<strong>Do you not believe that individuals should be held accountable for their actions? I don't see how specific first-hand information - tainted by conflict - should have any bearing on that judgment.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Where did you get that from? Not my post. Individuals are, and should be, held accountable for their actions.
[quote]<strong>I don't care how you justify a generalisaton like that; it is bound to be untrue with such a large amount of people. People on both sides do appear to want peace. I would guess that a majority of Palestinians, though, want peace for themselves and Christians, but not Jews. I'm sure there is a minority of Jews who want peace only for themselves and the Christians as well.
There are elements of both sides that could ensure the peace isn't attained, just as there are those who are level-headed and continually get screwed over by the former.
Additionally, it seems to me that the question of who wants peace and who doesn't is just another excuse for people to fight.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A lot of words that really say nothing new. This conflict is fought by oth sides. If both sides decided to stop fighting, the fighting would stop. However, in all the history i have read only one side keeps picking up the guns and bombs and heading for the other when the fighting dies down, and it has not been Israel.
Read my second post again. I was adding some stuff in / editing it when you replied. Sorry. I can't stand the fact that we don't have the option to preview our posts before we submit them. I should start writing all my posts in Word and just pasting them in so I can proof them easier / more quickly.
Anyway, I really feel like (for America anyway) it is -- in the near-term -- a lot wiser to focus on what we should be asking from our politicians and what we can do to avert / in the case of the next disaster. When we've got things a little more under control, then we can take the more scholarly approach and argue about the Koran like a bunch of collegiate snobs who think that understanding books gives them special powers over the rest of us mortals.
[quote]Where did you get that from? Not my post.<hr></blockquote>
Why did you quote Moogs' advocation of individual responsibility and blast him for not having first-hand information?
[quote]This conflict is fought by oth sides. If both sides decided to stop fighting, the fighting would stop. However, in all the history i have read only one side keeps picking up the guns and bombs and heading for the other when the fighting dies down, and it has not been Israel.<hr></blockquote>
That doesn't make your generalisation correct. An action by some Palestinians should not represent the Palestinians, at least not if you want to think logically about this. The idea of two sides does make blaming and justifying easier, however.
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: Dead Member ]</p>
That doesn't make your generalisation correct. An action by some Palestinians should not represent the Palestinians, at least not if you want to think logically about this. The idea of two sides does make blaming and justifying easier, however.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
HOwever, when the leadership of the palestinians does nothing to stop them and even appears to support the actions covertly it does as teh leadership by definition does represent the people. If they don't like it they should get new leaders. They are not opposed to Arafat however, just look at the food they eat....
What do you really mean by this? What are you searching for in a religion that makes the choice so difficult?
<hr></blockquote>
Logic.
I am searching for a religion that explains everything logically.
Quran, so far in my studies, has been the only logically verifiable religious text.
[quote]
Kinda like your English.. (Sorry, it is really rough reading your English, I have to translate and then add words to make your sentences make sense.) BTW how does one get the "proper authority" to translate the Koran?
<hr></blockquote>
I know what you mean about my English.
Sorry, but this is the best I can do. I have spent thirteen years in the Middle East (my childhood).Also, this is my fourth year in Japan. I hardly come across native English speakers anymore. I admit that reading so much philosophy, trying to talk to the Japanese with broken English so they would understand, and my studies regarding Arabic and Islam contribute a lot to the way I write.
I will make another post that will explain the knowledge required in order to qualify one to become a proper authority and be able to interpret Quran. I will do that because I am inclined to make my posts shorter from now on. My posts should reflect my basic understanding of Islam. With Islam divided into more than 73 sects, I am sure a lot of muslims will disagree with me and disagree with the ones that relayed that kind of information to me.
[quote]
I believe that this is what the thread is basically about. Except it has taken the form of you and PCKilla bickering. One of you gives a bit and the other tightens the screws some more. I wish you would both stop playing games and just answer each other openly.
<hr></blockquote>
I would be happy to answer all his question.
One topic at a time, though. My question about the translation of "friend" is the main issue. The second question was left off from another thread, and this is why I raised it here.
My whole purpose of getting into this with PC^Killa is the fact that I would like him to think of human beings as self contained entities. There are those who are terrorists amongst us, human beings, and there are those who are peaceful. I truely believe that labeling a large group of people is not a good practice. This is what the Anti-Semite and Anti-American are using. Therefore I hate for the Semite and the Americans to use such labeling schemes.
The subjects of religion, nationalism, ethnicity, and history are very interesting and I am sure you agree that they can not be fairly covered by few inquiries.
[quote]
Which prophet?
<hr></blockquote>
Prophet of the muslims, Muhammad.
---
I see the thread is growing and you have to give me some time for the post regarding proper authority. I have a living to make, and a lot of contemplation to practice.
<strong>And on the same topic. Why is it better that it says guardian rather than friend? It still is singling out Jews and Christians and saying the same thing. In my reading of the Koran so far it is littered with these references. Why single out Jews and Christians (people of the book)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is better for the purpose of the consistency of Quranic teachings with practices of the prophet and the eloquence of the Arabic language. If we were to use friend instead of guardian (or any other word that emphasizes a relationship that is much stronger than merely a friendship), then the verse that asks the muslims to be the friends of GOD, the Prophet and the believers will give the muslims the right to disagree with their friends. Disagree with GOD, and GOD sent messenger is definitely not something a religion would claim.
As far as singling out Jews and Christians, there are many reasons to count but I will give a couple that might be very clear. First, you can think of it as a prophecy that Jews and Christians will be in the helm of power for centuries to come. Keeping that in mind, each of them will be making decisions based on their personal interests which is in turn based on their religious believes. As the verse does not promote hatred, it is clear that this is more like a policy rather than a rally against the Jews and Christians. Second, with hateful propaganda writings about Islam dating back to the time of the crusaders, you should find it very logical to avoid undocumented alliances with Christians. Third, this will be regarding the Jews only. Quran asks the believers clearly to be more careful with the Jewish Authorities than the Jewish people themselves (Authorities as in representative parties and groups). Quran believes the Jews have had the principles of Democracy long before even such term was practiced in ancient Greece and Rome. This practice of democracy along with the term "Chosen Nation" (Please correct me if I have quoted that wrong) contribute a lot to the political unrest of the Jews amongst themselves. This is why Quran in another verse states that every time the Jews make a treaty a group of them would not abide by the rules of the treaty.
I other verses, I am sure you have came across with by now in your readings, It says that the Jews hates the muslims but the Christians don't. Actually I believe it says that Christians have affection towards the believers. Add to that another verse that states clearly that of the people of the book ,both Jews and Christians, there are true believers.
Therefore, what you consider as contradictions and exception they are better interpreted as balancing statements. The same balance of statements does apply for the Bible as far as my long time readings go. That is how reality appears to be. You can not generalize without exclusion. Aside from that balance, Quran seems very realistic in dealing with general policy making.
I would like to conclude my post with this:
A muslim friend of mine in the middle east (I also have very dear Jewish friends ) once stated, in response to my question about what he and his sect in general think about the system of life we have back in the States, that the principles of Islam are better practiced (generally speaking) by the citizens of the States than any other muslim country in the world today.
I still do shed tears of joy every time I remember this statement.
That same friend is the one who helped me translate PC^Killa's Arabic post. Also, that same friend asked me to avoid discussions in such subjects and just mind my own business and watch my own actions rather than talk about other's. I promised him that I will be going back to my solitude once this thread is dead.
<strong>I love it when people argue -- ad nauseum -- about the semantics of religeous texts and historical texts, all in order to avoid the inevitable fact that "their side" is guilty in the extreme and has no excuse or justification whatsoever for their behavior. There's no delusion like self-delusion, is there?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not sure which "two" are you talking about, but anyway, please consider the following:
I would like to be clear on one issue. The argument here is that it is not fair nor is it right to label "Islam" as evil based on the actions of some muslims. Further, Quranic teachings can not be blamed for the actions of some muslims either. The same thing apply for Christianity, Judaism, and the Bible.
[quote]HOwever, when the leadership of the palestinians does nothing to stop them and even appears to support the actions covertly it does as teh leadership by definition does represent the people. If they don't like it they should get new leaders.<hr></blockquote>
I guess whether you see the leadership as representing the Palestinians depends on whether you see government representation in this case as ideal representation or 'manipulating and playing into'. If you had a dictatorship that began brainwashing your society during troubled times. Once generations had passed and people came to unquestioningly support the dictatorship, would you say that the dictatorship represents the society?
[quote]They are not opposed to Arafat however, just look at the food they eat....<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Seriously though, I don't see how a population raised on weapons and propaganda could be opposed to him, unfortunately.
[quote]<strong>Another way to look at this is basically ask any muslim if the prophet did have a christian wife. I think a Jewish one too. Note, that is a wife, not just a friend. The answer will be yes, her name was Mary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
and
[quote]<strong>Prophet of the muslims, Muhammad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What has that got to do with anything though? There were many women named Mary. Also it is written in the Koran that an Islamic man may have up to 4 wives and he may marry any of "The Book" but she has to convert eventually. And if she does not obey him or he fears she may want to leave him he is commanded to beat her.
The Women
[4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
Got that, if she does not obey him, if she does not guard her unseen parts, or if he fears desertion he can beat her and it is ok with Allah? Beating women is just fine so long as they are not obeying? Peaceful... And if I am hearing right this book is not open for interpretation. It is to be taken literally? Is that right?
