormons did - they represent modern phenomenon and are not too difficult to identify as counterfeits.  

As for the Bahais, do they believe in a Final Judgment and Resurrection as the Abrahamic faiths do?  And where is the angel Gabriel in the proceedings?

Quote
You must prove that the Qur'an contains the genuine version of the stories.

That's not my job - as a believer, I'm more concerned out of the moral, spiritual teachings that those stories are trying to convey.  I do not have access to enough data to see how details compare between biblical and Quranic accounts.


Quote
First, the fundamental tenet of Christianity is that Jesus rose on the third day.

When I said the Ressurection, I was talking about the Resurrection of the whole human race, not specifically Christian doctrine.

Quote
Second, the reason underlying the emphasis on the theme of resurrection in the Qur'an is the fact that Muhammad's ancestors and Meccan paganism did not believe in the bodily resurrection, considering it ridiculous and constantly deriding the idea. Thus, the environment and what Muhammad's opponents mainly believed or disbelieved had a great effect on the content of the Qur'an.

Neither I nor any major Islamic scholar would contest this.

Quote
What logical conclusion is that? Muhammad himself believed in the life after death and tried to convince the idolaters. That is so simple.

Yeah, and he did it in a way that conforms specifically with that came before while  at the same time speaking in the language that the Arabs would understand.

Quote
yet that story cannot be found in the New Testament.

So what, that means nothing.

Quote
I am not interested in what the Surah says or how Islamic tradition interprets it. It is a story taken from Christian sources.

Once again, just a claim, no solid evidence.


Quote
Your claim: Islam lays more emphasis on bodily resurrection than the other two faiths. However, the stories you can pick up to prove your argument were borrowed from Judaism and Christianity. This shows that your argument is not logical.

And your claims are logical?  They're just as subjective as mine.  It's obvious that this is not going anywhere, and this is not a fruitful discussion.
Logged
essene19
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Islam
Posts: 45


« Reply #556 on: April 29, 2013, 07:40:25 PM »

Quote
I am well aware of this verse and know that it has nothing to do with Jesus. Surah 43:59 stops talking about Jesus as Surah 43:60 is about angels:

And had We willed We could have set among you angels to be viceroys in the earth.

Read all the verses in conjunction, and you'll see what I mean.

Quote
Even if we took the pronoun as a reference to Jesus (although the flow of the text does NOT make that crucial), we would only believe that Jesus is a sign of the hour. HOW He would be a sign of the hour is not stated in the verse. There is NOTHING implicit about His second coming or descension from heavens. More to the point, Surah 43 belongs to the pre-migration period. The denial of Jesus' crucifixion and the claim that He was taken up to heaven were incorporated into the Qur'an long after the migration. At the time Surah 43 was written, not even Muhammad knew or taught that Jesus was taken up to heaven!!! Thus, it was IMpossible for this verse to refer to Jesus' second coming at that time!  laugh

Saying that Jesus is a Sign of the Hour is a pretty big statement in the context of the whole Quran - it strongly alludes to some sort of future role, and this was further detailed and spelled out in the Prophetic hadith.  I brought up the hadith not as a red herring but to show you what Muslims have used to interpret the Quranic verses mentioned above.


Quote
Again, nothing explicit. There is no reference to His second coming or war on the Anti-Christ.

The verse says that everyone of the People of the Book will believe in Him before he dies.  That clearly hasn't happened yet, and it points towards a future event.
Logged
essene19
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Islam
Posts: 45


« Reply #557 on: April 29, 2013, 07:52:59 PM »

Quote
Yes, warfare and vendetta and similar things were part of everyday life of the pagan Arabs. Nobody denies that. And about taking those ethos of the Arabs and the people there, there is a good answer given by st. Cyril the Philosopher, but since we do not talk about that here, i will not mention it.

I'll be sure to look into it.

Quote
Where did i say that Jerusalem belonged to me? But at that time it belonged to the Christians. Yes, the Romans had no right to take Jerusalem either. But Jerusalem was taken by pagans, so we can not justify or condemn their actions from Christian and Islamic aspect too. But, with this argument you destroyed all your justified arguments you previously offered because indirectly you confessed that the Muslims took something that did not belong to them.

They took Jerusalem because they defeated the Romans in battle, and hence gained their territory.  As for why they warred with the Romans, its debatable whether it was a strategic maneuver by Muslims or if other motives/causes were involved.

