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.
<hr></blockquote>
What a female can do in Islam to please herself is governed by the rest of the rules put forth throughout the Quran and those rules apply to males as well. There are certain rules that are more relaxed when it comes to females. Minor differences are noticed as far as rights go between a female and a male. This verse speaks specifically about the male/female relationship in a marriage. If you believe that showing off her body to please others desires, sleeping with someone other than her husband, whining without reason, hurting the husband's feelings any of which as a pleasure, then basically divorce is the way to go as has been explained as a last resort in the Quran since GOD dislikes divorce. Good will in interpretation, and good will in treatment is the point here. You can not take a verse to stand on it's own unless you have no other verse in the Quran that relates to it even in a slight notion.
The male's will is also governed in other verses. Justice must be sought in any situation.
Being obedient, to further elaborate, is also governed by other verses in the Quran as far as what to obey and what not to obey.
[quote]
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?
<hr></blockquote>
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things [1:256]
Meaning, no compulsion because GOD believes that His messages are clear. This would tell you that the man is not allowed to force her to believe in Islam, which in turn restricts obedience. Those who choose not to believe, obviously:
Say, "The Truth is from your Lord": Let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it) [18:29]
Where do you find that unbelievers should be slaughtered for no reason? I truly fail to see that. Maybe you can point to me the verse. Anyway:
002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[quote]
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.
<hr></blockquote>
I find this a good place to say the following: I am here not speak on behalf of muslims. Therefore I am not here to defend Saudi, or Afghanistan. What you know about these particular two countries is nothing compared to what you know, and seen about their atrocities. NoahJ, I beg you, tell me please where have you been and where was the christian population all that time? Don't blame it on the media, you are responsible to search for the fact, and not the media.
I am here to make it clear to everyone that there are more than a single side to Islam, just like there is in Christianity, and the same applies to Judaism.
Regarding your reply, maybe I was not so clear in my request. I will rephrase. I am asking about the translation, not her legal rights.
[quote]
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 original 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.
<hr></blockquote>
So, it follows that Quran is either the words of GOD, or the words of GOD with Muhammad's addition and Muhammad's own style of writing? The latter is false since Muhammad has a different style in Arabic.
Further, I was talking about the Arabic writing of the Quran. Should there be any challenger who wrote something similar in style, let him submit it to Arabic scholars and they will verify it. This situation is like a scientific theory, it stands true until it is scientifically disapproved.
[quote]
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.
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.
<hr></blockquote>
First of all the Messiah is no one but Jesus Christ. That is what the prophecy says. It follows, therefore, that all that talk about Allah of Islam and Messiah of Islam makes me doubt your fairness in addressing the issue. If you are to argue fairly, then the argument should be more philosophical and logical. Who is Yahweh? Is he Satan?
Second, Quran does not diametrically differ from the Bible as the propaganda of the Israel Daily has mentioned. You statement above about the similarities is my reference here.
Third, while I am asking for your fairness again, I would assume that the the new testament has not taken anything from the old testament; Thus, you state that Quran has taken words from the Bible.
Fourth, I think both the old testament and new testament speak of mass killing in the years to come. House of Esau?
Fifth, if Christ represents virtue, then by definition AntiChrist represents vice. Therefore, we have two sides of the conflict, which side are you on?
Sixth, John the Baptist's fires, are they flames of words? How did you come to that conclusion?
Seventh, I understand that in from your words that the Messiah will not fight the none submitters.
Eighth, since the Messiah is not going to fight the none submitters or slaughter them, they will submit either by force, or maybe they are just blessed into submission.
Ninth, if they are blessed into submission, then why go through all this from the start. Let us all just go to heaven and get over it.
Tenth, if we are all going to heaven anyway, why, then, there is vice and there is virtue.
Eleventh, GOD is going to ask us to forgive OBL for what he did and asks us all to hug and kiss and be friends and neighbors in paradise from then on.
You are not required to comment on any of the above. It was just put to show you that it is not a light matter this life that we are living. I think you are better on the Buddhist side than on the Christian if you do not believe that there is reward and there is punishment. (As a side note, I believe that Buddha, Zarathushtra, and Thales are the pupils of Abraham)
I am in no position to tell my Creator how to reward or punish, though. I believe if anyone believes that there is a Creator, he/she will also be in no position to defy the Creator in the way He rewards or punish. It is better, therefore, to leave this kind of punishment in this life and in the next for the time when Messiah comes and he will decide how this whole deal should be carried out. Still, you have to choose a side.
It is very obvious that you have a clear stand against all that is not christian since the argument started of why singling out the Jews but progressed into the way the none submitters are to be killed. Kindly follow the line of reasoning above and you will see how it balances out at the end.
I wonder how the Bible depicts the extermination of the house of Esau. That is genocide according to the civilized definition. So in the name of Christ's prophecy the rally has started already.
I tell you about what is more illogical. Expecting an individual to do evil because he will be fulfilling the prophecies of the Bible. How dare we defy the prophecies of Christ.
Here is my line of reasoning for the existence of reward and punishment:
If He who claims to be GOD is truly a GOD, then He is the Creator. If He is the Creator, then He is the All Knowing. If he is the All Knowing, then He is the All Great and Strong. If He is the All Great, Strong, and Knowing, He should be the All Just. How could He be the All Just, if His scale has virtue and vice on one side?
There is no reason in arguing the rules of Islam, if you do not even believe in the basic principles of life itself. It is like arguing which comes first, the Constitution or the Amendments. Still, here is my comment regarding the word "slaughter":
Slaughter, which depicts a graphical way of killing, is rarely mentioned in Quran. In one place that I remember that it is mentioned, it is in the verse that speaks about sacrifice of what muslims claim to be Ishmael but Jews and Christians claim to be Isaac. In both incidents a lamp is slaughtered in place of the son.
The punishment that you have mentioned with removal of limbs is a choice that depends on the terrorists crime and severity. There, the judge has to make the decision depending on the severity of the terrorist crime of which punishment is better carried out. In the case of OBL for example, some muslim scholars might choose for opposite limbs removal to take place. Others might choose execution.
Your last comment about Quran is not winning you could be turned around and said to you by a person who does not believe in GOD. The answer is simple and clear: It is your choice. Your choice is not the Almighty Right and Infallible choice. So, let people carry on with their believes and holy books and that who inflicts harm should be punished.
You can ignore or reply to all of the above. However, I would really like to understand your thoughts clearly on the following since this is what matters to me first and most:
If the term "Radical Islam" is used in any writing of any form, then it follows that there must be a "Moderate Islam". If a propaganda attacks "Radical Islam" by quoting the Quran in a devious mischievous way, then that propaganda is in essence attacking "Moderate Islam" since both the Radical and the Moderate believe in the same Quran. Therefore, the term "Radical Islam" is not the proper term to use in such writings. The proper term would be Islam. Are you willing to rally people around the world against Islam and Quran?
Finally, since we are obviously arguing what Mr. Murdacai's propaganda is thinks about Islam, I find it extremely important to understand how many of his claims I have to discredit until his propaganda turns into rubbish? I keep thinking that one is enough, but you keep coming back with more. I hope you are not asking me to refute all his articles.
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.
<hr></blockquote>
The number one illogical statement I have stumbled upon in the Bible is the way a GOD is depicted to have a biological son and a wife, so to speak. The trinity has never made sense to me no matter how I would put it. I find the Jews and the Muslims have a better view in that regard as far as the ultimate eternal Oneness of GOD.
By the way, god in Arabic (I am not sure about how Hebrew translates it) is equivalent to the word father if put in the proper context which is used sometime in the Bible.
The way you talk about how the Quran is about 80% taken from the Bible is not accurate in the views of Islam. The proper comment would be, all those books are revealed by GOD. It is the same if we say that the New Testament has plagiarized the old Testament. As we both know, they are both the words of GOD (save the possibility of alteration)
Like I said, the Bible can be rewritten, that is aside from the fact that it has been written as a form of rephrasing, while all historical records show that the Quran has not changed for the past 1400 years. That is both an unmatched challenge, and a fulfillment of the promise GOD made to perserve this book from alteration as claimed in the book.
As far as my calm replies go, I admit that I will be running out of patience if I fail to convince both you and PC^Killa not to consider a population of 1,000,000 as evil.
Maybe one day we can all talk and discuss matters about how peace can be protected from the extremists all around the world.
Read this article... it almost justifies everything the Israeli right does and thinks Palastinian hardliners in IranIt includes the following statements :eek: :eek: :eek:
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.
<hr></blockquote>
Even if we disregard the fact that such historical claims can only be accounted for by the Bible, the real question to ask is what are those historical claims? Where do the borders stop? Which kingdom in the history of the Jewish people are the Israeli eager to restore? It is a question with an answer that would lay the ground of what is expected from the Arabs. An answer should be very clear and blunt, otherwise if Israel is keeps playing the word games the Middle East will never be at rest. It started with a home land for the Jewish nation which back then the Jews made less than 1/5 of the population in those lands (under 100,000 in population of the lands). It moved on to mass migration. From there The State of Israel declared independence. After which, Israel's borders have expanded during those years between 1948 and 1967. If I were asked to use the black history of the Arabs and the muslims to justify the stance of Israel, then why should I decline to use the recent history of Israel against Israel, a history marked by political deviousness to say the least. This deviousness is evident in the fact that Israel has built settlements in Sinai during the time of occupation. That deviousness is evident in leaving the head of Hamas at home unharmed while making a hero of another terrorist. That deviousness is evident in the fact that the undemocratic government of Arafat and the suicidal bomb terrorists promoter of Hamas are serving nothing but the image of Israel in the western world.