As a side note, the Bible, even the new testament, was written many hundreds of years before the Koran. At least 200 right? Interesting that it found it's way into the Koran thorughout. I feel like I am reading a highly altered Bible. Highly altered and filled with anti-jewish, anti-christian messages. On the one hand the Jews and the Christians are to be protected, but on the other hand, if they do not convert to Islam when "the Messiah" returns they will be put to the sword by the Messiah himself? And if you read the Hadith you find that on that day the rocks and trees will cry out: 'Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah, here is a Jew behind me, Oh Muslim, come and kill!' So either they are to be protected or they are to be killed, which is it? This is not sounding like balance, it is sounding self-defeating....
The second site is particularly rich in information concerning this subject matter.
You?ve asked who as the first settler of the land. And the answer to that is that there has been found human skeletal remains in caves 15 km South of Haifa dating some 100,000 years. Now, you want to stick a label of nationality on these skeletal remains, be my guest.
What you have today is a conflict involving two rival claims to the land of Canaan. That of Jews and that of Arabs. And even by the most conservative dating methods, the claim of Israel precedes that of Arabs by almost 2,000!!! years. I?ll refer you to the victory stele of the pharaoh Mernephtah (c. 1224-1214 B.C.) who campaigned in the land Canaan, and which mentions the cities of Ashkelon, Gezer and Yenoam, and announces that "Israel is laid waste; his seed is not."
I know of no one that would or did argue that Jews were the first people to settle the land of Canaan. Even the biblical account is very clear on this issue. Why would that even be an argument that you think I would need to take? The current conflict is not about Israel and Canaanites, or Israel and Philistines. These peoples have long ago ceased to exist. The current conflict is between Jews and Arabs. A people that stormed these lands on a murderous wave of conquest spurred on by religious Islamic nationalistic fervor.
That is not what I stated. You?ve asked who was first on the land, and I gave you the answer. The Jews were there 2000 prior to the Arabs. I also stated, being that there is evidence of human inhabitance on the land dating some 100,000 years, it is very doubtful that national identities played a role during that late Paleolithic period.
Second, you say that the Jews as a nation have no historical as opposed to religious rights to that land whatsoever. This is such an absurd statement. And according to your criteria, there is hardly a peoples on Earth that can claim any historical claims to any of their land. And certainly not the Arabs to the land of Israel.
<hr></blockquote>
I totally agree. Certainly, the Arabs have no historical claims to the land of Israel (though I prefer to call it the lands east and west of the river because of the politically motivated implications involved with the name Israel). This is exactly my point about historical claims from either side of the conflict in the Middle East or any side in a conflict all around the world. This is why I am more declined to discuss historical claims.
If a country in the region conquers lands and justify that action by the reasoning of historical claims (like I have pointed out before), then Iran would have historical claims in Iraq, Turkey in Iraq and Syria, Greece in Turkey, etc. It would b a mess that one nation have started with the support of the US. Therefore, other nations have the same right to ask for the US support to pursue their historical claims.
If historical claims are pursued by Israel, then we should just save all the bloodshed and give Jordan back to the Jews. That is not a problem so far in my reasoning process. But such historical claims are actually based on biblical scriptures. Meaning that the history that Israel is claiming to have the right to possess is based on the history that the Bible has to an extent documented. Should we consider such historical documentation by the Bible to be accurate, then we are risking the inclusion of other rights granted by GOD to Abraham. Those rights being the lands from the Euphrates to the Nile. With that line of reasoning, the borders of Israel are becoming very dynamic.
Personally, I blame the Arabs the most for what is going on now in the Middle East. This is because they are very short sighted in the realm of policy making on the scale of international relationships. This is also because they are protecting their thrones and care less about their people and the well being of the future offsprings of their nation. This is because they are dictators. All of this made them not strike a deal with Israel for 30 years. Back then they had the chance to mark the boarders at least before the settlements have been put in place.
Israel is not left out, however, without some blame. No matter how smart they are in their pursue to possess what they claim to be their rights historically, Israel is not willing to give a clear indication where are they willing to stop and mark the boarders. Today it is Samaria and Judaea. What is next? (rhetorical question)
In light of the above, terrorism carried out by Arabs will only help expand the borders of Israel.
I hope you understand now that I stand against the Arab terrorists because they are promoting political unrest in the region which will only benefit and support the dynamically expanding borders of Israel. Is this why you think I am bashing, or not being fair to Israel? (also rhetorical question)
The above were my thoughts and reasoning regarding the conflict in reaction to the post you have made. We could discuss it if you choose, or just leave it there as my personal opinion (with no power to influence any policies by either side) regarding the conflict.
---
Thanks for the references PC^Killa, I find them invaluable.
heheh, ? for someone who is so unsure of his Arabic you are awfully quick to dismiss Anwar Shaikh. Did you read his biography? Because if you did, you would know that he was a leading Islamic scholar. And in fact, he was perceived as being such a threat to the Islamic establishment that they have issues fatwas against him and those that distribute and carry his writing. This speaks volumes of the intolerance in the Islamic culture. But also speaks to the seriousness the mullahs placed on Anwar Shaikh writings.
And as far as the specific passage is concerned, you have yet to offer an alternative translation of the passage. So here is my coarse and humble translation of the passage.
Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la tattakhithoo alyahooda waalnnasara awliyaa baAAduhum awliyao baAAdin waman yatawallahum minkum fa-innahu minhum inna Allaha la yahdee alqawma alththalimeena (5:51)
"You who believe, do not feel mercy for the Jews and Christian; do not cooperate with them. Allah does not approve of it"
<hr></blockquote>
If Anwar Shaikh had a scholastic degree in Islam, he would have at least one Islamic publication. Do you find any such Islamic publication on his site or a reference for one? He is disturbed. He can not even properly translate the verse that made him (as he claims) start to reconsider his faith.
Frankly I was inclined to believe that he even exist. What made me follow that reasoning is an incident in which some imaginary character was made by the Wahabi's to attack the Shi-ats. Those kind of propaganda writings are all over the web against Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. You would agree with me that a single word or even a letter could alter the true meaning of a sentence. This is Mr. Shaikh's game. The other fact that makes him a real joke as an investigator is that he actually thinks that all the documented sayings of the prophet are verified source of reference. The falsehood of such thoughts with regard to the prophet sayings will be covered more in my later posts with regard to what propelled the muslims to conquer other territories during the course of history at that time.
Regarding your translation of the verse, I think it downgrades the propaganda Mr. Shaikh is trying to promote and he would definitely disagree with you. To elaborate on your translation, it clearly promotes isolationism and nothing further.
Anyway, since you are not a native speaker, nor Mr. Shaikh and the rest of the translators that I have read so far, none of you have the right to claim what is the right translation. Therefore, you will interpret the Quran in a way that would help you label it according to you wishes and desires as an Israeli. Hence, such interpretation only serves the purpose of that same dynamically expanding eastern border of the State of Israel (as my reasoning leads me to believe).
[quote]
No, your ethnicity and religious background won?t change historical facts, but it does effect your personality and your views on the issues. You claim to be an impartial observer. I question your impartiality. When I questioned you on your background you provided evasive replies. When I questioned you as to the motives that drive Islamic converts to commit the acts that they commit you again gave evasive answers. Why are you so reticent to criticize Islam and so eager to dismiss Anwar Shaikh writings?
<hr></blockquote>
I tried to answer as much as I can regarding my background. Please grant me the right to hide my personal Identity, though. I am not willing to go into so much personal details. I was raised independent, as far as religious believes go, by Catholic parents. I am not a muslim yet, but I am in the process of considering Islam as a faith to embrace.
Also, as you might have read above, I blame the Arabs (which are muslims by majority) more than I blame Israel. I am questioning the possibility of future Israeli expansion plans, however.
I will satisfy your curiosity with regard to my opinion about the muslims in general once we are done with those two question. I'll give you a hint now, however, that I will be bashing muslim individuals and arab nationalists for their black history. But I will not bash against any religion because I truly believe (my own personal opinion) that they are all revelations of GOD that were distorted over time to satisfy human desires.
---
My apologies and appreciation goes to those who were patient enough to read this whole post. I am trying to make my posts shorter, but again I need to elaborate as the discussion requires.
What has that got to do with anything though? There were many women named Mary. Also it is written in the Koran that an Islamic man may have up to 4 wives and he may marry any of "The Book" but she has to convert eventually. And if she does not obey him or he fears she may want to leave him he is commanded to beat her.
The Women
[4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
Got that, if she does not obey him, if she does not guard her unseen parts, or if he fears desertion he can beat her and it is ok with Allah? Beating women is just fine so long as they are not obeying? Peaceful... And if I am hearing right this book is not open for interpretation. It is to be taken literally? Is that right?
As a side note, the Bible, even the new testament, was written many hundreds of years before the Koran. At least 200 right? Interesting that it found it's way into the Koran throughout. I feel like I am reading a highly altered Bible. Highly altered and filled with anti-jewish, anti-christian messages. On the one hand the Jews and the Christians are to be protected, but on the other hand, if they do not convert to Islam when "the Messiah" returns they will be put to the sword by the Messiah himself? And if you read the Hadith you find that on that day the rocks and trees will cry out: 'Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah, here is a Jew behind me, Oh Muslim, come and kill!' So either they are to be protected or they are to be killed, which is it? This is not sounding like balance, it is sounding self-defeating....</strong><hr></blockquote>
The fact that the prophet has married a christian and the fact that a wife is closer to a person than a friend should give you some inferences about whether such word, "friend", is the proper word or not for the purpose of the translation of that verse.
Religious believes are not to be enforced. The Quran states this clearly. I believe someone has quoted that verse in another thread that had my long reply to Mr. Murdacai's claims. (I will look it up and post it again)
The verse regarding women treatment that you are questioning is one of the verses that almost all sects of Islam do not dispute. It is written in Arabic and explained thereafter to imply succession in punishment.First comes admonishment, then abandonment in bed, then final choice is the use of minor physical actions that should not inflict any harm. Therefore, if you explain the dictionary meaning of the word "beat" you will find even those single Arab muslim ladies in the States defying such translation.