Quote
Even if we say the Romans did not have right in Jerusalem, that does not mean that Christians do not have right of that city, because most of the early Christians had Jewish origin.

And most of the Prophets of Islam all lived and preached in Jerusalem - Muslims have just as much a right to worship there as Jews and Christians.

Quote
Have you read the Old Testament carefully? Why God gave Canaan to the Israelites? Because in that place lived people that made such sins that the people nearby did not made. The worst of their sins - child sacrifices! So, God, many times said that He patiently waits for those people to do what they will do before giving them in the hands of the Israelites. That is why God commands the Israelites to destroy just those people, not other people and not to oppress people of other nations that dwell among the Israelites. Those people made such big sins, that God punished them by erasing them from the face of the Earth.  If you read the Bible, in many passages even after those events, the prophets announce that God's wrath will fall upon all that offer children as sacrifices. Well, we know what happened to the Aztecs.

No, I have read it, and I understand why the attack on the Canaanites was so brutal.  I was just asking those questions to make a point - the Arabs were not as bad as the Canaanites, especially in terms of child sacrifice, but as I mentioned, they did engage in pretty disgusting practices.  One that I did not mention was that they buried their daughters alive.  Such a people need a harsh lesson, no?

And don't forget, Moses put 3000 Israelites to the sword for worshipping the Golden Calf.

Quote
True, he did all of that, i do not deny that, but still, that does not justify his war for Jerusalem. You still did not bring argument that will make the war for Jerusalem justified, even according to your Islamic standard of warfare.

I did address this clearly - Muslims fought with Romans and defeated them, and thereby gained their land.  Jerusalem happened to be in that land.  Simple as that.

Also, Jerusalem had a strong religious significance for the Muslims, so if they defeated the Romans, they definitely wanted Jerusalem as part of the spoils.

Yes, but it came on the Balkans through warfare, on the Iberian peninsula, north Africa, Sicily and other places. So, it is not just Rome and Persia.  Wink

I focused on Rome and Persia for reasons you know - someone asked why the early Muslims expanded, and I gave reasons and details regarding those expansions.  As for the other places you mentioned, that was pure imperialism, I do not deny that.

Quote
If the Muslims were peaceful and held their hands off the Christian holy sites, they would not have made Byzantium to appeal to the Pope for help. So, as we say in my country: What you called, that has answered.  Wink

Well, I'm sure by the time the first Crusade rolled around, relations between Christians and Muslims had probably deteriorated, which most likely prompted the appeal by Byzantium.   But we all know what the Western Christians did to their Eastern brethren during the Crusades - so I'm sure the Eastern Christians probably regretted appealing to the Pope.

And didn't they once say, "Better the turban of the Turk than the cardinal's hat"?  Wink
« Last Edit: April 29, 2013, 07:55:28 PM by essene19 » Logged
DuxI
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Macedonian Orthodox Church
Posts: 140



« Reply #558 on: April 29, 2013, 08:16:54 PM »




I'll be sure to look into it.

It is in the Hagiography of st. Cyril the Philosopher.


They took Jerusalem because they defeated the Romans in battle, and hence gained their territory.  As for why they warred with the Romans, its debatable whether it was a strategic maneuver by Muslims or if other motives/causes were involved.

This was I waiting for you to say, because this is the truth, not the so-called justified war causes and other things that you mentioned.


And most of the Prophets of Islam all lived and preached in Jerusalem - Muslims have just as much a right to worship there as Jews and Christians.

Nobody denies the right to worship, neither do I. I said the Muslims did not have the right to conquer Jerusalem. Worshiping there is different than conquering the city. 


No, I have read it, and I understand why the attack on the Canaanites was so brutal.  I was just asking those questions to make a point - the Arabs were not as bad as the Canaanites, especially in terms of child sacrifice, but as I mentioned, they did engage in pretty disgusting practices.  One that I did not mention was that they buried their daughters alive.  Such a people need a harsh lesson, no?

And don't forget, Moses put 3000 Israelites to the sword for worshipping the Golden Calf.


I never mentioned the wars against the pagan Arabs tribes. In my opinion, Muhammad did a splendid job in dealing with those that buried their children alive and doing other ugly things, practiced vendetta etc. But that is very different than the justified reasons for war about which we are talking now.


I did address this clearly - Muslims fought with Romans and defeated them, and thereby gained their land.  Jerusalem happened to be in that land.  Simple as that.