As far as your comments about Islam, obviously, I will fail, on all accounts, to show you how Islam is balanced and that the individual muslims are to be blamed not the religion that represents 1/5 the population of Earth. But how are you going to convince me that Judaism is not to be blamed for the same kind of radicalism and devious interpretation of the "Torah" by some Jews.
Personally, I do believe that a secular system would be best to apply. Those who live peaceful amongst us are welcome, and those who choose other than peace they will subsequently be punished regardless of their religious background. If you agree with me on this, then I find the purpose of getting into this discussion served. I can not find an excuse, however, to attack, as opposed to question and inquire about, what others believe to be sacred just because you do not believe in it.
[quote]
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.
<hr></blockquote>
I really appreciate your honest here. You can not imagine how I gratify those who are honest in their life.
Please permit me to reply.
I know that the overwhelming population fo the Jews around the world are not religious. But supporting Jordan can also be explained as a momental political move. That is to say that Jordan is nothing but a momental buffer state. That will be evident in the following paragraph.
I agree with you about the state of the population of those disputed lands (I will refrain from calling them colonies for obvious reasons to be covered in this paragraph). It is like every state in the region have declared themselves as guardians over the people who live in those disputed lands. Now, referring to those disputed lands as colonies is the honesty that I commended in you earlier. Well, obviously such choice of mass migration would force them to go to Jordan (noting that 70% of the population of Jordan are offsprings of people who come from the lands east of the river). Obviously we can not choose the term Palestinians to label these people since they do not belong to that land west of the river according to what you say. What you claim also implies that these populations were implanted by the Arab muslims as inhabitants of the land for the past 1400 years or so. It is also obvious that the population fo Jordan is basically composed of Arab nomads with distinctive family names which can be traced back to the peninsula. With all that said, it should follow that what the world thinks about establishing an independent and autonomous Palestinian State on the lands which Israel regained in 1967 will not be viewed favorably by Israel. This further insinuates that the borders of Israel are not going to stop there since Judaea's borders extend well into Syria up to the outskirts of Damascus and will include miles of lands east of the river which are the Lands of Jordan. Do you see how the borders of Israel can expand even if we disregard the religious cause and only stick to the historical account (which is in turn only a rephrase of the biblical account). Those historical accounts definitely justify what the world considers as occupied territories. The historical accounts will justify further expansion of Israel. To annex those extra lands, it only takes a war which Israel will win. Anyway, you will get what you want.
I wonder how did Bush put it (his speech about how he supports the creation of a Palestinian State). Actually I am not sure anymore if I would say poor Arabs and muslims, or poor Fools. I think the latter fits them well. They brought it upon themselves.
[quote]
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:
<hr></blockquote>
I ask for the benefit of the doubt here.
An "at the least" does make the statement stand more clear. I also reiterate what I said about them and my general views about them.
[quote]
I would agree with you Jakkorz, if it wasn?t for the overwhelming fact that history very much supports all of Anwar Shaikh contentions.
<hr></blockquote>
History states that the muslims have committed atrocities against the populations of the lands they have conquered. But that does not grant the muslims the right to interpret the Quran as they wish or as Mr. Shaikh wish's it to be interpreted. Like I keep saying, interpretation plays a major role here. Not to mention the fact that all quotes are taken out of context. What is the context? Well, obviously you can not write with one letter in a language, it has to be from A to Z. It is also obvious that you can not have a constitution made up of one sentence. Therefore it should be obvious that the context of the Quran is the whole book from cover to cover. If Mr. Shaikh is not willing to present his case in such a way, then his argument will collapse on the merits described in the Quran itself about what the context should be.
[quote]
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?
<hr></blockquote>
I was inclined.
The purpose of his argument would have been better served if he did not inflate his Islamic scholastic status. The point here is that who can better explain the flaws of Quran other than a former Islamic scholar. The same has happened with that Wahabi propaganda that I talked about. I have read couple of articles on the web about him being interviewed, but I have yet to see a verifiable picture of his. Add to that the fact that British media loves these kind of things and I keep wondering why they did not pick up on it. Over all, it has more doubts than certainties to me.
[quote]
I don?t follow you here? I?ll look for you to further explain that.
<hr></blockquote>
Well, remember when I said I will be talking about the black history of muslims.
It turns out that they have forged many sayings of the prophet shortly after his departure. In fact, Arab leaders used to pay for those who would put one or more saying for the prophet, along with false interpretations of the Quran by the way of the prophet, which would serve none but the leader's throne. Of course, the truth can not be buried, but it can always be masked. This is why I thought that taking everything for granted in the books other than the Quran and according to the muslims roles is a mere foolishness. Again I bring to you attention that the context is from cover to cover. With good will, and lot of research, I have managed to verify the truth of this claim about how the a lot of the prophet sayings are forged.
[quote]
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?
<hr></blockquote>
If it was a poetic one piece of paper that we are arguing with you, then I would have a hard time convincing you. However, we are talking about a whole book, and a context that covers it all. Not to mention the fact that it was not revealed in one piece. Also not to mention the facts that it is written in a language that has very complicated grammar. Now even if I grant you the right to interpret it the way you like, why would I not grant the right for the peaceful muslims (I hope you believe there are peaceful ones) to interpret it in their own way?
[quote]
This is a very interesting statement. Did you find any historical evidence to support this?
<hr></blockquote>
Look no further than recent history, extreme right parties have clearly denounced and managed to set back the peace negotiated by Arafat and Rabin.
[quote]
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.
<hr></blockquote>
I will take this as a brotherly advice. As I have responsibilities to fulfill, the solitude I practice is more of a Yoga like. Add to that, extreme negligence of reading the news and getting into discussions that speak of differences to promote hatred. My last solitude have helped me realize that all religions have originated from one source. It has also helped me understand that at this time of history, it is better to avoid siding with people because each side wants to get you on their camp. This is why I have been thinking that once I fulfill my responsibilities, I might just avoid all this fake "civilization" so to speak and find me a secluded place to live in and maybe worship quietly.
You should try it sometime. It is a state of spirituality that I have experienced once and felt so peaceful with myself and the others. When I started my normal old daily life after tha solitude period, that spirituality kept withdrawing slowly. I really miss it.
<strong>What a female can do in Islam to please herself is governed by the rest of the rules put forth throughout the Quran and those rules apply to males as well. There are certain rules that are more relaxed when it comes to females. Minor differences are noticed as far as rights go between a female and a male. This verse speaks specifically about the male/female relationship in a marriage. If you believe that showing off her body to please others desires, sleeping with someone other than her husband, whining without reason, hurting the husband's feelings any of which as a pleasure, then basically divorce is the way to go as has been explained as a last resort in the Quran since GOD dislikes divorce. Good will in interpretation, and good will in treatment is the point here. You can not take a verse to stand on it's own unless you have no other verse in the Quran that relates to it even in a slight notion.<hr></blockquote></strong>
So wife beating is ok in some circusmtances?
I am not arguing that you should let your wife run wild, sleep around, etc. But all of that does not give one the right to beat their wife. How can that be considered profitable in a relationship? Will the wife think that since her husband loved her enough to beat her that she will now stay with him? This I doubt.
[quote]<strong>The male's will is also governed in other verses. Justice must be sought in any situation.
Being obedient, to further elaborate, is also governed by other verses in the Quran as far as what to obey and what not to obey.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I would expect there to be no less, the extremes that I am finding however are quite stark.
[quote]<strong>Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things [1:256]
Meaning, no compulsion because GOD believes that His messages are clear. This would tell you that the man is not allowed to force her to believe in Islam, which in turn restricts obedience. Those who choose not to believe, obviously:
Say, "The Truth is from your Lord": Let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it) [18:29]
Where do you find that unbelievers should be slaughtered for no reason? I truly fail to see that. Maybe you can point to me the verse. Anyway:
002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Never did I say without reason. However, there is license given and who is to say what is justified and what is not? Men? Who are fallible?
A Couple of verses from the Koran that I have read. Some we have touched on already.
The Dinner Table
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
The Clans
[33.60] If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city do not desist, We shall most certainly set you over them, then they shall not be your neighbors in it but for a little while;
[33.61] Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering.
[quote]<strong>I find this a good place to say the following: I am here not speak on behalf of muslims. Therefore I am not here to defend Saudi, or Afghanistan. What you know about these particular two countries is nothing compared to what you know, and seen about their atrocities. NoahJ, I beg you, tell me please where have you been and where was the christian population all that time? Don't blame it on the media, you are responsible to search for the fact, and not the media.