The Bible was definitely written before the Quran was revealed. The revelation of the Quran started in the 600s after the birth of Christ.The catch, however, is that the possibility of altering the Bible can not be ruled out, while the possibility of altering the Quran can be ruled out. Not a single native speaker, in the past 1400 years, have managed to even write in the same eloquent style of the Quran in order to be able to add change the wordings in one verse or another. All arabic scholars testify that it is consistence in style and must be written by one individual (Entity) as opposed to the Bible which is written by many individuals. I believe some christian scholars have investigated the original Hebrew scriptures and found that the style of writing reflects different personalities and writers. This "style" versus "author" as I understand is very evident in both Hebrew and Arabic.
Before I answer your inquiry about the Messiah prophecy, let me explain what words "Islam" and "muslim" mean. Islam means surrendering to the Will of GOD. Thus, that who surrenders to the Will of GOD is a muslim by definition. Therefore, all those who do not surrender to the Will of GOD by submitting to the Messiah are doomed at that time in the future. Be it they are Muslims, Christians, or Jews. In fact, the extermination will start in retaliation to the atrocities committed by those who call themselves muslims. Further more, those prophecies speak about 40,000 muslim cleric (the one who PC^Killa calls "mullah" and they usually wear turbans such as that you would find on Khomeini's head) being slaughtered first because they promote atrocities to be committed against the population of the region. Those are the clerics, more muslims will also be slaughtered by either side of the conflict before it all ends in the lands west of the river. This is a more fair sided relay of the prophecies.
The fact that the prophet has married a christian and the fact that a wife is closer to a person than a friend should give you some inferences about whether such word, "friend", is the proper word or not for the purpose of the translation of that verse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yet you manage not to speak of the fact that the Christian women are now his wife, and not free to do as she pleases anymore. She is subjugated to him and must bend to his will. If not then she goes through the "stages" of punishment. And you also neglect to mention how she must convert to Islam eventually. It is not an even relationship like you would have with a neighboring city, state or country wherethe man has no more power over them than they do over him. Not even close to the same thing.
[quote]<strong>Religious believes are not to be enforced. The Quran states this clearly. I believe someone has quoted that verse in another thread that had my long reply to Mr. Murdacai's claims. (I will look it up and post it again)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not to be enforced? You find many, many references of those who are to be slaughtered if they are not true believers. What more enforcement is there?
[quote]<strong>The verse regarding women treatment that you are questioning is one of the verses that almost all sects of Islam do not dispute. It is written in Arabic and explained thereafter to imply succession in punishment.First comes admonishment, then abandonment in bed, then final choice is the use of minor physical actions that should not inflict any harm. Therefore, if you explain the dictionary meaning of the word "beat" you will find even those single Arab muslim ladies in the States defying such translation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, in the States they are under our laws which are designed to prevent abuse of women because the woman has legal recourse if the man beats her. How about in Afghanistan or even Saudi Arabia? Do the women have the same rights and priveleges there? If you say yes you are lying and you know it.
[quote]<strong>The Bible was definitely written before the Quran was revealed. The revelation of the Quran started in the 600s after the birth of Christ.The catch, however, is that the possibility of altering the Bible can not be ruled out, while the possibility of altering the Quran can be ruled out. Not a single native speaker, in the past 1400 years, have managed to even write in the same eloquent style of the Quran in order to be able to add change the wordings in one verse or another. All arabic scholars testify that it is consistence in style and must be written by one individual (Entity) as opposed to the Bible which is written by many individuals. I believe some christian scholars have investigated the original Hebrew scriptures and found that the style of writing reflects different personalities and writers. This "style" versus "author" as I understand is very evident in both Hebrew and Arabic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This means only one thing. The Koran was written about 400 years after the bible and it was written by one man. It does not mean that it is any more valid because of that and it also does not mean that it could not have been changed (not that I am saying that it has been). If you read it and study it enough you could write verses for it that would sound like the origional if you really wanted to. (Not that you would either.) I was just commenting mostly on how the stories in the Koran are quite similar to the bible stories, only the names and races have been altered and some of the portions of the stories have been refitted to fit the Arab/Moslem world.
Quote:
<strong>Before I answer your inquiry about the Messiah prophecy, let me explain what words "Islam" and "muslim" mean. Islam means surrendering to the Will of GOD. Thus, that who surrenders to the Will of GOD is a muslim by definition. Therefore, all those who do not surrender to the Will of GOD by submitting to the Messiah are doomed at that time in the future. Be it they are Muslims, Christians, or Jews. In fact, the extermination will start in retaliation to the atrocities committed by those who call themselves muslims. Further more, those prophecies speak about 40,000 muslim cleric (the one who PC^Killa calls "mullah" and they usually wear turbans such as that you would find on Khomeini's head) being slaughtered first because they promote atrocities to be committed against the population of the region. Those are the clerics, more muslims will also be slaughtered by either side of the conflict before it all ends in the lands west of the river. This is a more fair sided relay of the prophecies.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Still, they will be slaughtered by the messiah. Beheaded most likley by a large sowrd or run thought with a large spear if I read it correctly. So they are not true believers and thus will be slaughtered in this life by the messiah of Islam and then tortured in the next by Allah's hell created for them. One verse I have read a couple times (I do not have the correct reference right now but I can provide it if you cannot find it yourself) speaks of the unbeliever being burned with fire int his life untill his skin is gone and then being given new skin to burn so that he may fully feel the punishment of Allah. :eek:
You are probably wondering why I keep bringing these verses up. Why it only seems that I see the negatives and none of the positives. Well, all of the positive things that are in the Koran seem to be taken from the Bible and then qualified so that it makes more sense to those in the Islamic faith. All I am pointing out is that which is not in the Bible, and that is the call to slaughter the unbeliever, not just kill, slaughter. This word in itself seems to imply beyond simple death but death, then mutilation of the body, removal of limbs and haking it up. Why does it need to be so brutal? Cannot Allah deal with them for eternity in an effective manner, or does his followers need to have the release of slaughtering their foes because a simple killing is not enough? This book (the Koran) is not winning me over with it's "eloquent writing" or its finer points of style. I had hoped that reading it would only prove that I was wrong about many things in it, but so far I have been mistaken and it frightens me that people are supposed to take it so literally.
<strong>What do you really mean by this? What are you searching for in a religion that makes the choice so difficult?</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you replied,
Logic.
I am searching for a religion that explains everything logically.
Quran, so far in my studies, has been the only logically verifiable religious text.
So now I ask, what about it is so logical? I must be missing something, because the logic of it evades me. Almost 80% of it was found first in the Bible, the other 20% is either dealing with Arab/Muslim issues specifically, or are the parts about Allah's vindictiveness. Do I need to keep reading so that I can find the good parts? You seem quite intelligent and so I believe that you have found something in it that has grabbed you, but I am not seeing it.
I appreciate that you are replying calmly to what could be considered an attack on your future faith. I know that I tried to be the same way in my replies to attacks in my two other threads, and it was not easy. I do congratulate you for your level replies.
Read this article... it almost justifies everything the Israeli right does and thinks <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_2021000/2021727.stm"; target="_blank">Palastinian hardliners in Iran</a>It includes the following statements :eek: :eek: :eek: [quote] He referred to Israel as "a cancerous tumour implanted in the heart of the Islamic world which must be uprooted before it takes over <hr></blockquote>
and tellingly this:
[quote] but our only weapon is our love of martyrdom and death[my bolding] <hr></blockquote>
and
[quote] Main thoroughfares in many parts of Tehran have for several days been draped with banners bearing the picture of the late Ayatollah Khomeini and one of his slogans: "Israel must be destroyed." <hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the references PC^Killa, I find them invaluable.
You are very welcome.
Quote
If a country in the region conquers lands and justify that action by the reasoning of historical claims (like I have pointed out before), then Iran would have historical claims in Iraq, Turkey in Iraq and Syria, Greece in Turkey, etc. It would b a mess that one nation have started with the support of the US. Therefore, other nations have the same right to ask for the US support to pursue their historical claims.
I partly agree and disagree with you here. All the peoples in the modern nation states that you?ve mentioned (without exception) have in fact conquered the land they now occupy from other peoples that had lived there beforehand. So none of them would have historical claims to their land today according to your very broad definition. (This is because your definition is fundamentally flawed. I?ll address that later if you like). It is true that some nations' territories extended into another nations' territory at some period of time and war has resulted due to conflicting claims to the same land. However, in the course of time and for reasons advantageous to themselves many of the nations have come to accept a mutually agreed on border. Where you have conflict today is where no agreement has yet been reached between the parties who claim sovereignty over the same land due to internal political systems that encourage war and domination. The genius of the capitalist and democratic systems is that they encourage nation states to forgo expensive and highly disruptive wars in favor of mutual accommodation and cooperation that in the end is more highly beneficial to their citizenry then any territorial gains would have provided.
The fact that all the Arab nation states are in fact authoritarian and undemocratic is no coincidence. Neither is the fact that almost all the conflicts in the world today involve Islamic combatants fighting for Islamic dominance. And here Islam can be directly at blame Jakkorz. Putting aside the highly prejudicial statements in the Koran regarding Jews, Christians, peoples of non-monotheistic faiths, and so called non-believers, the Koran is very much antithetic to the democratic system of governance and the so-called ?separation of church and state?. Also given that Islam is a so highly theocratic and draws its authority from ?God?, dissenting ideas critical of this religious establishment are automatically suppressed and discouraged, and in many instances, it is done in the most brutal and barbaric methods. Another factor in this deadly brew, is the fact that Islam claims to be the final and ultimate word of ?God?. Thus it seeks dominance over other cultures, religions, political systems, etc. which of-course leads to the sorry situation we are now in. Here you can see how Islamic expansionism is built in into the Islamic system of thought. And this is a recipe for disaster. Particularly since modern humans have now the capability to totally wipe out the human population on earth.