Also, Jerusalem had a strong religious significance for the Muslims, so if they defeated the Romans, they definitely wanted Jerusalem as part of the spoils.

I am glad you address it directly, without trying to find something that you mentioned many times, like just cause and other similar thing.





Well, I'm sure by the time the first Crusade rolled around, relations between Christians and Muslims had probably deteriorated, which most likely prompted the appeal by Byzantium.   But we all know what the Western Christians did to their Eastern brethren during the Crusades - so I'm sure the Eastern Christians probably regretted appealing to the Pope.

And didn't they once say, "Better the turban of the Turk than the cardinal's hat"?  Wink

The relations between Muslims and Christians were never so good after the fall of Jerusalem. After the Churches in the Holy Land were destroyed in 1009, the war was inevitable.

About the saying, i can assure you that, in my country, people never said that about the turban of the Turk. When women were taken by force, they said: I will rather die, but will not become a Turkish! And many died.  Wink


Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #559 on: April 30, 2013, 12:36:38 AM »

deleted
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 12:37:54 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #560 on: April 30, 2013, 02:07:06 PM »


It said that he was amongst the angels, that he WAS an angel.

Surah 2:34 means that Satan was one of the angels. Read the verse once more:

And when We said unto the angels: Prostrate yourselves before Adam, they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He demurred through pride, and so became a disbeliever.

You are committing the fallacy of circular reasoning here: the verse does not say that Satan was a different creature among the angels. It says that ANGELS were commanded to fall prostrate before Adam and ALL did except for Satan. If Satan was not an angel, he would not be expected to obey the commandment because this commandment was given to the angels.  laugh

If the Qur'an teaches that Iblis is both an angel and not an angel at the same time, this is pure contradiction no matter what all other verses on this issue may claim.

You do realize that Orthodox Jews also believe in the Oral Law given by Moses, right, which contained material not available in the Torah?  The Quran even says that certain Prophets, in addition to the scriptures they received, were also given "the Wisdom" (al-Hikmah).

yet the Talmud is not considered Hikmah in Islam.

When I said the Ressurection, I was talking about the Resurrection of the whole human race, not specifically Christian doctrine.

What is the difference? Christianity also teaches that all men will rise and this doctrine depends on Jesus' bodily resurrection.

Neither I nor any major Islamic scholar would contest this.

We have evidence in the Qur'an. Most of the verses concerning the bodily resurrection target the disbelievers of Mecca.

Yeah, and he did it in a way that conforms specifically with that came before while  at the same time speaking in the language that the Arabs would understand.

because he was aware of what Jews and Christians taught about the Day of Judgment. Do you really believe that your prophet had no faculty of reasoning or he was unable to choose what to believe and how to believe?

Once again, just a claim, no solid evidence.

We have the original story in the Christian texts predating Islam: this is evidence.

And your claims are logical?  They're just as subjective as mine.  It's obvious that this is not going anywhere, and this is not a fruitful discussion.

Yes, you are addicted to logical fallacies. This discussion can go nowhere because you do not even know that you are making fallacious arguments.

You are claiming that Islam is richer than Judaism and Christianity in terms of the emphasis on bodily resurrection, but the evidence you are trying to use to substantiate this claim shows that those riches were plundered from Judaism and Christianity. This IS illogical.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
essene19
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Islam
Posts: 45


« Reply #561 on: April 30, 2013, 02:17:02 PM »


You are claiming that Islam is richer than Judaism and Christianity in terms of the emphasis on bodily resurrection, but the evidence you are trying to use to substantiate this claim shows that those riches were plundered from Judaism and Christianity. This IS illogical.


I won't respond to the rest of your garbage post because you have nothing worthwhile to contribute, but what you just stated above is further evidence of how you twist what I say to suit your preconceived agenda.

When did I say that Islam is "richer" than Judaism and Christianity? You're just putting words in my mouth.  I said that it expands on what came before, I never made the arrogant claim that Islam is somehow better or superior.  With my comments, I tried to point to the idea that it was a sibling religion, but you have made it very clear to me that you'll just go with your own subjective view and then accuse me of being illogical.

You can post all the smiley faces on your posts you want; you can't disguise your trickery from anyone on these boards.
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #562 on: April 30, 2013, 02:19:21 PM »


Read all the verses in conjunction, and you'll see what I mean.