I am here to make it clear to everyone that there are more than a single side to Islam, just like there is in Christianity, and the same applies to Judaism.
Regarding your reply, maybe I was not so clear in my request. I will rephrase. I am asking about the translation, not her legal rights.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Once more I am not speaking of Muslims in general, however your blanket statements do not fit with the culture that is over in Saudi arabia and other Middle Eastern nations.
As far as your last question about translation not legal rights. It seems to me that in these countries her legal rights are determined by their translation of the Koran for the most part. In America however her legal rights are determined by the contistution and the laws of the US which are not based on the religious interpretation of a religious document.
I may be wrong, but this is how I have seen it so far.
[quote]<strong>So, it follows that Quran is either the words of GOD, or the words of GOD with Muhammad's addition and Muhammad's own style of writing? The latter is false since Muhammad has a different style in Arabic.
Further, I was talking about the Arabic writing of the Quran. Should there be any challenger who wrote something similar in style, let him submit it to Arabic scholars and they will verify it. This situation is like a scientific theory, it stands true until it is scientifically disapproved.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I know that Muhammad was illiterate. The Koran was not written until well after his death anyhow. So that much is obvious. The man who wrote the Koran is said to have done so under duress by some. I am sure you have heard that there are those who say the Koran was written by an Israeli scholar by force of Arabs who kidnapped him for this purpose because they did not posses the skills or knowlege at the time to write their own scriptures out. He likely just wrote what he was told to write by the people who wanted it written. However that is history in question and none have shown me evidence either way that one or the other is true. It is just hearsay for me right now.
[quote]<strong>First of all the Messiah is no one but Jesus Christ. That is what the prophecy says. It follows, therefore, that all that talk about Allah of Islam and Messiah of Islam makes me doubt your fairness in addressing the issue. If you are to argue fairly, then the argument should be more philosophical and logical. Who is Yahweh? Is he Satan?<hr></blockquote></strong>
Wrong, the messiah they mention is an Arab Moslem and he speaks arabic. They call him Isa son of Muriam. Jesus was Jewish and he spoke Hebrew. One major diffrence there. According to the Koran Jesus was not the son of God and never died on the cross. If this is the case then there is no reason for Christianity to exist, as it is based on this one important point, salvation. As the Koran states:
The Women
[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
[quote]<strong>Second, Quran does not diametrically differ from the Bible as the propaganda of the Israel Daily has mentioned. You statement above about the similarities is my reference here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In this one instance where Jesus is mentione we see diametric opposition. And that is a huge one. They also do not believe in the trinity, or that Jesus is the son of God.
The Women
[4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.
Without Jesus being the son of God, there is no Christianity. Jesus said he was the Son of God, so then he is a liar. The Islamic Messiah and the Christian Messiah are not the same man. They cannot be.
[quote]<strong>Third, while I am asking for your fairness again, I would assume that the the new testament has not taken anything from the old testament; Thus, you state that Quran has taken words from the Bible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What has this to do with anything. The Old and New Testament are all in the same bible. The Koran is not. The Koran goes out of its way to say how the Jew recieved the revelation first and then twisted it therefore the need for the Koran to be written.
The Dinner Table
[5.12] And certainly Allah made a covenant with the children of Israel, and We raised up among them twelve chieftains; and Allah said: Surely I am with you; if you keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and believe in My apostles and asslst them and offer to Allah a goodly gift, I will most certainly cover your evil deeds, and I will most certainly cause you to enter into gardens beneath which rivers flow, but whoever disbelieves from among you after that, he indeed shall lose the right way.
[5.13] But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).
[5.14] And with those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they did.
[5.15] O followers of the Book! indeed Our Apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah
So we have recieved the revelation, and we have twisted it to our own means and now the Koran is here to put us on the right path.
[quote]<strong>Fourth, I think both the old testament and new testament speak of mass killing in the years to come. House of Esau?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes it does, but that is in a prophetic tense not a command to do so. There is a difference.
Prophetic: "In the years to come there will be great killing that occurs."
Command: "In the years to come you shall commit great slaughter upon those that oppose Allah."
See the diffrence?
[quote]<strong>Fifth, if Christ represents virtue, then by definition AntiChrist represents vice. Therefore, we have two sides of the conflict, which side are you on?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Virtue and vice are only two things in the grand scheme of things. However I am on the side of Christ who tells us that the greatest commandment is to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your spirit. And to love your neighbor as you love yourself. All the commandments can be tied to these two commandments.
It also states in the bible that the Anti-Christ will come and put himself up as a good person who will do many great deeds and miracles and only after those who are deceived are following him will he reveal himself. So it is not like the horrors will be there from the start. Satan is often mentioned as disguised as angel of light, because he is the great deceiver.
[quote]<strong>Sixth, John the Baptist's fires, are they flames of words? How did you come to that conclusion?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am sorry, the verse escapes me. I will look for it, but can you give me an idea of which you are speaking of? Do you mean the baptizing with fire?
[quote]<strong>Seventh, I understand that in from your words that the Messiah will not fight the none submitters.</strong><hr></blockquote>
God is a God of love not war. Jesus will "fight" the last battle against the Anti-Christ in Armegeddon. But not in the sense that it shows in the Koran.
Revelation 19 I believe is the verse you would be referring to.
19Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.
The sword that comes from the motuh of the rider is often spoken of in the bible. It is not a literal sword. The bible is often spoken of as a two edged sword. This is not going to be a literal sword either, it will be the spoken word of God. God will speak and those that are arrayed against him for battle bearing the mark of the beast will die.
It is better described in this commentary.
Together the visions of the birds of prey in the sky (vv. 17-18) and the outcome of the so-called battle (vv. 19-21) form a kind of chiasm, that is, the same three elements are repeated in reverse order:
(a) the birds of the sky are invited to feast (v. 17)
(b) the doomed armies are described (v. 18)
(c) the beast gathers these armies for battle (v. 19)
(c') the beast and false prophet are captured and thrown into the lake of fire (v. 20)
(b') the armies are killed by the sword of the rider on the white horse (v. 21)
(a') the birds feast on their flesh (v. 21) The effect of the chiasm is to dramatize the inevitability of the outcome. The armies arrayed against the rider on the white horse are slaughtered by the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, that is, "the Word of God." God speaks and it is done. The angel standing in the sun (v. 17) knows the end from the beginning. The beast has not been heard from since chapter 17, where his involvement in the conflict was made unmistakably clear (17:13-14). The false prophet, mentioned only once before in passing without further identification (16:13), is here explicitly said to be the one who had performed the miraculous signs on the beast's behalf and had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image (v. 20). This identifies him as the second beast "coming out of the earth" who had enforced on the earth's inhabitants the worship of the beast from the sea (13:11-17). The false prophet played no role in the vision or the explanation by the angel in chapter 17, yet the two beasts are to John inseparable, and they go to their destruction together in this their final scene.
Quite different from the interpretation of this by the Koran, a warrior god who brutally slays his enemies thus exacting punishment and justice.
[quote]<strong>Eighth, since the Messiah is not going to fight the none submitters or slaughter them, they will submit either by force, or maybe they are just blessed into submission.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By the time this battle occurs sides have been chosen and the "non-submitters" fate has been sealed if they have taken the mark. You can read all about this in my End of the World thread. It is all there.
[quote]<strong>Ninth, if they are blessed into submission, then why go through all this from the start. Let us all just go to heaven and get over it.[/qb<hr></blockquote>
See above replies.
[quote][qb]Tenth, if we are all going to heaven anyway, why, then, there is vice and there is virtue.<hr></blockquote></strong>
We are not all going to heaven, although we all could if only we accept the free gift of salvation through Christ Jesus.
Quote:
<strong>Eleventh, GOD is going to ask us to forgive OBL for what he did and asks us all to hug and kiss and be friends and neighbors in paradise from then on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
God already has asked us to do so. It is written is the bible.
Matthew 5 (Jesus speaking)
[b]43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.[/qb]
[quote]<strong>You are not required to comment on any of the above. It was just put to show you that it is not a light matter this life that we are living. I think you are better on the Buddhist side than on the Christian if you do not believe that there is reward and there is punishment. (As a side note, I believe that Buddha, Zarathushtra, and Thales are the pupils of Abraham)</strong><hr></blockquote>
You claim you have read my other posts and yet you say that I do not believe that there is reward and punishment. Remember, "Vengence is Mine," says the Lord. He does not tell his people that they are the instruments of his vengence in all things. God will exact judgement in his time and by his methods. The Koran gives its followers license to exact that judgement, the Bible in stark contrast, does not when read in its entirety. The Koran has many exceptions for its commands, the bible does not.
[quote]<strong>I am in no position to tell my Creator how to reward or punish, though. I believe if anyone believes that there is a Creator, he/she will also be in no position to defy the Creator in the way He rewards or punish. It is better, therefore, to leave this kind of punishment in this life and in the next for the time when Messiah comes and he will decide how this whole deal should be carried out. Still, you have to choose a side.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I agree, if I can tell God how He has to act then He is not God. And yes, there will come a day when all will choose sides, either for God or against.