Quote
If historical claims are pursued by Israel, then we should just save all the bloodshed and give Jordan back to the Jews. That is not a problem so far in my reasoning process. But such historical claims are actually based on biblical scriptures. Meaning that the history that Israel is claiming to have the right to possess is based on the history that the Bible has to an extent documented. Should we consider such historical documentation by the Bible to be accurate, then we are risking the inclusion of other rights granted by GOD to Abraham. Those rights being the lands from the Euphrates to the Nile. With that line of reasoning, the borders of Israel are becoming very dynamic.
I really don?t think you need to worry about that Jakkorz. The overwhelming percentage of Israelis and in fact, Jews around the world are non-religious, and are also rather anti-religious. To be Jewish does not necessarily involve one being religious. To be Jewish means that one can trace his maternal ancestry to the people that inhabited the land of Judea. Israel has more than once saved Jordan from imminent invasions from her neighbors. Israel has also lobbied the Americans on behalf of the Jordanians for economic and military assistance. This is because Israel considers Jordan to be the most foreword and ?western? of the Arab regimes in the area. Israel will do all it can to encourage this country in fully adopting secular democratic values and a capitalistic and open trade policy. The reasons to which I have already outlined above.
However, as far as the Arab colonies in Judea Samaria and Gaza, here the story is rather grim. This is my personal assessment of-course, but I think that unless these colonies are fully withdrawn, stability in the region will not be achieved. The Arab populations in these colonies are just too open to corruption by foreign elements antithetic to Western values and Israel. You might think that this is a local dispute, but it is far from it. Arab and non-Arab Islamic regimes such as Iran have too much riding on this to keep out. And the fact the 50 years of trying to reach an accommodation with these peoples has failed so miserably, I think will necessitate the transfer of these peoples back to their countries of origin.
Quote
I hope you understand now that I stand against the Arab terrorists because they are promoting political unrest in the region which will only benefit and support the dynamically expanding borders of Israel. Is this why you think I am bashing, or not being fair to Israel? (also rhetorical question)
This is very saddening to hear. You oppose terrorism not for what it is, but because you feel it has somehow furthered the perceived political goals you think Israel has. This is after you wrote:
Personally, I blame the Arabs the most for what is going on now in the Middle East. This is because they are very short sighted in the realm of policy making on the scale of international relationships. This is also because they are protecting their thrones and care less about their people and the well being of the future offsprings of their nation. This is because they are dictators. All of this made them not strike a deal with Israel for 30 years. Back then they had the chance to mark the boarders at least before the settlements have been put in place.
The Arabs have had a chance to ?strike a deal? with Israel not for 30 years but for more than 50 years! This is the truly sad thing. Think of all the people that lost their lives needlessly, all the people who had their lives forever scar by this conflict, all the resources that have gone to waste in support of bloated military infrastructures in all these countries. Think of where the Middle East and its peoples would be if it wasn?t for all this. Can you see how stupid and destructive all this is?
Quote
You would agree with me that a single word or even a letter could alter the true meaning of a sentence. This is Mr. Shaikh's game.
I would agree with you Jakkorz, if it wasn?t for the overwhelming fact that history very much supports all of Anwar Shaikh contentions.
Quote
Frankly I was inclined to believe that he even exist.
Hmm, ? that?s interesting. I didn?t think about that. So you believe this guy, Anwar Shaikh, is all made up? By whom? Also, if he is made up, does it really take away from the arguments made?
Quote
The other fact that makes him a real joke as an investigator is that he actually thinks that all the documented sayings of the prophet are verified source of reference
I don?t follow you here? I?ll look for you to further explain that.
Quote
Anyway, since you are not a native speaker, nor Mr. Shaikh and the rest of the translators that I have read so far, none of you have the right to claim what is the right translation. Therefore, you will interpret the Quran in a way that would help you label it according to you wishes and desires as an Israeli. Hence, such interpretation only serves the purpose of that same dynamically expanding eastern border of the State of Israel (as my reasoning leads me to believe).
I strongly disagree with your logic here. I?m not a native speaker of Hebrew or English or Arabic. I?ll remind you that I was born in Lithuania and my native tongues are Lithuanian and Russian. So does that mean I?m incapable of fully comprehending what is written in Hebrew or English? Does it prevent me from understanding Shakespeare or the Tanah (Hebrew Bible). That is nonsense. Why would it prevent me, or someone like Anwar Shaikh, from understanding the Koran?
Quote
Third, this will be regarding the Jews only. Quran asks the believers clearly to be more careful with the Jewish Authorities than the Jewish people themselves (Authorities as in representative parties and groups). Quran believes the Jews have had the principles of Democracy long before even such term was practiced in ancient Greece and Rome. This practice of democracy along with the term "Chosen Nation" (Please correct me if I have quoted that wrong) contribute a lot to the political unrest of the Jews amongst themselves. This is why Quran in another verse states that every time the Jews make a treaty a group of them would not abide by the rules of the treaty.
This is a very interesting statement. Did you find any historical evidence to support this?
Quote
I other verses, I am sure you have came across with by now in your readings, It says that the Jews hates the muslims but the Christians don't. Actually I believe it says that Christians have affection towards the believers.
That?s not a nice thing to say. I?m sure most Jews weren?t even aware of the existence of Islam when this was said. But still, I can see how Mohammed, based on his experience with local Jews predicted that Jews, being as tenacious to their roots, culture, religion, ethnicity, etc. as they are, even in the face of the most extreme adversity will opt not to adapt Islam. So Islam singled out Jews for particular treatment. Anyone else was so singled out by Islam or is it just Jews? btw. Why are Jews not allowed in Saudi Arabia? What happened to all the Jews there?
Quote
Also, that same friend asked me to avoid discussions in such subjects and just mind my own business and watch my own actions rather than talk about other's. I promised him that I will be going back to my solitude once this thread is dead.
Jakkorz, I truly fear for you. Going back to ?solitude? will only facilitate a further radicalization of your beliefs. You must stay engaged and continue to critically analyze these things or you will fall victim to the manipulations of those that in the end will only lead you to hate and destruction. I?m very sorry for earlier attacking you personally, for I fear I might have triggered defensive responses in you that ultimately will blind you to the true reality that surrounds you. I was born in Lithuania when it was under the influence of the Soviets. I was therefore instilled from early childhood with a mind-set of suspicion and critical analysis of authority - be it political, economic, social, religious, cultural, etc. Do not let the false aura of piety cloud your judgment of what religion is, and more specifically in your case, what Islam is, and how it relates to other systems of thought and governance.
I wish I could go on, but it?s getting late now, and many things are waiting to be done ?
Some other scary quotes that people refuse to believe before:
[quote]The conference organiser, Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi - who as Iranian ambassador in Damascus was instrumental in setting up the Lebanese Hezbollah in the early 1980s - said that the Palestinian intifada, and especially the suicide bombings, had achieved more than all the Arab wars and peace talks with Israel.<hr></blockquote>
and
[quote]They regarded the latest peace proposals as nothing more than an empty trick to get the Palestinians to give up the intifada.<hr></blockquote>
and
[quote]"We have no choice but to take the initiative and defend ourselves with ourselves, through suicide operations and in all other ways, which are legitimate as long as the occupation continues," he added.<hr></blockquote>
This post in response to NoahJ's question about how to acquire proper authority to explain the Quran.
Simply put, vast knowledge. To go into details I will explain to you how the Quran was revealed at first.
The first verse was revealed while the prophet was in solitude on the outskirts of Mecca. It asked the prophet to "read", as a sign to promote knowledge. The prophet is known to be illiterate. If it is true, then prophet did not possess the faculties of reading nor writing.
Over a period of 23 years the Quranic verses were revealed one or more at a time. For each revelation, the holy spirit has instructed the prophet of the place at which this verse to be placed, and how it is interpreted along with the evidence that is revealed to back such interpretation. Therefore, some find that the reading of the Quran is not forward and little poetic as far as clear scientific Arabic writings go. This is, however, clearly justified by the Arabic speakers that the form it was put in makes it possible to apply through out history and not be static in a sense. Careful studies of the Quran show many sciences involved in the writing, such as those of environment, dietary, physics, medicine, social sciences, political sciences, etc. The Arabs have in fact used some of the terms in the Quran as a terminology for recent scientific discoveries. The miracle that the Quran claims to have revealed for the prophet to prove his prophecy is non other than the Quran itself. It challenges on many occasions the eloquent arabs at the time to make a verse that would be the same in style as the arabic Quranic style. Like I have mentioned, no one to date for the past 1400 years have successfully met this challenge. That is , however, something to be mitigated among the native Arabic speakers. Since the message of the Quran is claimed to be that of GOD, the messenger must be infallible in order to deliver a perfect message. Basically, practice what he preach.
In the light of the above, an authorized interpreter of the Quran should possess knowledge in the following:
1. Arabic literature.
2. Arabic grammar.
3. Rules of Arabic eloquence.
4. Branches of Philosophy. (A term Arabs refer to as the science of words)
5. Logic.
6. Hadith. (The verified speeches and practices of the prophet)
7. History.
8. Behavioral sciences. (soul, mind, and physical body virtues and vices)
9. The study of all past interpretations by other scholars throughout history.
The above is part of a list that can be edited depending on the sect the interpreter comes from. Of course, all that is worth nothing if you do not have the good will of interpretation. All quotes, I am sure we agree on that, can be taken out of context. Thus the good will I believe should be the first requirement.