No matter how I read this part, Surah 43:60 is obviously NOT about Jesus. Are you claming that Jesus is portrayed as an angel in this Surah? Surah 43:60 is not relevant to Jesus or the Sign of the Hour.

Saying that Jesus is a Sign of the Hour is a pretty big statement in the context of the whole Quran - it strongly alludes to some sort of future role, and this was further detailed and spelled out in the Prophetic hadith.  I brought up the hadith not as a red herring but to show you what Muslims have used to interpret the Quranic verses mentioned above.

Another example of circular reasoning: making use of the Hadith to prove that the Qur'an refers to Jesus' second coming and doing this while trying to rebut my objection that the Qur'an does not refer to Jesus' second coming. This is fun!  Cheesy

It is not reasonable to claim that the personal pronoun in 43:61 refers to Jesus as the sign of the Hour because this chapter was written prior to Mohammad’s adoption of the Gnostic heresy denying Jesus’ crucifixion and death. The Islamic teaching that Jesus escaped death through divine intervention was an innovation unknown in the early (Meccan) period of the Qur’an. What Muslims today do is reinterpret an obscure verse of an earlier period of the Qur’an in the light of another obscure verse of a later period with the help of Hadiths reiterating the Christian tenets about Jesus’ second coming. Muslim commentators can claim only now (after the completion of the whole Qur’an) that the referent in Surah 43 points at Jesus. Nevertheless, such an interpretation would be unthinkable in the early days of the Qur’an when Muslims were not familiar with the Islamic doctrine that Jesus had been taken to Heaven. Nothing in the Meccan period of the Qur’an enabled Muslims to infer that Jesus was somehow in Heaven.  http://answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/crucifiction_paradoxes.html

The verse says that everyone of the People of the Book will believe in Him before he dies.  That clearly hasn't happened yet, and it points towards a future event.

Or does this verse rather say that everyone of the People of the Book will believe in Jesus before experiencing death? Whose death is it?

According to the Qur'an, Jesus already experienced death when He was taken up to Heaven:

I told them only what You commanded me to say, that: `You shall worship GOD, my Lord and your Lord.' I was a witness among them for as long as I lived with them. When You terminated my life on earth, You became the Watcher over them. You witness all things. (Surah 5:117)

When God said, o Jesus, verily I will cause thee to die, and I will take thee up unto me, and I will deliver thee from the unbelievers; and I will place those who follow thee, above the unbelievers, until the day of resurrection: Then unto me shall ye return, and I will judge between you of that concerning which ye disagree. (Surah 3:55)

Thus, it is imposible for the verse you quoted to refer to Jesus' death.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
essene19
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Islam
Posts: 45


« Reply #563 on: April 30, 2013, 02:23:57 PM »

Oh yes, use Answering-Islam.com.  That is a magnificent source for an actual scholarly debate.

You're just playing gymnastics with the verses (and you clearly don't know Arabic and the different means that the verb "cause you to die" can actually mean) and going on dubious websites to support your argument.  Shows how much you actually know.

This is the last post of yours I'm responding to, so you can stop wasting your time, and mine.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 02:26:14 PM by essene19 » Logged
essene19
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Islam
Posts: 45


« Reply #564 on: April 30, 2013, 02:27:53 PM »


It is in the Hagiography of st. Cyril the Philosopher.


DuxI,

Do you know where I can find this text in English translation?  I checked on Amazon and they didn't have it.
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #565 on: April 30, 2013, 02:33:57 PM »

When did I say that Islam is "richer" than Judaism and Christianity? You're just putting words in my mouth.  I said that it expands on what came before, I never made the arrogant claim that Islam is somehow better or superior.  With my comments, I tried to point to the idea that it was a sibling religion, but you have made it very clear to me that you'll just go with your own subjective view and then accuse me of being illogical.

The most unfortunate thing is that I believe there are many religious/spiritual teachings unique to the Qur'an that I think people can benefit from, that all too often get shadowed out by social/political concerns, thanks in large part to Muslims AND non-Muslims. 

The Qur'an identifies clearly who and what the Satanic figure is - he is a jinn, not a fallen angel.  It answers why Satan became Satan and how he became an enemy to the human race.  And the Quran talks about what the jinn are and what they do - they are basically the entities you know as demons in the Christian tradition.