[quote]<strong>It is very obvious that you have a clear stand against all that is not christian since the argument started of why singling out the Jews but progressed into the way the none submitters are to be killed. Kindly follow the line of reasoning above and you will see how it balances out at the end.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I am merely trying to show that Islam seems to me to be based on showing how they are right and specifically how Judaism and Chrstianity is wrong. Why do they feel the need to pull both religions out specifically and show how they are wrong if the Islamic message is true? Just let it stand on its own like the bible does and any that come against it with a false message would be shown as false. God does not need to bicker over things, His words are set and He does not argue over them.
[quote]<strong>I wonder how the Bible depicts the extermination of the house of Esau. That is genocide according to the civilized definition. So in the name of Christ's prophecy the rally has started already.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I am unsure where this is depicted or if it is even depicted. It likley just speaks of the house of Esau being wiped out (I will look for the refrence) in a prophetic sense, not in a command sense.
[quote]<strong>I tell you about what is more illogical. Expecting an individual to do evil because he will be fulfilling the prophecies of the Bible. How dare we defy the prophecies of Christ. <hr></blockquote></strong>
Who is defying Christ's prophecies. Just because Jesus said it does not mean it is up to you and me to see to it that it happens. When it happens it will likely be according to God's plan and not a person saying, "You know, Jesus said the house of Esau will be wiped out, I think I will make that my mission in life." That would seem to breed hatred for a group of people which is not consistant with the rest of scriptures. It is not being advocated, it is being predicted.
[quote]<strong>Here is my line of reasoning for the existence of reward and punishment:
If He who claims to be GOD is truly a GOD, then He is the Creator. If He is the Creator, then He is the All Knowing. If he is the All Knowing, then He is the All Great and Strong. If He is the All Great, Strong, and Knowing, He should be the All Just. How could He be the All Just, if His scale has virtue and vice on one side?</strong>[quote]
Once more you are arguing a point that i am not making.
[quote]<strong>There is no reason in arguing the rules of Islam, if you do not even believe in the basic principles of life itself. It is like arguing which comes first, the Constitution or the Amendments. Still, here is my comment regarding the word "slaughter":
Slaughter, which depicts a graphical way of killing, is rarely mentioned in Quran. In one place that I remember that it is mentioned, it is in the verse that speaks about sacrifice of what muslims claim to be Ishmael but Jews and Christians claim to be Isaac. In both incidents a lamp is slaughtered in place of the son.
The punishment that you have mentioned with removal of limbs is a choice that depends on the terrorists crime and severity. There, the judge has to make the decision depending on the severity of the terrorist crime of which punishment is better carried out. In the case of OBL for example, some muslim scholars might choose for opposite limbs removal to take place. Others might choose execution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This comes down to translation I think. However, removing limbs and brutally murdering someone would fit into slaughter in many ways as well.
[quote]<strong>Your last comment about Quran is not winning you could be turned around and said to you by a person who does not believe in GOD. The answer is simple and clear: It is your choice. Your choice is not the Almighty Right and Infallible choice. So, let people carry on with their believes and holy books and that who inflicts harm should be punished.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I put that statement in there for one reason. I have been told by many that I am opposed to something that I have not read and therefore cannot understand. Upon reading it, I am still opposed. And upon comapring it to the bible I can give reasons why it seems to fall apart. I never said my view was the end all, however it is my view and I am putting it out there.
[quote]<strong>You can ignore or reply to all of the above. However, I would really like to understand your thoughts clearly on the following since this is what matters to me first and most:
If the term "Radical Islam" is used in any writing of any form, then it follows that there must be a "Moderate Islam". If a propaganda attacks "Radical Islam" by quoting the Quran in a devious mischievous way, then that propaganda is in essence attacking "Moderate Islam" since both the Radical and the Moderate believe in the same Quran. Therefore, the term "Radical Islam" is not the proper term to use in such writings. The proper term would be Islam. Are you willing to rally people around the world against Islam and Quran?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the Koran is not to be interpreted and the words in them are to be taken literally than I am against what it teaches. It is full of conflicting verses and commands, exceptions to rules that should not have exceptions at the human level, and advocated murder and hateful acts.
[quote]<strong>Finally, since we are obviously arguing what Mr. Murdacai's propaganda is thinks about Islam, I find it extremely important to understand how many of his claims I have to discredit until his propaganda turns into rubbish? I keep thinking that one is enough, but you keep coming back with more. I hope you are not asking me to refute all his articles.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not asking you te refute all his articles. But I have not seen you refute any except to say that he does not have any authority on the subject that you recognize. You quibble over some words, but do not put forth all your cards and then say that you have proved your point. I am not swayed by only half of the information. By what I have seen in history, and what i am reading in the Koran now, his interpreation of what is said and the actions of those who follow the strict Koran line up.
If I were asked to use the black history of the Arabs and the muslims to justify the stance of Israel, then why should I decline to use the recent history of Israel against Israel, a history marked by political deviousness to say the least. This deviousness is evident in the fact that Israel has built settlements in Sinai during the time of occupation. That deviousness is evident in leaving the head of Hamas at home unharmed while making a hero of another terrorist. That deviousness is evident in the fact that the undemocratic government of Arafat and the suicidal bomb terrorists promoter of Hamas are serving nothing but the image of Israel in the western world.
That?s not a fair statement. As far as I know Israel has only built a military airport, and the town of Yammit in the Sinai. I guess, if you want, you can call this ?devious?, but they to a large extent served as a catalyst to bring, what until then was an unwilling Egypt, to the negotiating table. Unfortunately, even though Egypt, thanks to her treaty with Israel, received the Sinai, and also receives billions in financial and military aid from America on a yearly basis, Egypt has not truly made her peace with Israel, and her relationship with Israel can be best described, as a cold war.
As far as Israel?s ?deviousness? with regards to Arafat: You speak as though Israel is all powerful. And to me, this echoes Nazi propaganda. I?ll remind you that Israel was bullied by the United States, then under George Bush senior and his Secretary of State James Baker, to the Madrid conference. Remember the Loan Guarantees the US refused to back so that Israel could get a better interest on the loan she was taking so as to accommodate the Russian and Ethiopian mass immigration. Well, even then Israel refused to deal with Arafat, and in fact insisted that local Arab representatives represent the local Arabs at the conference. But what happen then? These same representative, like Hanan Ashrawi, refused to accept any responsibility for their affairs, and would not negotiate with Israel unless Arafat approved. It got so ridiculous that these representatives came to the negotiating table with cell phone at hand, and with Arafat dictating the negotiations through their cell phones. Israel did all it could to marginalize Arafat, but the Arabs and the international community threw it in our face, and insisted on Arafat. And they are still doing it today. So what?s there for Israel to do?
quote
But how are you going to convince me that Judaism is not to be blamed for the same kind of radicalism and devious interpretation of the "Torah" by some Jews.
I really think it is you who will need to show me examples here, and compare those to Islam and Muslims. I?m not at all convinced you can make such an argument.
quote
Personally, I do believe that a secular system would be best to apply. Those who live peaceful amongst us are welcome, and those who choose other than peace they will subsequently be punished regardless of their religious background. If you agree with me on this, then I find the purpose of getting into this discussion served. I can not find an excuse, however, to attack, as opposed to question and inquire about, what others believe to be sacred just because you do not believe in it.
You know very well it?s not as simple as ?live, and let live?. Islam is an expansionist religion as I explained earlier. Not only that, Islam seeks to humiliate and subjugate those within its domain. Does the term ?Dhimmis? ring a bell?
quote
I know that the overwhelming population fo the Jews around the world are not religious. But supporting Jordan can also be explained as a momental political move. That is to say that Jordan is nothing but a momental buffer state.
I assume that by momental you mean temporary. Ok, so what do you think will cause Israel to change its policy towards Jordan?
quote
What you claim also implies that these populations were implanted by the Arab muslims as inhabitants of the land for the past 1400 years or so.
Actually I believe the vast majority of these populations were implanted there between 1947-1967. Unfortunately, you must have missed my ?lively? discussion with NEW regarding this subject. I?ll refer you to the thread later.
quote
With all that said, it should follow that what the world thinks about establishing an independent and autonomous Palestinian State on the lands which Israel regained in 1967 will not be viewed favorably by Israel.
Not anymore. Most Israelis, myself included, view these populations as a 5th column for hostile Islamic states such as Iran. Much like the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia prior to Hitler?s take over.
quote
This further insinuates that the borders of Israel are not going to stop there since Judaea's borders extend well into Syria up to the outskirts of Damascus and will include miles of lands east of the river which are the Lands of Jordan.
Actually, King David kingdom was much more extensive than that. : )
quote
Do you see how the borders of Israel can expand even if we disregard the religious cause and only stick to the historical account (which is in turn only a rephrase of the biblical account). Those historical accounts definitely justify what the world considers as occupied territories. The historical accounts will justify further expansion of Israel. To annex those extra lands, it only takes a war which Israel will win. Anyway, you will get what you want.
How do you know what we want?
quote
I ask for the benefit of the doubt here.