From what I have seen so far, none of the authors who are attacking Islam by quoting Quran have proper authority to interpret it in the first place.
Comments
<strong>Do you not believe that individuals should be held accountable for their actions? I don't see how specific first-hand information - tainted by conflict - should have any bearing on that judgment.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Where did you get that from? Not my post. Individuals are, and should be, held accountable for their actions.
[quote]<strong>I don't care how you justify a generalisaton like that; it is bound to be untrue with such a large amount of people. People on both sides do appear to want peace. I would guess that a majority of Palestinians, though, want peace for themselves and Christians, but not Jews. I'm sure there is a minority of Jews who want peace only for themselves and the Christians as well.
There are elements of both sides that could ensure the peace isn't attained, just as there are those who are level-headed and continually get screwed over by the former.
Additionally, it seems to me that the question of who wants peace and who doesn't is just another excuse for people to fight.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A lot of words that really say nothing new. This conflict is fought by oth sides. If both sides decided to stop fighting, the fighting would stop. However, in all the history i have read only one side keeps picking up the guns and bombs and heading for the other when the fighting dies down, and it has not been Israel.
Read my second post again. I was adding some stuff in / editing it when you replied. Sorry. I can't stand the fact that we don't have the option to preview our posts before we submit them. I should start writing all my posts in Word and just pasting them in so I can proof them easier / more quickly.
Anyway, I really feel like (for America anyway) it is -- in the near-term -- a lot wiser to focus on what we should be asking from our politicians and what we can do to avert / in the case of the next disaster. When we've got things a little more under control, then we can take the more scholarly approach and argue about the Koran like a bunch of collegiate snobs who think that understanding books gives them special powers over the rest of us mortals.
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Why did you quote Moogs' advocation of individual responsibility and blast him for not having first-hand information?
[quote]This conflict is fought by oth sides. If both sides decided to stop fighting, the fighting would stop. However, in all the history i have read only one side keeps picking up the guns and bombs and heading for the other when the fighting dies down, and it has not been Israel.<hr></blockquote>
That doesn't make your generalisation correct. An action by some Palestinians should not represent the Palestinians, at least not if you want to think logically about this. The idea of two sides does make blaming and justifying easier, however.
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: Dead Member ]</p>
<strong>
That doesn't make your generalisation correct. An action by some Palestinians should not represent the Palestinians, at least not if you want to think logically about this. The idea of two sides does make blaming and justifying easier, however.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
HOwever, when the leadership of the palestinians does nothing to stop them and even appears to support the actions covertly it does as teh leadership by definition does represent the people. If they don't like it they should get new leaders. They are not opposed to Arafat however, just look at the food they eat....
What do you really mean by this? What are you searching for in a religion that makes the choice so difficult?
<hr></blockquote>
Logic.
I am searching for a religion that explains everything logically.
Quran, so far in my studies, has been the only logically verifiable religious text.
[quote]
Kinda like your English..
<hr></blockquote>
I know what you mean about my English.
Sorry, but this is the best I can do. I have spent thirteen years in the Middle East (my childhood).Also, this is my fourth year in Japan. I hardly come across native English speakers anymore. I admit that reading so much philosophy, trying to talk to the Japanese with broken English so they would understand, and my studies regarding Arabic and Islam contribute a lot to the way I write.
I will make another post that will explain the knowledge required in order to qualify one to become a proper authority and be able to interpret Quran. I will do that because I am inclined to make my posts shorter from now on. My posts should reflect my basic understanding of Islam. With Islam divided into more than 73 sects, I am sure a lot of muslims will disagree with me and disagree with the ones that relayed that kind of information to me.
[quote]
I believe that this is what the thread is basically about. Except it has taken the form of you and PCKilla bickering. One of you gives a bit and the other tightens the screws some more. I wish you would both stop playing games and just answer each other openly.
<hr></blockquote>
I would be happy to answer all his question.
One topic at a time, though. My question about the translation of "friend" is the main issue. The second question was left off from another thread, and this is why I raised it here.
My whole purpose of getting into this with PC^Killa is the fact that I would like him to think of human beings as self contained entities. There are those who are terrorists amongst us, human beings, and there are those who are peaceful. I truely believe that labeling a large group of people is not a good practice. This is what the Anti-Semite and Anti-American are using. Therefore I hate for the Semite and the Americans to use such labeling schemes.
The subjects of religion, nationalism, ethnicity, and history are very interesting and I am sure you agree that they can not be fairly covered by few inquiries.
[quote]
Which prophet?
<hr></blockquote>
Prophet of the muslims, Muhammad.
---
I see the thread is growing and you have to give me some time for the post regarding proper authority. I have a living to make, and a lot of contemplation to practice.
<strong>And on the same topic. Why is it better that it says guardian rather than friend? It still is singling out Jews and Christians and saying the same thing. In my reading of the Koran so far it is littered with these references. Why single out Jews and Christians (people of the book)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is better for the purpose of the consistency of Quranic teachings with practices of the prophet and the eloquence of the Arabic language. If we were to use friend instead of guardian (or any other word that emphasizes a relationship that is much stronger than merely a friendship), then the verse that asks the muslims to be the friends of GOD, the Prophet and the believers will give the muslims the right to disagree with their friends. Disagree with GOD, and GOD sent messenger is definitely not something a religion would claim.
As far as singling out Jews and Christians, there are many reasons to count but I will give a couple that might be very clear. First, you can think of it as a prophecy that Jews and Christians will be in the helm of power for centuries to come. Keeping that in mind, each of them will be making decisions based on their personal interests which is in turn based on their religious believes. As the verse does not promote hatred, it is clear that this is more like a policy rather than a rally against the Jews and Christians. Second, with hateful propaganda writings about Islam dating back to the time of the crusaders, you should find it very logical to avoid undocumented alliances with Christians. Third, this will be regarding the Jews only. Quran asks the believers clearly to be more careful with the Jewish Authorities than the Jewish people themselves (Authorities as in representative parties and groups). Quran believes the Jews have had the principles of Democracy long before even such term was practiced in ancient Greece and Rome. This practice of democracy along with the term "Chosen Nation" (Please correct me if I have quoted that wrong) contribute a lot to the political unrest of the Jews amongst themselves. This is why Quran in another verse states that every time the Jews make a treaty a group of them would not abide by the rules of the treaty.
I other verses, I am sure you have came across with by now in your readings, It says that the Jews hates the muslims but the Christians don't. Actually I believe it says that Christians have affection towards the believers. Add to that another verse that states clearly that of the people of the book ,both Jews and Christians, there are true believers.
Therefore, what you consider as contradictions and exception they are better interpreted as balancing statements. The same balance of statements does apply for the Bible as far as my long time readings go. That is how reality appears to be. You can not generalize without exclusion. Aside from that balance, Quran seems very realistic in dealing with general policy making.
I would like to conclude my post with this:
A muslim friend of mine in the middle east (I also have very dear Jewish friends
I still do shed tears of joy every time I remember this statement.
That same friend is the one who helped me translate PC^Killa's Arabic post. Also, that same friend asked me to avoid discussions in such subjects and just mind my own business and watch my own actions rather than talk about other's. I promised him that I will be going back to my solitude once this thread is dead.
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: jakkorz ]</p>
<strong>I love it when people argue -- ad nauseum -- about the semantics of religeous texts and historical texts, all in order to avoid the inevitable fact that "their side" is guilty in the extreme and has no excuse or justification whatsoever for their behavior. There's no delusion like self-delusion, is there?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not sure which "two" are you talking about, but anyway, please consider the following:
I would like to be clear on one issue. The argument here is that it is not fair nor is it right to label "Islam" as evil based on the actions of some muslims. Further, Quranic teachings can not be blamed for the actions of some muslims either. The same thing apply for Christianity, Judaism, and the Bible.
I hope you agree with the above.
I guess whether you see the leadership as representing the Palestinians depends on whether you see government representation in this case as ideal representation or 'manipulating and playing into'. If you had a dictatorship that began brainwashing your society during troubled times. Once generations had passed and people came to unquestioningly support the dictatorship, would you say that the dictatorship represents the society?
[quote]They are not opposed to Arafat however, just look at the food they eat....<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Seriously though, I don't see how a population raised on weapons and propaganda could be opposed to him, unfortunately.
and
[quote]<strong>Prophet of the muslims, Muhammad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What has that got to do with anything though? There were many women named Mary. Also it is written in the Koran that an Islamic man may have up to 4 wives and he may marry any of "The Book" but she has to convert eventually. And if she does not obey him or he fears she may want to leave him he is commanded to beat her.
The Women
[4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
Got that, if she does not obey him, if she does not guard her unseen parts, or if he fears desertion he can beat her and it is ok with Allah? Beating women is just fine so long as they are not obeying? Peaceful... And if I am hearing right this book is not open for interpretation. It is to be taken literally? Is that right?
As a side note, the Bible, even the new testament, was written many hundreds of years before the Koran. At least 200 right? Interesting that it found it's way into the Koran thorughout. I feel like I am reading a highly altered Bible. Highly altered and filled with anti-jewish, anti-christian messages. On the one hand the Jews and the Christians are to be protected, but on the other hand, if they do not convert to Islam when "the Messiah" returns they will be put to the sword by the Messiah himself? And if you read the Hadith you find that on that day the rocks and trees will cry out: 'Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah, here is a Jew behind me, Oh Muslim, come and kill!' So either they are to be protected or they are to be killed, which is it? This is not sounding like balance, it is sounding self-defeating....