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of the verses of the Quran are devoted to Resurrection Day, the Final Judgment, and the Hereafter.  Moreso than any other scripture in the world, Islam talks about the significance and purpose of death, and what the after-life is going to be like.  It  goes into more detail regarding the nature of the Final Judgment than any other scripture.  Judaism hinted at it, Christianity brought it to the forefront, and Islam expanded on it further.  It's like a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end.  According to the Islamic tradition, Muhammad is the final prophet because he is the prophet of the End Times - his very coming initiated the End Time (we've all been living in it our whole lives - the countdown to Judgment Day has already begun).  A thousands years for man is nothing in the sight of God.  There will no more authentic prophets after him that bring a new Revelation to expand on what God has already taught man.   Everything that has been needed to be said has been said, its up to humans now to do the work of ascertaining Truth.


Quote from your response 537... Making bold comparisons there.... Why the need to make comparisons and write these statements if you really believe that Islam is not superior to or better than the former faiths? Wink
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,639



« Reply #566 on: April 30, 2013, 03:16:56 PM »

What Islam says about hashish? I have some weird (Western mis)conception that back in the good old days of some Caliphate hashish used to be acceptable drug for Muslims. Is this true?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 03:22:31 PM by Alpo » Logged
DuxI
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Macedonian Orthodox Church
Posts: 140



« Reply #567 on: April 30, 2013, 05:55:21 PM »


It is in the Hagiography of st. Cyril the Philosopher.


DuxI,

Do you know where I can find this text in English translation?  I checked on Amazon and they didn't have it.

I will try to find it for you, although I can not promise that i can find it in English. In other languages maybe I can find it, but in the English. no. If i find it, i will post it here.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #568 on: April 30, 2013, 07:00:54 PM »

What Islam says about hashish? I have some weird (Western mis)conception that back in the good old days of some Caliphate hashish used to be acceptable drug for Muslims. Is this true?

I don't know if it's Islamic, but I do know Moslems used it; during the Crusades there was an Islamic sect of Assassins (the term the Nizari Ismailis used for themselves)

It derives from hash as they used it to get themselves into a particular state.

Hash – hashashins – assassins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
john_mo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 762



« Reply #569 on: May 06, 2013, 04:27:51 PM »

What Islam says about hashish? I have some weird (Western mis)conception that back in the good old days of some Caliphate hashish used to be acceptable drug for Muslims. Is this true?

I don't know if it's Islamic, but I do know Moslems used it; during the Crusades there was an Islamic sect of Assassins (the term the Nizari Ismailis used for themselves)

It derives from hash as they used it to get themselves into a particular state.

Hash – hashashins – assassins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins


Pretty sure the Hashashins were to Islam what the Rastafarians are to Orthodoxy.  They have some of the same practices as the mainstream, but also wanted to get high.
Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #570 on: June 16, 2013, 08:50:00 PM »

What Islam says about hashish? I have some weird (Western mis)conception that back in the good old days of some Caliphate hashish used to be acceptable drug for Muslims. Is this true?

I don't know if it's Islamic, but I do know Moslems used it; during the Crusades there was an Islamic sect of Assassins (the term the Nizari Ismailis used for themselves)

It derives from hash as they used it to get themselves into a particular state.

Hash – hashashins – assassins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins


Pretty sure the Hashashins were to Islam what the Rastafarians are to Orthodoxy.  They have some of the same practices as the mainstream, but also wanted to get high.

Rastafarians are an off-shoot of Orthodoxy?

Hashashins were Moslems!

Killing political opponents dates back to Muhammed.

The only thing you could quibble over is the use of intoxicants.

Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
vorgos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 193


« Reply #571 on: June 23, 2013, 04:11:43 AM »

I have a few questions regarding Mosques.

- Why do Muslims go there? Isn't praying at home enough?
- Do they have sermons and how long do the services last?
- Do they have anything like all-night vigils like we do?
- Is attending a Mosque compulsory?
- I have seen footage of Muslims in Mosques and if memory serves me, only men are praying. Are women allowed to pray together with men?

I doubt the OP is still reading this thread, so anyone who knows, feel free to jump in.

PS: Also, what do you guys think about the material in www.answering-islam.org? Is it worth going  through it or should I just ignore the site completely? THanks.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,462



« Reply #572 on: June 23, 2013, 05:00:36 AM »

I have a few questions regarding Mosques.