I ask the same.
quote
History states that the muslims have committed atrocities against the populations of the lands they have conquered. But that does not grant the muslims the right to interpret the Quran as they wish or as Mr. Shaikh wish's it to be interpreted.
The damage is done. You cannot take it back. The system is too open to abuse. Even in our modern age, the same gross abuse is recurring every day, and in almost every part of the globe where Muslim are to be found.
quote
It is also obvious that you can not have a constitution made up of one sentence.
Can you imagine if you had a ?Constitution? where one sentence contradicted the next. Would you then also consider it to be a masterwork of human subtlety or would you toss it in the garbage?
quote
Therefore it should be obvious that the context of the Quran is the whole book from cover to cover. If Mr. Shaikh is not willing to present his case in such a way, then his argument will collapse on the merits described in the Quran itself about what the context should be.
So I need to read all the volumes of Shakespeare to understand what Hamlet meant when he uttered the words: ?to be, or not to be?.
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?
Look no further than recent history, extreme right parties have clearly denounced and managed to set back the peace negotiated by Arafat and Rabin.
You did not answer the question. When did Jews practice democracy? When did they break a treaty they signed? I?ll refer you to the 'Hudibiyya' and 'Salah a-Din' Agreements. Which reminds me. I?m still waiting for your answer as to what happened to the Jews of Medina. As I?m also waiting for your answer regarding the authentic translation of the verses. The Table V: 55. among others.
quote
Well, remember when I said I will be talking about the black history of muslims. It turns out that they have forged many sayings of the prophet shortly after his departure. In fact, Arab leaders used to pay for those who would put one or more saying for the prophet, along with false interpretations of the Quran by the way of the prophet, which would serve none but the leader's throne. Of course, the truth can not be buried, but it can always be masked. This is why I thought that taking everything for granted in the books other than the Quran and according to the muslims roles is a mere foolishness. Again I bring to you attention that the context is from cover to cover. With good will, and lot of research, I have managed to verify the truth of this claim about how the a lot of the prophet sayings are forged.
Yet you claimed that words in the Koran are the undoctored words of God, the poetry and mastery of which never matched by mere mortals.
Anyway, what is it about Islam that so attracts you? Are you so deprived of honey or milk in your diet? Or maybe you don?t get enough sweet fruits? Or is it the scores of virgins Allah will provide for. In which case, how is Allah different from the local pimp who pushes girls at the local street corner. You are so sexually deprived? Why not find yourself a street girl, and get busy.
If you are truly so inquisitive about ?God?, why not apply yourself to a discipline that actually requires a little logic and thinking. Why not apply yourself to a science like mathematics, or physics, or astronomy, or maybe chemistry, or biology, or maybe a mixture of the two, like pharmacology, etc. These are all relatively uncharted disciplines, where much is yet to be discovered. And you?ll be contributing something useful to mankind. Are these disciplines not challenging enough for your brilliant mind? Are you so admiring of those religious sophists that by your own words abuse plagiarized scripture to suit their megalomaniac ambitions, that you want to spend the rest of your life studying and defending their creation?
quote
This is why I have been thinking that once I fulfill my responsibilities, I might just avoid all this fake "civilization" so to speak and find me a secluded place to live in and maybe worship quietly.
You know what is heaven for me. It is a chance to spend time with those I love: my family, my friends, my girl friend, my comrades from my army unit. That is heaven for me. Too bad your so called friend turned you away from life. And it sounds to me like you are already marching towards death. Maybe that?s the real attraction you have for Islam.
If the Koran is not to be interpreted and the words in them are to be taken literally than I am against what it teaches. It is full of conflicting verses and commands, exceptions to rules that should not have exceptions at the human level, and advocated murder and hateful acts.
<hr></blockquote>
Please note that you are not giving a clear answer.
Let me make clear what I understand from what you have stated:
1. Quran should be regarded as some form of writing from the past.
1. Muslims are judged based upon what you, and Mr. Murdacai believe to be the right interpretation of the Quran.
2. There is only Islam, and no such thing as "Radical Islam" and "Moderate Islam"
3. Since Quran has within it the constitution and laws of Islam, you, Mr. Murdacai, and all those on your camp are against Islam.
4. According to you, and Mr. Murdacai's interpretation, 1,000,000,000 individuals around the world believe in what promotes hatred and inhuman behaviors.
Here is my response if I were to argue more about this issue:
This whole propaganda against the Quran is based on the facts that the words of Quran are taken both literally and out of the proper context, while they should not. Otherwise, like it was pointed out to a renowned blind Wahabi muslim cleric, that all the biologically blind in this life are doomed into hell for eternity. Of course Quran says the "blind" are going to hell which should be, according to the eloquence rules of Arabic put with logic, interpreted into "spiritually blind". That one goes for the literal words of the Quran. As far as context, Quran was not revealed in the form of a 1, 2, 3, ... rules to be followed. This is the primary reason why ,many will fail to understand how the context of the Quran should be defined, and where to draw the lines of context; without good will intended guidance. In other words, one must read it all, absorb it all, eliminate the balancing verses, and finally one will get to the constitution of Islam as opposed to the rest of the laws written in the Quran. I have been doing that for the past 9 years and I am not even 1/3 of the way through to absorb what is being said in order to actually start looking into that constitution,so to speak. I don't know how long Mr. Murdacai has spent out of his life in this process, but it sure looks to me that he has not even considered following the first and most important rule, which is defining what constitutes the context of the Quran. I will be posting a verse that talks about this once I find it. To conclude, obviously if your basic interpretation of the Quran is not based on the requirements that I have put forth in my previous post, that only means that your interpretation not to be accounted for; and further, it should illustrate to the reader that what is going on here is a propaganda and nothing more.
Now, assuming that I give Mr. Murdacai and you the benefit of the doubt by taking your interpretation as you depict to be the right interpretation, then please enlighten me on the following:
1. When and where in the prophets life span did those revelations take place?
2. What was the political situation, incident, individuals and the names thereof which relate to this verse and the purpose of the verse's revelation.
3. How does that political and socio-economical situation in which the verse was revealed apply to your interpretation of what is going on in life today?
Do you see the kind of process you go through in order to have your interpretation verified? If one question is left unanswered in the order at which it is posted then basically your whole interpretation would be reduced into a propaganda.
[quote]
I am not asking you te refute all his articles. But I have not seen you refute any except to say that he does not have any authority on the subject that you recognize. You quibble over some words, but do not put forth all your cards and then say that you have proved your point. I am not swayed by only half of the information. By what I have seen in history, and what i am reading in the Koran now, his interpretation of what is said and the actions of those who follow the strict Koran line up.
<hr></blockquote>
In my posts responding to PC^Killa I have mentioned that the history of the muslims and the Arabs is black no matter how nice they put it. It is so black they can refute it only by their own prejudice accounts. But some sects within Islam will be able to refute those prejudice accounts very easily due to the fact that they are part of that history of oppression and suppression of freedom of speech and freedom of faith. If you really care for the people and believe in the constitution of the United States you should start rallying people to help promote freedom of speech and faith in those countries instead of rallying with what eventually leads to hatred. Peaceful promotion, please. No compulsions, like it was done in other corners of the world.
My final note:
I am wondering how many Mary there were back then which bore a child without biological male/female marriage brought about insemination, she was raised under the supervision of a Zechariah father of a Johann, and her son is called Jesus, which is translated to Isa in Arabic. If you say this is not how Jesus is, I would understand, but saying that this is the Islamic Jesus obviosly we have a problem of communication here not to mention logic, reasoning, and inference.
I really find it degrading to GOD and his son not to be able to speak Arabic, English, or any other language of the father's creation. Such trait could only be held against the son and the father for not teaching the son the languages of his creation. That is to assume that there are no other supreme fatherly traits passed over to the son. Not to mention that the name of the son of GOD can not be said differently in other languages; this would destroy all purposes of translation. Add to that the fact that the son of GOD has an ethnicity. No wonder that super race myth still floats around these days.
---
What I ment by Buddha, Zarathushtra, and Thales being the pupils of Abraham is that the line of master and pupil will ultimately end back to Abraham.
I am not going to quote your post because we are now treading over the same ground again.
You are either not understanding what I wrote, or you are guilty of what you calim I am doing which is taking my words out of context in the worst possible light. Read my entire post again, in fact read all of my posts in this thread, and tell me where I say that all followers of Islam are evil and should be hated. I believe that Islam at its core is rotten and as such is very, very open to abuse, murder, suicide bombings, killing, and hatred as the justice system in the Koran place it upon the followers of Islam to carry out Allah's justice in this life instead of letting Allah alone be the judge, jury, and executioner.
As for the Mary comment. YOu are then saying that Mohammad was married to Mary? That is what I infer from your post...
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.
How could this be the same Mary since Mohammad was alive well after Mary, the mother of Jesus would have been dead?
OR are you simply saying that the Koran has borrowed the history of Jesus from the Bible and put it in the Koran as the correct interpretation years after the bible was already written?