[quote]Originally posted by PC^KILLA:
In Hebrew it?s ?ktav?. Meaning writing. So here are the writings I said I?ll provide:
1] <a href="http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/09016.html"; target="_blank">http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/09016.html</a>;
2] <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/index.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/index.shtml</a>;
The second site is particularly rich in information concerning this subject matter.
You?ve asked who as the first settler of the land. And the answer to that is that there has been found human skeletal remains in caves 15 km South of Haifa dating some 100,000 years. Now, you want to stick a label of nationality on these skeletal remains, be my guest.
What you have today is a conflict involving two rival claims to the land of Canaan. That of Jews and that of Arabs. And even by the most conservative dating methods, the claim of Israel precedes that of Arabs by almost 2,000!!! years. I?ll refer you to the victory stele of the pharaoh Mernephtah (c. 1224-1214 B.C.) who campaigned in the land Canaan, and which mentions the cities of Ashkelon, Gezer and Yenoam, and announces that "Israel is laid waste; his seed is not."
I know of no one that would or did argue that Jews were the first people to settle the land of Canaan. Even the biblical account is very clear on this issue. Why would that even be an argument that you think I would need to take? The current conflict is not about Israel and Canaanites, or Israel and Philistines. These peoples have long ago ceased to exist. The current conflict is between Jews and Arabs. A people that stormed these lands on a murderous wave of conquest spurred on by religious Islamic nationalistic fervor.
That is not what I stated. You?ve asked who was first on the land, and I gave you the answer. The Jews were there 2000 prior to the Arabs. I also stated, being that there is evidence of human inhabitance on the land dating some 100,000 years, it is very doubtful that national identities played a role during that late Paleolithic period.
Second, you say that the Jews as a nation have no historical as opposed to religious rights to that land whatsoever. This is such an absurd statement. And according to your criteria, there is hardly a peoples on Earth that can claim any historical claims to any of their land. And certainly not the Arabs to the land of Israel.
<hr></blockquote>
I totally agree. Certainly, the Arabs have no historical claims to the land of Israel (though I prefer to call it the lands east and west of the river because of the politically motivated implications involved with the name Israel). This is exactly my point about historical claims from either side of the conflict in the Middle East or any side in a conflict all around the world. This is why I am more declined to discuss historical claims.
If a country in the region conquers lands and justify that action by the reasoning of historical claims (like I have pointed out before), then Iran would have historical claims in Iraq, Turkey in Iraq and Syria, Greece in Turkey, etc. It would b a mess that one nation have started with the support of the US. Therefore, other nations have the same right to ask for the US support to pursue their historical claims.
If historical claims are pursued by Israel, then we should just save all the bloodshed and give Jordan back to the Jews. That is not a problem so far in my reasoning process. But such historical claims are actually based on biblical scriptures. Meaning that the history that Israel is claiming to have the right to possess is based on the history that the Bible has to an extent documented. Should we consider such historical documentation by the Bible to be accurate, then we are risking the inclusion of other rights granted by GOD to Abraham. Those rights being the lands from the Euphrates to the Nile. With that line of reasoning, the borders of Israel are becoming very dynamic.
Personally, I blame the Arabs the most for what is going on now in the Middle East. This is because they are very short sighted in the realm of policy making on the scale of international relationships. This is also because they are protecting their thrones and care less about their people and the well being of the future offsprings of their nation. This is because they are dictators. All of this made them not strike a deal with Israel for 30 years. Back then they had the chance to mark the boarders at least before the settlements have been put in place.
Israel is not left out, however, without some blame. No matter how smart they are in their pursue to possess what they claim to be their rights historically, Israel is not willing to give a clear indication where are they willing to stop and mark the boarders. Today it is Samaria and Judaea. What is next? (rhetorical question)
In light of the above, terrorism carried out by Arabs will only help expand the borders of Israel.
I hope you understand now that I stand against the Arab terrorists because they are promoting political unrest in the region which will only benefit and support the dynamically expanding borders of Israel. Is this why you think I am bashing, or not being fair to Israel? (also rhetorical question)
The above were my thoughts and reasoning regarding the conflict in reaction to the post you have made. We could discuss it if you choose, or just leave it there as my personal opinion (with no power to influence any policies by either side) regarding the conflict.
---
Thanks for the references PC^Killa, I find them invaluable.
---
My next post is the second part.
[quote]Originally posted by PC^KILLA:
heheh, ? for someone who is so unsure of his Arabic you are awfully quick to dismiss Anwar Shaikh. Did you read his biography? Because if you did, you would know that he was a leading Islamic scholar. And in fact, he was perceived as being such a threat to the Islamic establishment that they have issues fatwas against him and those that distribute and carry his writing. This speaks volumes of the intolerance in the Islamic culture. But also speaks to the seriousness the mullahs placed on Anwar Shaikh writings.
And as far as the specific passage is concerned, you have yet to offer an alternative translation of the passage. So here is my coarse and humble translation of the passage.
Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la tattakhithoo alyahooda waalnnasara awliyaa baAAduhum awliyao baAAdin waman yatawallahum minkum fa-innahu minhum inna Allaha la yahdee alqawma alththalimeena (5:51)
"You who believe, do not feel mercy for the Jews and Christian; do not cooperate with them. Allah does not approve of it"
<hr></blockquote>
If Anwar Shaikh had a scholastic degree in Islam, he would have at least one Islamic publication. Do you find any such Islamic publication on his site or a reference for one? He is disturbed. He can not even properly translate the verse that made him (as he claims) start to reconsider his faith.
Frankly I was inclined to believe that he even exist. What made me follow that reasoning is an incident in which some imaginary character was made by the Wahabi's to attack the Shi-ats. Those kind of propaganda writings are all over the web against Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. You would agree with me that a single word or even a letter could alter the true meaning of a sentence. This is Mr. Shaikh's game. The other fact that makes him a real joke as an investigator is that he actually thinks that all the documented sayings of the prophet are verified source of reference. The falsehood of such thoughts with regard to the prophet sayings will be covered more in my later posts with regard to what propelled the muslims to conquer other territories during the course of history at that time.
Regarding your translation of the verse, I think it downgrades the propaganda Mr. Shaikh is trying to promote and he would definitely disagree with you. To elaborate on your translation, it clearly promotes isolationism and nothing further.
Anyway, since you are not a native speaker, nor Mr. Shaikh and the rest of the translators that I have read so far, none of you have the right to claim what is the right translation. Therefore, you will interpret the Quran in a way that would help you label it according to you wishes and desires as an Israeli. Hence, such interpretation only serves the purpose of that same dynamically expanding eastern border of the State of Israel (as my reasoning leads me to believe).
[quote]
No, your ethnicity and religious background won?t change historical facts, but it does effect your personality and your views on the issues. You claim to be an impartial observer. I question your impartiality. When I questioned you on your background you provided evasive replies. When I questioned you as to the motives that drive Islamic converts to commit the acts that they commit you again gave evasive answers. Why are you so reticent to criticize Islam and so eager to dismiss Anwar Shaikh writings?
<hr></blockquote>
I tried to answer as much as I can regarding my background. Please grant me the right to hide my personal Identity, though. I am not willing to go into so much personal details. I was raised independent, as far as religious believes go, by Catholic parents. I am not a muslim yet, but I am in the process of considering Islam as a faith to embrace.
Also, as you might have read above, I blame the Arabs (which are muslims by majority) more than I blame Israel. I am questioning the possibility of future Israeli expansion plans, however.
I will satisfy your curiosity with regard to my opinion about the muslims in general once we are done with those two question. I'll give you a hint now, however, that I will be bashing muslim individuals and arab nationalists for their black history. But I will not bash against any religion because I truly believe (my own personal opinion) that they are all revelations of GOD that were distorted over time to satisfy human desires.
---
My apologies and appreciation goes to those who were patient enough to read this whole post. I am trying to make my posts shorter, but again I need to elaborate as the discussion requires.
<strong>
What has that got to do with anything though? There were many women named Mary. Also it is written in the Koran that an Islamic man may have up to 4 wives and he may marry any of "The Book" but she has to convert eventually. And if she does not obey him or he fears she may want to leave him he is commanded to beat her.
The Women
[4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
Got that, if she does not obey him, if she does not guard her unseen parts, or if he fears desertion he can beat her and it is ok with Allah? Beating women is just fine so long as they are not obeying? Peaceful... And if I am hearing right this book is not open for interpretation. It is to be taken literally? Is that right?
As a side note, the Bible, even the new testament, was written many hundreds of years before the Koran. At least 200 right? Interesting that it found it's way into the Koran throughout. I feel like I am reading a highly altered Bible. Highly altered and filled with anti-jewish, anti-christian messages. On the one hand the Jews and the Christians are to be protected, but on the other hand, if they do not convert to Islam when "the Messiah" returns they will be put to the sword by the Messiah himself? And if you read the Hadith you find that on that day the rocks and trees will cry out: 'Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah, here is a Jew behind me, Oh Muslim, come and kill!' So either they are to be protected or they are to be killed, which is it? This is not sounding like balance, it is sounding self-defeating....</strong><hr></blockquote>
The fact that the prophet has married a christian and the fact that a wife is closer to a person than a friend should give you some inferences about whether such word, "friend", is the proper word or not for the purpose of the translation of that verse.
Religious believes are not to be enforced. The Quran states this clearly. I believe someone has quoted that verse in another thread that had my long reply to Mr. Murdacai's claims. (I will look it up and post it again)
The verse regarding women treatment that you are questioning is one of the verses that almost all sects of Islam do not dispute. It is written in Arabic and explained thereafter to imply succession in punishment.First comes admonishment, then abandonment in bed, then final choice is the use of minor physical actions that should not inflict any harm. Therefore, if you explain the dictionary meaning of the word "beat" you will find even those single Arab muslim ladies in the States defying such translation.