- Why do Muslims go there? Isn't praying at home enough?
- Do they have sermons and how long do the services last?
- Do they have anything like all-night vigils like we do?
- Is attending a Mosque compulsory?
- I have seen footage of Muslims in Mosques and if memory serves me, only men are praying. Are women allowed to pray together with men?

I doubt the OP is still reading this thread, so anyone who knows, feel free to jump in.

PS: Also, what do you guys think about the material in www.answering-islam.org? Is it worth going  through it or should I just ignore the site completely? THanks.

It's garbage. It will help solidify the stupidities of those who agree with the stuff they have posted and perhaps those Muslims who are also so inclined, but it is really nonsense.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 05:00:52 AM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
john_mo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 762



« Reply #573 on: June 23, 2013, 12:50:24 PM »

I have a few questions regarding Mosques.

- Why do Muslims go there? Isn't praying at home enough?
- Do they have sermons and how long do the services last?
- Do they have anything like all-night vigils like we do?
- Is attending a Mosque compulsory?
- I have seen footage of Muslims in Mosques and if memory serves me, only men are praying. Are women allowed to pray together with men?

I doubt the OP is still reading this thread, so anyone who knows, feel free to jump in.

PS: Also, what do you guys think about the material in www.answering-islam.org? Is it worth going  through it or should I just ignore the site completely? THanks.

It's garbage. It will help solidify the stupidities of those who agree with the stuff they have posted and perhaps those Muslims who are also so inclined, but it is really nonsense.

I wouldn't say it's garbage, but, like most Christian apologetic sites, it appears to have a fundy Evangelical orientation. 

I found some of their stuff helpful, yet some of their accusations of Islam are based off of a superficial literalistic interpretation of it.  And with such a mind-set, I'm sure they could make a similar website called "answering-orthodoxy.org". 
Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #574 on: June 23, 2013, 01:41:55 PM »

Actually the guy who runs that site posts here.

Maybe he will post in this thread
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #575 on: June 23, 2013, 01:45:04 PM »

I have a few questions regarding Mosques.

- Why do Muslims go there? Isn't praying at home enough?

Communal worship on Fridays is compulsory for Muslim men.

- Do they have sermons and how long do the services last?

Friday service includes a homily and lasts around 45 minutes.

- Do they have anything like all-night vigils like we do?

Muslims do like worshipping from night to morning on special feast days, but this is mostly personal.

- Is attending a Mosque compulsory?

Attending a Mosque is compulsory for men on Fridays and Islamic feasts (bajram).

- I have seen footage of Muslims in Mosques and if memory serves me, only men are praying. Are women allowed to pray together with men?

It is mostly men who pray because communal worship on Fridays is compulsory for men. However, women are allowed to pray in a mosque if they want to. This is not forbidden. Yet they have a special section confined to them in the mosque since they cannot pray together with men.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #576 on: June 23, 2013, 01:49:28 PM »


It's garbage. It will help solidify the stupidities of those who agree with the stuff they have posted and perhaps those Muslims who are also so inclined, but it is really nonsense.

Maybe this is why it is high time you joined the AI team as an author.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #577 on: June 23, 2013, 01:55:40 PM »


PS: Also, what do you guys think about the material in www.answering-islam.org? Is it worth going  through it or should I just ignore the site completely? THanks.

Have you ever had a look at the articles published there? Why don't you go and decide yourself instead of asking people here?

I personally love the material published there. All the arguments are supported through Islamic references. There are also some ex-Muslims who voluntarily contribute to the site. Read their conversion testimonies: http://answering-islam.org/Testimonies/
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #578 on: June 23, 2013, 01:58:56 PM »


I found some of their stuff helpful, yet some of their accusations of Islam are based off of a superficial literalistic interpretation of it. 

Well, this is because some Muslims follow the literal interpretation of the Qur'an and the hadith. It is not Answering-islam's duty to correct traditional interpretations of the Islamic scripture or teach Muslims how to interpret their sources.  Wink
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,031



« Reply #579 on: June 23, 2013, 02:17:20 PM »

There is a mosque nearby. And through day and late at night men can be seen going in and out seven days a week. Whatever my feelings toward Islam I can think of no Christian place of worship locally that has such a continuous level of attendance, and by men at that.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,639



« Reply #580 on: June 23, 2013, 02:24:43 PM »

Muslims do like worshipping from night to morning on special feast days, but this is mostly personal.