Sorry, but the Koran has to have better justfication that that. They had the Jewish texts available to plagerise (sp?) and possibly even a Jewish Rabbi writing their texts for them under duress. That make for a lot of room for error, abuse and even teh Rabbi altering the texts a bit. Since they were illiterate how would they know what he wrote. And as far as them not being changed for 1400 or so years. So? If the document is wrong from the start, it is wrong when it comes to you 1400 years later, unchanged.
As far as your asking me the questions about socio political interpretation of the Koran and the time it was revealed. why would that matter to a universal text like the word of God. Is his words constrained by the bounds of current events in such a way they you can only understand them if you know what was going on 1400-1700 years ago? I doubt it. This is not required by the bible as God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He is not bound by context of history as far as if his words are true still. Why would Allah be if he is the same god?
Lastly, Jesus was the Son of God, but he was human and had human limitations just like you and me. If he were simply God in human form with no human limitations whatsoever then his death on the cross would be meaningless as he would have never felt temptation and overcome it, never felt human weakness or fear, never had nagging thoughts about getting out of it. Jesus was a man, he was the son of God, but he was a man like you and I. I am not sure how many languages he spoke, but it does not reflect poorly on God if Jesus did not speak Arabic, or Pygmy, or German, or any other language he may not have spoken. He spoke the language of the people that he was raised with. Where is the shame in that? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Oh, and about the son of God having a race. He was born to a Jewish woman. He was Jewish. Why is that so hard? It does not make the Jews a master race or a super race, any more than having blonde hair and blue eyes makes Aryans the master race. They just happened to be God chosen people and were promised that through them the Messiah would be born. He was, and Gods promise was fulfilled. Now the entire human race is chosen by God because of Jesus and his death on the cross, the question is, who will accept that call and who will reject it? There is no master race, we are all humans. And God loves us all the same.
In fact Jesus was the one who told his followers that jews were no longer to be God's people but God's people were to include gentiles and jews who accept him. Remember that most (almost all) early christian were of jewish race and they proselitised to gentiles there after. Centuries later this proselitization became corrupt and christians practised some barbaric acts such as the SI and Crusades to name but 2. But this was more an abuse of the clerics in charge than of an average christian.
<strong>In fact Jesus was the one who told his followers that jews were no longer to be God's people but God's people were to include gentiles and jews who accept him. Remember that most (almost all) early christian were of jewish race and they proselitised to gentiles there after. Centuries later this proselitization became corrupt and christians practised some barbaric acts such as the SI and Crusades to name but 2. But this was more an abuse of the clerics in charge than of an average christian.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Correct!
and Correct
You can easily figure out which Correct goes with which part.
[quote]Egypt got 24 N. Korean No-Dong missiles, violating pledge
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Thursday, June 6, 2002
WASHINGTON ? The United States has received intelligence reports that North Korea delivered 24 No-Dong intermediate-range missiles to Egypt in the last half of 2001.
U.S. intelligence sources said the CIA report was sent to both the Bush administration and Congress.
The No-Dong missiles did not contain engines but Egypt is believed to have received a separate shipment of up to 50 North Korean engines via Libya, Middle East Newsline reported.
"It's a slap in the face to all those who have been working to stop the Egyptian-North Korean missile cooperation program," an intelligence source said. "Egypt pledged that it wasn't seeking the No-Dong or its engine and then acquired both."
The sources said the No-Dong missile would provide Egypt the ability to attack targets in such countries as Israel, Jordan and Lebanon. They said the main aim of the No-Dong appears to be ensure Egyptian deterrence capability against Israel.
"Egypt appears to be in a panic to obtain capability of operational medium-range missiles that can guarantee strikes anywhere south of Beirut," another intelligence source said.
The disclosure of the No-Dong missile shipment to Egypt was first made last month by a leading analyst at a session of a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. On May 23, Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy, told the House panel on terrorism that Egypt recently received 24 No-Dong missiles from North Korea. He did not elaborate.
In May 2001, the Bush administration won an Egyptian pledge not to purchase the No-Dong or its engine. At the time, Egypt was about to obtain 50 North Korean engines.
Within months, the intelligence sources said, Cairo arranged for the engines to be delivered to Libya, where they were transported by land to Egypt. In contrast, the No-Dong missiles were delivered directly to Egypt. The sources said Washington has failed to persuade North Korea to stop its missile sales. Instead, they said, North Korea has accelerated its missile deliveries to the Middle East since the end of last year.
"North Korea is certainly a serious problem in that respect," U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who did not confirm the Egyptian purchase, said. "They have dangerous technology in almost every category you can imagine. They seem to show willingness to sell anything to anybody who will pay them enough. So, it is a source of great concern."
The No-Dong issue was raised by the Bush administration and Egypt has denied obtaining the missile. A U.S. official said the No-Dong is not expected to be discussed during the meeting by President George Bush and visiting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The two men will meet at the presidential retreat at Camp David on Friday and Saturday. <hr></blockquote>
There is only Islam, and no such thing as "Radical Islam" and "Moderate Islam"
heheh, ? that?s open to interpretation, isn?t it? ?
Quote
According to you, and Mr. Murdacai's interpretation, 1,000,000,000 individuals around the world believe in what promotes hatred and inhuman behaviors.
Heheh, ? how many Chinese communist are there in the world? So does that mean that Communism is utopia on Earth?
Quote
As far as context, Quran was not revealed in the form of a 1, 2, 3, ... rules to be followed.
Why not? Is it too much to ask of your God to be clear and logical in his revelations?
Quote
This is the primary reason why ,many will fail to understand how the context of the Quran should be defined, and where to draw the lines of context; without good will intended guidance. In other words, one must read it all, absorb it all, eliminate the balancing verses, and finally one will get to the constitution of Islam as opposed to the rest of the laws written in the Quran. I have been doing that for the past 9 years and I am not even 1/3 of the way through to absorb what is being said in order to actually start looking into that constitution,so to speak.
heheh, ? this is hilarious. So basically you need to study the Koran for the majority of your adult life to ?properly understand? the Koran before you can function as a decent human being. And even then, when one listens to the mullahs and their justifications for murder and hate, it kinda makes you question what have they been studying if not the Koran?
Quote
Now, assuming that I give Mr. Murdacai and you the benefit of the doubt by taking your interpretation as you depict to be the right interpretation, then please enlighten me on the following:
1. When and where in the prophets life span did those revelations take place?
2. What was the political situation, incident, individuals and the names thereof which relate to this verse and the purpose of the verse's revelation.
3. How does that political and socio-economical situation in which the verse was revealed apply to your interpretation of what is going on in life today?
heheh, ? oh, this is too much. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
What difference should that make? God?s words are supposedly universal and eternally true. They are to apply anywhere, anytime, and to anyone. But you follow Mohammed?s story, and you?ll often find that he is above God?s law. That is, ?God? suspends his ?laws? when it comes to Mohammed. So if we are to follow Mohammed in his ways, then we should all be above God?s laws. Now isn?t this fun.
Quote
If you really care for the people and believe in the constitution of the United States you should start rallying people to help promote freedom of speech and faith in those countries instead of rallying with what eventually leads to hatred. Peaceful promotion, please. No compulsions, like it was done in other corners of the world.
If we really cared for you people we would try to free you from the tyranny of Islam. Like we freed the German from the tyranny of Nazism and the Russians from the tyranny of the Soviets. Like we will free the Chinese from the tyranny of Maoist communism. But we don?t care about you, or your Koran. We care about cheap oil. So you go ahead and enjoy your Koran. Light will not shine on your dark religion.
Quote
I really find it degrading to GOD and his son not to be able to speak Arabic, English, or any other language of the father's creation.
Language is a human creation. Just like ?God? is a human creation. Your ?God? speaks ancient Arabic. My ?God? doesn?t speak to me at all. But then, there really is no need to. heheh .. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Just in case people were having a hard time finding it, thought I would bump this back up. I think that htis discussion is appropriate, however it needs to have both sides to be effective. The defenders and the detractors. I personally feel the "peaceful Islam" is a myth. After reding the Koran I feel that even more strongly.
Comments
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.
<hr></blockquote>
What a female can do in Islam to please herself is governed by the rest of the rules put forth throughout the Quran and those rules apply to males as well. There are certain rules that are more relaxed when it comes to females. Minor differences are noticed as far as rights go between a female and a male. This verse speaks specifically about the male/female relationship in a marriage. If you believe that showing off her body to please others desires, sleeping with someone other than her husband, whining without reason, hurting the husband's feelings any of which as a pleasure, then basically divorce is the way to go as has been explained as a last resort in the Quran since GOD dislikes divorce. Good will in interpretation, and good will in treatment is the point here. You can not take a verse to stand on it's own unless you have no other verse in the Quran that relates to it even in a slight notion.
The male's will is also governed in other verses. Justice must be sought in any situation.
Being obedient, to further elaborate, is also governed by other verses in the Quran as far as what to obey and what not to obey.
[quote]
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?
<hr></blockquote>
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things [1:256]
Meaning, no compulsion because GOD believes that His messages are clear. This would tell you that the man is not allowed to force her to believe in Islam, which in turn restricts obedience. Those who choose not to believe, obviously:
Say, "The Truth is from your Lord": Let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it) [18:29]
Where do you find that unbelievers should be slaughtered for no reason? I truly fail to see that. Maybe you can point to me the verse. Anyway:
002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[quote]
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.