The Bible was definitely written before the Quran was revealed. The revelation of the Quran started in the 600s after the birth of Christ.The catch, however, is that the possibility of altering the Bible can not be ruled out, while the possibility of altering the Quran can be ruled out. Not a single native speaker, in the past 1400 years, have managed to even write in the same eloquent style of the Quran in order to be able to add change the wordings in one verse or another. All arabic scholars testify that it is consistence in style and must be written by one individual (Entity) as opposed to the Bible which is written by many individuals. I believe some christian scholars have investigated the original Hebrew scriptures and found that the style of writing reflects different personalities and writers. This "style" versus "author" as I understand is very evident in both Hebrew and Arabic.
Before I answer your inquiry about the Messiah prophecy, let me explain what words "Islam" and "muslim" mean. Islam means surrendering to the Will of GOD. Thus, that who surrenders to the Will of GOD is a muslim by definition. Therefore, all those who do not surrender to the Will of GOD by submitting to the Messiah are doomed at that time in the future. Be it they are Muslims, Christians, or Jews. In fact, the extermination will start in retaliation to the atrocities committed by those who call themselves muslims. Further more, those prophecies speak about 40,000 muslim cleric (the one who PC^Killa calls "mullah" and they usually wear turbans such as that you would find on Khomeini's head) being slaughtered first because they promote atrocities to be committed against the population of the region. Those are the clerics, more muslims will also be slaughtered by either side of the conflict before it all ends in the lands west of the river. This is a more fair sided relay of the prophecies.
---
This will be my last post for the day.
<strong>
The fact that the prophet has married a christian and the fact that a wife is closer to a person than a friend should give you some inferences about whether such word, "friend", is the proper word or not for the purpose of the translation of that verse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yet you manage not to speak of the fact that the Christian women are now his wife, and not free to do as she pleases anymore. She is subjugated to him and must bend to his will. If not then she goes through the "stages" of punishment. And you also neglect to mention how she must convert to Islam eventually. It is not an even relationship like you would have with a neighboring city, state or country wherethe man has no more power over them than they do over him. Not even close to the same thing.
[quote]<strong>Religious believes are not to be enforced. The Quran states this clearly. I believe someone has quoted that verse in another thread that had my long reply to Mr. Murdacai's claims. (I will look it up and post it again)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not to be enforced? You find many, many references of those who are to be slaughtered if they are not true believers. What more enforcement is there?
[quote]<strong>The verse regarding women treatment that you are questioning is one of the verses that almost all sects of Islam do not dispute. It is written in Arabic and explained thereafter to imply succession in punishment.First comes admonishment, then abandonment in bed, then final choice is the use of minor physical actions that should not inflict any harm. Therefore, if you explain the dictionary meaning of the word "beat" you will find even those single Arab muslim ladies in the States defying such translation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, in the States they are under our laws which are designed to prevent abuse of women because the woman has legal recourse if the man beats her. How about in Afghanistan or even Saudi Arabia? Do the women have the same rights and priveleges there? If you say yes you are lying and you know it.
[quote]<strong>The Bible was definitely written before the Quran was revealed. The revelation of the Quran started in the 600s after the birth of Christ.The catch, however, is that the possibility of altering the Bible can not be ruled out, while the possibility of altering the Quran can be ruled out. Not a single native speaker, in the past 1400 years, have managed to even write in the same eloquent style of the Quran in order to be able to add change the wordings in one verse or another. All arabic scholars testify that it is consistence in style and must be written by one individual (Entity) as opposed to the Bible which is written by many individuals. I believe some christian scholars have investigated the original Hebrew scriptures and found that the style of writing reflects different personalities and writers. This "style" versus "author" as I understand is very evident in both Hebrew and Arabic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This means only one thing. The Koran was written about 400 years after the bible and it was written by one man. It does not mean that it is any more valid because of that and it also does not mean that it could not have been changed (not that I am saying that it has been). If you read it and study it enough you could write verses for it that would sound like the origional if you really wanted to. (Not that you would either.) I was just commenting mostly on how the stories in the Koran are quite similar to the bible stories, only the names and races have been altered and some of the portions of the stories have been refitted to fit the Arab/Moslem world.
<strong>Before I answer your inquiry about the Messiah prophecy, let me explain what words "Islam" and "muslim" mean. Islam means surrendering to the Will of GOD. Thus, that who surrenders to the Will of GOD is a muslim by definition. Therefore, all those who do not surrender to the Will of GOD by submitting to the Messiah are doomed at that time in the future. Be it they are Muslims, Christians, or Jews. In fact, the extermination will start in retaliation to the atrocities committed by those who call themselves muslims. Further more, those prophecies speak about 40,000 muslim cleric (the one who PC^Killa calls "mullah" and they usually wear turbans such as that you would find on Khomeini's head) being slaughtered first because they promote atrocities to be committed against the population of the region. Those are the clerics, more muslims will also be slaughtered by either side of the conflict before it all ends in the lands west of the river. This is a more fair sided relay of the prophecies.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Still, they will be slaughtered by the messiah. Beheaded most likley by a large sowrd or run thought with a large spear if I read it correctly. So they are not true believers and thus will be slaughtered in this life by the messiah of Islam and then tortured in the next by Allah's hell created for them. One verse I have read a couple times (I do not have the correct reference right now but I can provide it if you cannot find it yourself) speaks of the unbeliever being burned with fire int his life untill his skin is gone and then being given new skin to burn so that he may fully feel the punishment of Allah. :eek:
You are probably wondering why I keep bringing these verses up. Why it only seems that I see the negatives and none of the positives. Well, all of the positive things that are in the Koran seem to be taken from the Bible and then qualified so that it makes more sense to those in the Islamic faith. All I am pointing out is that which is not in the Bible, and that is the call to slaughter the unbeliever, not just kill, slaughter. This word in itself seems to imply beyond simple death but death, then mutilation of the body, removal of limbs and haking it up. Why does it need to be so brutal? Cannot Allah deal with them for eternity in an effective manner, or does his followers need to have the release of slaughtering their foes because a simple killing is not enough? This book (the Koran) is not winning me over with it's "eloquent writing" or its finer points of style. I had hoped that reading it would only prove that I was wrong about many things in it, but so far I have been mistaken and it frightens me that people are supposed to take it so literally.
[/QB]
<strong>What do you really mean by this? What are you searching for in a religion that makes the choice so difficult?</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you replied,
Logic.
I am searching for a religion that explains everything logically.
Quran, so far in my studies, has been the only logically verifiable religious text.
So now I ask, what about it is so logical? I must be missing something, because the logic of it evades me. Almost 80% of it was found first in the Bible, the other 20% is either dealing with Arab/Muslim issues specifically, or are the parts about Allah's vindictiveness. Do I need to keep reading so that I can find the good parts? You seem quite intelligent and so I believe that you have found something in it that has grabbed you, but I am not seeing it.
I appreciate that you are replying calmly to what could be considered an attack on your future faith. I know that I tried to be the same way in my replies to attacks in my two other threads, and it was not easy. I do congratulate you for your level replies.
and tellingly this:
[quote] but our only weapon is our love of martyrdom and death[my bolding] <hr></blockquote>
and
[quote] Main thoroughfares in many parts of Tehran have for several days been draped with banners bearing the picture of the late Ayatollah Khomeini and one of his slogans: "Israel must be destroyed." <hr></blockquote>
kind of frightening stuff . . . .
Thanks for the references PC^Killa, I find them invaluable.
You are very welcome.
Quote
If a country in the region conquers lands and justify that action by the reasoning of historical claims (like I have pointed out before), then Iran would have historical claims in Iraq, Turkey in Iraq and Syria, Greece in Turkey, etc. It would b a mess that one nation have started with the support of the US. Therefore, other nations have the same right to ask for the US support to pursue their historical claims.
I partly agree and disagree with you here. All the peoples in the modern nation states that you?ve mentioned (without exception) have in fact conquered the land they now occupy from other peoples that had lived there beforehand. So none of them would have historical claims to their land today according to your very broad definition. (This is because your definition is fundamentally flawed. I?ll address that later if you like). It is true that some nations' territories extended into another nations' territory at some period of time and war has resulted due to conflicting claims to the same land. However, in the course of time and for reasons advantageous to themselves many of the nations have come to accept a mutually agreed on border. Where you have conflict today is where no agreement has yet been reached between the parties who claim sovereignty over the same land due to internal political systems that encourage war and domination. The genius of the capitalist and democratic systems is that they encourage nation states to forgo expensive and highly disruptive wars in favor of mutual accommodation and cooperation that in the end is more highly beneficial to their citizenry then any territorial gains would have provided.
The fact that all the Arab nation states are in fact authoritarian and undemocratic is no coincidence. Neither is the fact that almost all the conflicts in the world today involve Islamic combatants fighting for Islamic dominance. And here Islam can be directly at blame Jakkorz. Putting aside the highly prejudicial statements in the Koran regarding Jews, Christians, peoples of non-monotheistic faiths, and so called non-believers, the Koran is very much antithetic to the democratic system of governance and the so-called ?separation of church and state?. Also given that Islam is a so highly theocratic and draws its authority from ?God?, dissenting ideas critical of this religious establishment are automatically suppressed and discouraged, and in many instances, it is done in the most brutal and barbaric methods. Another factor in this deadly brew, is the fact that Islam claims to be the final and ultimate word of ?God?. Thus it seeks dominance over other cultures, religions, political systems, etc. which of-course leads to the sorry situation we are now in. Here you can see how Islamic expansionism is built in into the Islamic system of thought. And this is a recipe for disaster. Particularly since modern humans have now the capability to totally wipe out the human population on earth.