What is it like? Is there any variety in this between different Muslim groups?

Yet they have a special section confined to them in the mosque

...if there is enough space for women's section. Finnish Muslim community consists mostly of fairly recent immigrants and apparently in many cities they do not have enough money to buy or rent large enough facilities for their mosques. Hence many mosques do not have women's section.

There is a mosque nearby. And through day and late at night men can be seen going in and out seven days a week. Whatever my feelings toward Islam I can think of no Christian place of worship locally that has such a continuous level of attendance, and by men at that.

AFAIK Muslim prayer is a lot shorter than Christian one. It's a lot easier to spend 15 minutes in a mosque than two hours in a church.

My Muslim colleague seemed a little shocked when I told him about our fasting rules.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 02:28:48 PM by Alpo » Logged
Jovan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Great Britain and Scandinavia
Posts: 515



« Reply #581 on: June 23, 2013, 03:31:59 PM »

I got a question regarding the nature of God and the understanding of "the spirit" in Islam. Please forgive and pray for me if anything becomes unclear.


In the quran we read following.

70:4
"The angels and the Spirit will ascend to Him during a Day the extent of which is fifty thousand years."

78:38
"The Day that the Spirit and the angels will stand in rows, they will not speak except for one whom the Most Merciful permits, and he will say what is correct."

Chapter 97 but specifically verse 5.

"The angels and the Spirit descend therein by permission of their Lord for every matter."

Through these passages, and forgive me if I´m letting some out from the question, we read about the angels and the Spirit. In my understanding and learning I´ve been taught that the spirit refers to the angel Gabriel. My question would then be:

Why does the quran distinctively differentiate all the angels from the spirit, when the spirit is understood to be an angel itself in nature and not of Gods nature?

One following question and a answer would later help my dear friend.

Why does the following verse use the same title and reference to this spirit with an act that could not be ascribed to an angel? If this spirit is the angel Gabriel, why the distinction? And after, if this spirit truly is the angel Gabriel, Was he breathed into us humans from God when he fashioned us?

32:9
"But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His Spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!"



« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 03:39:09 PM by Jovan » Logged

“Belatedly I loved thee, O Beauty so ancient and so new, belatedly I loved thee. For see, thou wast within and I was without, and I sought thee out there."
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,516


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #582 on: June 23, 2013, 04:16:05 PM »

Okay two questions. First, what religion was Mohammed before starting Islam? Or, perhaps a better way to word it (as I know that Muslims consider all prophets to have been Muslim from the start) what religion was the household he grew up in?

Second question, is marijuana allowed in Islam? If not, how come?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
fibonacci
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Rabbaniyyun, follower of Ahl al-Bayt
Posts: 165



« Reply #583 on: June 23, 2013, 07:37:50 PM »

Okay two questions. First, what religion was Mohammed before starting Islam? Or, perhaps a better way to word it (as I know that Muslims consider all prophets to have been Muslim from the start) what religion was the household he grew up in?

Second question, is marijuana allowed in Islam? If not, how come?

1.  Prophet Mohammed lost both his parents early in on his life, so he was raised with his relatives.  So he was always a deep thinker, and accepted a belief that was monotheistic, and there are stories that he had the holy spirit or angels always protecting him from participating in potentially sinful activities with pagans.  In all cases, he did not commit any major sins, always spoke the truth and always believed in one Creator.

2.  All drugs are prohibited in Islam.  The disadvantages outweighs the advantages.
If you want to get high, you have to do it naturally... like fasting for long periods, meditating quietly-- out in nature, chanting verses in the quran, praying early morning, ...etc.


Logged
fibonacci
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Rabbaniyyun, follower of Ahl al-Bayt
Posts: 165



« Reply #584 on: June 23, 2013, 07:44:02 PM »

I got a question regarding the nature of God and the understanding of "the spirit" in Islam. Please forgive and pray for me if anything becomes unclear.


The Jews during the Prophet's time, asked him what is the spirit.

This is the verse that was revealed to him:


And they ask you (O Muhammad SAW) concerning the Ruh (the Spirit); Say: "The Ruh (the Spirit): it is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with my Lord. And of knowledge, you (mankind) have been given only a little." -17:85

http://quran.com/17/85

It is something that may require one to go through an intensive spiritual journey to barely scratch the surface.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 07:45:04 PM by fibonacci » Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.246 seconds with 72 queries.