<hr></blockquote>
I find this a good place to say the following: I am here not speak on behalf of muslims. Therefore I am not here to defend Saudi, or Afghanistan. What you know about these particular two countries is nothing compared to what you know, and seen about their atrocities. NoahJ, I beg you, tell me please where have you been and where was the christian population all that time? Don't blame it on the media, you are responsible to search for the fact, and not the media.
I am here to make it clear to everyone that there are more than a single side to Islam, just like there is in Christianity, and the same applies to Judaism.
Regarding your reply, maybe I was not so clear in my request. I will rephrase. I am asking about the translation, not her legal rights.
[quote]
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 original 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.
<hr></blockquote>
So, it follows that Quran is either the words of GOD, or the words of GOD with Muhammad's addition and Muhammad's own style of writing? The latter is false since Muhammad has a different style in Arabic.
Further, I was talking about the Arabic writing of the Quran. Should there be any challenger who wrote something similar in style, let him submit it to Arabic scholars and they will verify it. This situation is like a scientific theory, it stands true until it is scientifically disapproved.
[quote]
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.
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.
<hr></blockquote>
First of all the Messiah is no one but Jesus Christ. That is what the prophecy says. It follows, therefore, that all that talk about Allah of Islam and Messiah of Islam makes me doubt your fairness in addressing the issue. If you are to argue fairly, then the argument should be more philosophical and logical. Who is Yahweh? Is he Satan?
Second, Quran does not diametrically differ from the Bible as the propaganda of the Israel Daily has mentioned. You statement above about the similarities is my reference here.
Third, while I am asking for your fairness again, I would assume that the the new testament has not taken anything from the old testament; Thus, you state that Quran has taken words from the Bible.
Fourth, I think both the old testament and new testament speak of mass killing in the years to come. House of Esau?
Fifth, if Christ represents virtue, then by definition AntiChrist represents vice. Therefore, we have two sides of the conflict, which side are you on?
Sixth, John the Baptist's fires, are they flames of words? How did you come to that conclusion?
Seventh, I understand that in from your words that the Messiah will not fight the none submitters.
Eighth, since the Messiah is not going to fight the none submitters or slaughter them, they will submit either by force, or maybe they are just blessed into submission.
Ninth, if they are blessed into submission, then why go through all this from the start. Let us all just go to heaven and get over it.
Tenth, if we are all going to heaven anyway, why, then, there is vice and there is virtue.
Eleventh, GOD is going to ask us to forgive OBL for what he did and asks us all to hug and kiss and be friends and neighbors in paradise from then on.
You are not required to comment on any of the above. It was just put to show you that it is not a light matter this life that we are living. I think you are better on the Buddhist side than on the Christian if you do not believe that there is reward and there is punishment. (As a side note, I believe that Buddha, Zarathushtra, and Thales are the pupils of Abraham)
I am in no position to tell my Creator how to reward or punish, though. I believe if anyone believes that there is a Creator, he/she will also be in no position to defy the Creator in the way He rewards or punish. It is better, therefore, to leave this kind of punishment in this life and in the next for the time when Messiah comes and he will decide how this whole deal should be carried out. Still, you have to choose a side.
It is very obvious that you have a clear stand against all that is not christian since the argument started of why singling out the Jews but progressed into the way the none submitters are to be killed. Kindly follow the line of reasoning above and you will see how it balances out at the end.
I wonder how the Bible depicts the extermination of the house of Esau. That is genocide according to the civilized definition. So in the name of Christ's prophecy the rally has started already.
I tell you about what is more illogical. Expecting an individual to do evil because he will be fulfilling the prophecies of the Bible. How dare we defy the prophecies of Christ.
Here is my line of reasoning for the existence of reward and punishment:
If He who claims to be GOD is truly a GOD, then He is the Creator. If He is the Creator, then He is the All Knowing. If he is the All Knowing, then He is the All Great and Strong. If He is the All Great, Strong, and Knowing, He should be the All Just. How could He be the All Just, if His scale has virtue and vice on one side?
There is no reason in arguing the rules of Islam, if you do not even believe in the basic principles of life itself. It is like arguing which comes first, the Constitution or the Amendments. Still, here is my comment regarding the word "slaughter":
Slaughter, which depicts a graphical way of killing, is rarely mentioned in Quran. In one place that I remember that it is mentioned, it is in the verse that speaks about sacrifice of what muslims claim to be Ishmael but Jews and Christians claim to be Isaac. In both incidents a lamp is slaughtered in place of the son.
The punishment that you have mentioned with removal of limbs is a choice that depends on the terrorists crime and severity. There, the judge has to make the decision depending on the severity of the terrorist crime of which punishment is better carried out. In the case of OBL for example, some muslim scholars might choose for opposite limbs removal to take place. Others might choose execution.
Your last comment about Quran is not winning you could be turned around and said to you by a person who does not believe in GOD. The answer is simple and clear: It is your choice. Your choice is not the Almighty Right and Infallible choice. So, let people carry on with their believes and holy books and that who inflicts harm should be punished.
You can ignore or reply to all of the above. However, I would really like to understand your thoughts clearly on the following since this is what matters to me first and most:
If the term "Radical Islam" is used in any writing of any form, then it follows that there must be a "Moderate Islam". If a propaganda attacks "Radical Islam" by quoting the Quran in a devious mischievous way, then that propaganda is in essence attacking "Moderate Islam" since both the Radical and the Moderate believe in the same Quran. Therefore, the term "Radical Islam" is not the proper term to use in such writings. The proper term would be Islam. Are you willing to rally people around the world against Islam and Quran?
Finally, since we are obviously arguing what Mr. Murdacai's propaganda is thinks about Islam, I find it extremely important to understand how many of his claims I have to discredit until his propaganda turns into rubbish? I keep thinking that one is enough, but you keep coming back with more. I hope you are not asking me to refute all his articles.
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.
<hr></blockquote>
The number one illogical statement I have stumbled upon in the Bible is the way a GOD is depicted to have a biological son and a wife, so to speak. The trinity has never made sense to me no matter how I would put it. I find the Jews and the Muslims have a better view in that regard as far as the ultimate eternal Oneness of GOD.
By the way, god in Arabic (I am not sure about how Hebrew translates it) is equivalent to the word father if put in the proper context which is used sometime in the Bible.
The way you talk about how the Quran is about 80% taken from the Bible is not accurate in the views of Islam. The proper comment would be, all those books are revealed by GOD. It is the same if we say that the New Testament has plagiarized the old Testament. As we both know, they are both the words of GOD (save the possibility of alteration)
Like I said, the Bible can be rewritten, that is aside from the fact that it has been written as a form of rephrasing, while all historical records show that the Quran has not changed for the past 1400 years. That is both an unmatched challenge, and a fulfillment of the promise GOD made to perserve this book from alteration as claimed in the book.
As far as my calm replies go, I admit that I will be running out of patience if I fail to convince both you and PC^Killa not to consider a population of 1,000,000 as evil.
Maybe one day we can all talk and discuss matters about how peace can be protected from the extremists all around the world.
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: jakkorz ]
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: jakkorz ]</p>
Read this article... it almost justifies everything the Israeli right does and thinks Palastinian hardliners in IranIt includes the following statements :eek: :eek: :eek:
<hr></blockquote>
I really admire your line of reasoning.
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.
<hr></blockquote>
Even if we disregard the fact that such historical claims can only be accounted for by the Bible, the real question to ask is what are those historical claims? Where do the borders stop? Which kingdom in the history of the Jewish people are the Israeli eager to restore? It is a question with an answer that would lay the ground of what is expected from the Arabs. An answer should be very clear and blunt, otherwise if Israel is keeps playing the word games the Middle East will never be at rest. It started with a home land for the Jewish nation which back then the Jews made less than 1/5 of the population in those lands (under 100,000 in population of the lands). It moved on to mass migration. From there The State of Israel declared independence. After which, Israel's borders have expanded during those years between 1948 and 1967. If I were asked to use the black history of the Arabs and the muslims to justify the stance of Israel, then why should I decline to use the recent history of Israel against Israel, a history marked by political deviousness to say the least. This deviousness is evident in the fact that Israel has built settlements in Sinai during the time of occupation. That deviousness is evident in leaving the head of Hamas at home unharmed while making a hero of another terrorist. That deviousness is evident in the fact that the undemocratic government of Arafat and the suicidal bomb terrorists promoter of Hamas are serving nothing but the image of Israel in the western world.
As far as your comments about Islam, obviously, I will fail, on all accounts, to show you how Islam is balanced and that the individual muslims are to be blamed not the religion that represents 1/5 the population of Earth. But how are you going to convince me that Judaism is not to be blamed for the same kind of radicalism and devious interpretation of the "Torah" by some Jews.