Quote
If historical claims are pursued by Israel, then we should just save all the bloodshed and give Jordan back to the Jews. That is not a problem so far in my reasoning process. But such historical claims are actually based on biblical scriptures. Meaning that the history that Israel is claiming to have the right to possess is based on the history that the Bible has to an extent documented. Should we consider such historical documentation by the Bible to be accurate, then we are risking the inclusion of other rights granted by GOD to Abraham. Those rights being the lands from the Euphrates to the Nile. With that line of reasoning, the borders of Israel are becoming very dynamic.
I really don?t think you need to worry about that Jakkorz. The overwhelming percentage of Israelis and in fact, Jews around the world are non-religious, and are also rather anti-religious. To be Jewish does not necessarily involve one being religious. To be Jewish means that one can trace his maternal ancestry to the people that inhabited the land of Judea. Israel has more than once saved Jordan from imminent invasions from her neighbors. Israel has also lobbied the Americans on behalf of the Jordanians for economic and military assistance. This is because Israel considers Jordan to be the most foreword and ?western? of the Arab regimes in the area. Israel will do all it can to encourage this country in fully adopting secular democratic values and a capitalistic and open trade policy. The reasons to which I have already outlined above.
However, as far as the Arab colonies in Judea Samaria and Gaza, here the story is rather grim. This is my personal assessment of-course, but I think that unless these colonies are fully withdrawn, stability in the region will not be achieved. The Arab populations in these colonies are just too open to corruption by foreign elements antithetic to Western values and Israel. You might think that this is a local dispute, but it is far from it. Arab and non-Arab Islamic regimes such as Iran have too much riding on this to keep out. And the fact the 50 years of trying to reach an accommodation with these peoples has failed so miserably, I think will necessitate the transfer of these peoples back to their countries of origin.
Quote
I hope you understand now that I stand against the Arab terrorists because they are promoting political unrest in the region which will only benefit and support the dynamically expanding borders of Israel. Is this why you think I am bashing, or not being fair to Israel? (also rhetorical question)
This is very saddening to hear. You oppose terrorism not for what it is, but because you feel it has somehow furthered the perceived political goals you think Israel has. This is after you wrote:
Personally, I blame the Arabs the most for what is going on now in the Middle East. This is because they are very short sighted in the realm of policy making on the scale of international relationships. This is also because they are protecting their thrones and care less about their people and the well being of the future offsprings of their nation. This is because they are dictators. All of this made them not strike a deal with Israel for 30 years. Back then they had the chance to mark the boarders at least before the settlements have been put in place.
The Arabs have had a chance to ?strike a deal? with Israel not for 30 years but for more than 50 years! This is the truly sad thing. Think of all the people that lost their lives needlessly, all the people who had their lives forever scar by this conflict, all the resources that have gone to waste in support of bloated military infrastructures in all these countries. Think of where the Middle East and its peoples would be if it wasn?t for all this. Can you see how stupid and destructive all this is?
Quote
You would agree with me that a single word or even a letter could alter the true meaning of a sentence. This is Mr. Shaikh's game.
I would agree with you Jakkorz, if it wasn?t for the overwhelming fact that history very much supports all of Anwar Shaikh contentions.
Quote
Frankly I was inclined to believe that he even exist.
Hmm, ? that?s interesting. I didn?t think about that. So you believe this guy, Anwar Shaikh, is all made up? By whom? Also, if he is made up, does it really take away from the arguments made?
Quote
The other fact that makes him a real joke as an investigator is that he actually thinks that all the documented sayings of the prophet are verified source of reference
I don?t follow you here? I?ll look for you to further explain that.
Quote
Anyway, since you are not a native speaker, nor Mr. Shaikh and the rest of the translators that I have read so far, none of you have the right to claim what is the right translation. Therefore, you will interpret the Quran in a way that would help you label it according to you wishes and desires as an Israeli. Hence, such interpretation only serves the purpose of that same dynamically expanding eastern border of the State of Israel (as my reasoning leads me to believe).
I strongly disagree with your logic here. I?m not a native speaker of Hebrew or English or Arabic. I?ll remind you that I was born in Lithuania and my native tongues are Lithuanian and Russian. So does that mean I?m incapable of fully comprehending what is written in Hebrew or English? Does it prevent me from understanding Shakespeare or the Tanah (Hebrew Bible). That is nonsense. Why would it prevent me, or someone like Anwar Shaikh, from understanding the Koran?
Quote
Third, this will be regarding the Jews only. Quran asks the believers clearly to be more careful with the Jewish Authorities than the Jewish people themselves (Authorities as in representative parties and groups). Quran believes the Jews have had the principles of Democracy long before even such term was practiced in ancient Greece and Rome. This practice of democracy along with the term "Chosen Nation" (Please correct me if I have quoted that wrong) contribute a lot to the political unrest of the Jews amongst themselves. This is why Quran in another verse states that every time the Jews make a treaty a group of them would not abide by the rules of the treaty.
This is a very interesting statement. Did you find any historical evidence to support this?
Quote
I other verses, I am sure you have came across with by now in your readings, It says that the Jews hates the muslims but the Christians don't. Actually I believe it says that Christians have affection towards the believers.
That?s not a nice thing to say. I?m sure most Jews weren?t even aware of the existence of Islam when this was said. But still, I can see how Mohammed, based on his experience with local Jews predicted that Jews, being as tenacious to their roots, culture, religion, ethnicity, etc. as they are, even in the face of the most extreme adversity will opt not to adapt Islam. So Islam singled out Jews for particular treatment. Anyone else was so singled out by Islam or is it just Jews? btw. Why are Jews not allowed in Saudi Arabia? What happened to all the Jews there?
Quote
Also, that same friend asked me to avoid discussions in such subjects and just mind my own business and watch my own actions rather than talk about other's. I promised him that I will be going back to my solitude once this thread is dead.
Jakkorz, I truly fear for you. Going back to ?solitude? will only facilitate a further radicalization of your beliefs. You must stay engaged and continue to critically analyze these things or you will fall victim to the manipulations of those that in the end will only lead you to hate and destruction. I?m very sorry for earlier attacking you personally, for I fear I might have triggered defensive responses in you that ultimately will blind you to the true reality that surrounds you. I was born in Lithuania when it was under the influence of the Soviets. I was therefore instilled from early childhood with a mind-set of suspicion and critical analysis of authority - be it political, economic, social, religious, cultural, etc. Do not let the false aura of piety cloud your judgment of what religion is, and more specifically in your case, what Islam is, and how it relates to other systems of thought and governance.
I wish I could go on, but it?s getting late now, and many things are waiting to be done ?
My best wishes to you, Jakkorz.
mika.
[ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
[quote]The conference organiser, Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi - who as Iranian ambassador in Damascus was instrumental in setting up the Lebanese Hezbollah in the early 1980s - said that the Palestinian intifada, and especially the suicide bombings, had achieved more than all the Arab wars and peace talks with Israel.<hr></blockquote>
and
[quote]They regarded the latest peace proposals as nothing more than an empty trick to get the Palestinians to give up the intifada.<hr></blockquote>
and
[quote]"We have no choice but to take the initiative and defend ourselves with ourselves, through suicide operations and in all other ways, which are legitimate as long as the occupation continues," he added.<hr></blockquote>
They do not want peace. They want Israel dead.
Simply put, vast knowledge. To go into details I will explain to you how the Quran was revealed at first.
The first verse was revealed while the prophet was in solitude on the outskirts of Mecca. It asked the prophet to "read", as a sign to promote knowledge. The prophet is known to be illiterate. If it is true, then prophet did not possess the faculties of reading nor writing.
Over a period of 23 years the Quranic verses were revealed one or more at a time. For each revelation, the holy spirit has instructed the prophet of the place at which this verse to be placed, and how it is interpreted along with the evidence that is revealed to back such interpretation. Therefore, some find that the reading of the Quran is not forward and little poetic as far as clear scientific Arabic writings go. This is, however, clearly justified by the Arabic speakers that the form it was put in makes it possible to apply through out history and not be static in a sense. Careful studies of the Quran show many sciences involved in the writing, such as those of environment, dietary, physics, medicine, social sciences, political sciences, etc. The Arabs have in fact used some of the terms in the Quran as a terminology for recent scientific discoveries. The miracle that the Quran claims to have revealed for the prophet to prove his prophecy is non other than the Quran itself. It challenges on many occasions the eloquent arabs at the time to make a verse that would be the same in style as the arabic Quranic style. Like I have mentioned, no one to date for the past 1400 years have successfully met this challenge. That is , however, something to be mitigated among the native Arabic speakers. Since the message of the Quran is claimed to be that of GOD, the messenger must be infallible in order to deliver a perfect message. Basically, practice what he preach.
In the light of the above, an authorized interpreter of the Quran should possess knowledge in the following:
1. Arabic literature.
2. Arabic grammar.
3. Rules of Arabic eloquence.
4. Branches of Philosophy. (A term Arabs refer to as the science of words)
5. Logic.
6. Hadith. (The verified speeches and practices of the prophet)
7. History.
8. Behavioral sciences. (soul, mind, and physical body virtues and vices)
9. The study of all past interpretations by other scholars throughout history.
The above is part of a list that can be edited depending on the sect the interpreter comes from. Of course, all that is worth nothing if you do not have the good will of interpretation. All quotes, I am sure we agree on that, can be taken out of context. Thus the good will I believe should be the first requirement.
From what I have seen so far, none of the authors who are attacking Islam by quoting Quran have proper authority to interpret it in the first place.