Personally, I do believe that a secular system would be best to apply. Those who live peaceful amongst us are welcome, and those who choose other than peace they will subsequently be punished regardless of their religious background. If you agree with me on this, then I find the purpose of getting into this discussion served. I can not find an excuse, however, to attack, as opposed to question and inquire about, what others believe to be sacred just because you do not believe in it.
[quote]
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.
<hr></blockquote>
I really appreciate your honest here. You can not imagine how I gratify those who are honest in their life.
Please permit me to reply.
I know that the overwhelming population fo the Jews around the world are not religious. But supporting Jordan can also be explained as a momental political move. That is to say that Jordan is nothing but a momental buffer state. That will be evident in the following paragraph.
I agree with you about the state of the population of those disputed lands (I will refrain from calling them colonies for obvious reasons to be covered in this paragraph). It is like every state in the region have declared themselves as guardians over the people who live in those disputed lands. Now, referring to those disputed lands as colonies is the honesty that I commended in you earlier. Well, obviously such choice of mass migration would force them to go to Jordan (noting that 70% of the population of Jordan are offsprings of people who come from the lands east of the river). Obviously we can not choose the term Palestinians to label these people since they do not belong to that land west of the river according to what you say. What you claim also implies that these populations were implanted by the Arab muslims as inhabitants of the land for the past 1400 years or so. It is also obvious that the population fo Jordan is basically composed of Arab nomads with distinctive family names which can be traced back to the peninsula. With all that said, it should follow that what the world thinks about establishing an independent and autonomous Palestinian State on the lands which Israel regained in 1967 will not be viewed favorably by Israel. This further insinuates that the borders of Israel are not going to stop there since Judaea's borders extend well into Syria up to the outskirts of Damascus and will include miles of lands east of the river which are the Lands of Jordan. Do you see how the borders of Israel can expand even if we disregard the religious cause and only stick to the historical account (which is in turn only a rephrase of the biblical account). Those historical accounts definitely justify what the world considers as occupied territories. The historical accounts will justify further expansion of Israel. To annex those extra lands, it only takes a war which Israel will win. Anyway, you will get what you want.
I wonder how did Bush put it (his speech about how he supports the creation of a Palestinian State). Actually I am not sure anymore if I would say poor Arabs and muslims, or poor Fools. I think the latter fits them well. They brought it upon themselves.
[quote]
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:
<hr></blockquote>
I ask for the benefit of the doubt here.
An "at the least" does make the statement stand more clear. I also reiterate what I said about them and my general views about them.
[quote]
I would agree with you Jakkorz, if it wasn?t for the overwhelming fact that history very much supports all of Anwar Shaikh contentions.
<hr></blockquote>
History states that the muslims have committed atrocities against the populations of the lands they have conquered. But that does not grant the muslims the right to interpret the Quran as they wish or as Mr. Shaikh wish's it to be interpreted. Like I keep saying, interpretation plays a major role here. Not to mention the fact that all quotes are taken out of context. What is the context? Well, obviously you can not write with one letter in a language, it has to be from A to Z. It is also obvious that you can not have a constitution made up of one sentence. Therefore it should be obvious that the context of the Quran is the whole book from cover to cover. If Mr. Shaikh is not willing to present his case in such a way, then his argument will collapse on the merits described in the Quran itself about what the context should be.
[quote]
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?
<hr></blockquote>
I was inclined.
The purpose of his argument would have been better served if he did not inflate his Islamic scholastic status. The point here is that who can better explain the flaws of Quran other than a former Islamic scholar. The same has happened with that Wahabi propaganda that I talked about. I have read couple of articles on the web about him being interviewed, but I have yet to see a verifiable picture of his. Add to that the fact that British media loves these kind of things and I keep wondering why they did not pick up on it. Over all, it has more doubts than certainties to me.
[quote]
I don?t follow you here? I?ll look for you to further explain that.
<hr></blockquote>
Well, remember when I said I will be talking about the black history of muslims.
It turns out that they have forged many sayings of the prophet shortly after his departure. In fact, Arab leaders used to pay for those who would put one or more saying for the prophet, along with false interpretations of the Quran by the way of the prophet, which would serve none but the leader's throne. Of course, the truth can not be buried, but it can always be masked. This is why I thought that taking everything for granted in the books other than the Quran and according to the muslims roles is a mere foolishness. Again I bring to you attention that the context is from cover to cover. With good will, and lot of research, I have managed to verify the truth of this claim about how the a lot of the prophet sayings are forged.
[quote]
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?
<hr></blockquote>
If it was a poetic one piece of paper that we are arguing with you, then I would have a hard time convincing you. However, we are talking about a whole book, and a context that covers it all. Not to mention the fact that it was not revealed in one piece. Also not to mention the facts that it is written in a language that has very complicated grammar. Now even if I grant you the right to interpret it the way you like, why would I not grant the right for the peaceful muslims (I hope you believe there are peaceful ones) to interpret it in their own way?
[quote]
This is a very interesting statement. Did you find any historical evidence to support this?
<hr></blockquote>
Look no further than recent history, extreme right parties have clearly denounced and managed to set back the peace negotiated by Arafat and Rabin.
[quote]
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.
<hr></blockquote>
I will take this as a brotherly advice. As I have responsibilities to fulfill, the solitude I practice is more of a Yoga like. Add to that, extreme negligence of reading the news and getting into discussions that speak of differences to promote hatred. My last solitude have helped me realize that all religions have originated from one source. It has also helped me understand that at this time of history, it is better to avoid siding with people because each side wants to get you on their camp. This is why I have been thinking that once I fulfill my responsibilities, I might just avoid all this fake "civilization" so to speak and find me a secluded place to live in and maybe worship quietly.
You should try it sometime. It is a state of spirituality that I have experienced once and felt so peaceful with myself and the others. When I started my normal old daily life after tha solitude period, that spirituality kept withdrawing slowly. I really miss it.
<strong>What a female can do in Islam to please herself is governed by the rest of the rules put forth throughout the Quran and those rules apply to males as well. There are certain rules that are more relaxed when it comes to females. Minor differences are noticed as far as rights go between a female and a male. This verse speaks specifically about the male/female relationship in a marriage. If you believe that showing off her body to please others desires, sleeping with someone other than her husband, whining without reason, hurting the husband's feelings any of which as a pleasure, then basically divorce is the way to go as has been explained as a last resort in the Quran since GOD dislikes divorce. Good will in interpretation, and good will in treatment is the point here. You can not take a verse to stand on it's own unless you have no other verse in the Quran that relates to it even in a slight notion.<hr></blockquote></strong>
So wife beating is ok in some circusmtances?
I am not arguing that you should let your wife run wild, sleep around, etc. But all of that does not give one the right to beat their wife. How can that be considered profitable in a relationship? Will the wife think that since her husband loved her enough to beat her that she will now stay with him? This I doubt.
[quote]<strong>The male's will is also governed in other verses. Justice must be sought in any situation.
Being obedient, to further elaborate, is also governed by other verses in the Quran as far as what to obey and what not to obey.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I would expect there to be no less, the extremes that I am finding however are quite stark.
[quote]<strong>Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things [1:256]
Meaning, no compulsion because GOD believes that His messages are clear. This would tell you that the man is not allowed to force her to believe in Islam, which in turn restricts obedience. Those who choose not to believe, obviously:
Say, "The Truth is from your Lord": Let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it) [18:29]
Where do you find that unbelievers should be slaughtered for no reason? I truly fail to see that. Maybe you can point to me the verse. Anyway:
002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Never did I say without reason. However, there is license given and who is to say what is justified and what is not? Men? Who are fallible?
A Couple of verses from the Koran that I have read. Some we have touched on already.
The Dinner Table
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
The Clans
[33.60] If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city do not desist, We shall most certainly set you over them, then they shall not be your neighbors in it but for a little while;
[33.61] Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering.
[quote]<strong>I find this a good place to say the following: I am here not speak on behalf of muslims. Therefore I am not here to defend Saudi, or Afghanistan. What you know about these particular two countries is nothing compared to what you know, and seen about their atrocities. NoahJ, I beg you, tell me please where have you been and where was the christian population all that time? Don't blame it on the media, you are responsible to search for the fact, and not the media.
I am here to make it clear to everyone that there are more than a single side to Islam, just like there is in Christianity, and the same applies to Judaism.
Regarding your reply, maybe I was not so clear in my request. I will rephrase. I am asking about the translation, not her legal rights.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Once more I am not speaking of Muslims in general, however your blanket statements do not fit with the culture that is over in Saudi arabia and other Middle Eastern nations.
As far as your last question about translation not legal rights. It seems to me that in these countries her legal rights are determined by their translation of the Koran for the most part. In America however her legal rights are determined by the contistution and the laws of the US which are not based on the religious interpretation of a religious document.
I may be wrong, but this is how I have seen it so far.
[quote]<strong>So, it follows that Quran is either the words of GOD, or the words of GOD with Muhammad's addition and Muhammad's own style of writing? The latter is false since Muhammad has a different style in Arabic.
Further, I was talking about the Arabic writing of the Quran. Should there be any challenger who wrote something similar in style, let him submit it to Arabic scholars and they will verify it. This situation is like a scientific theory, it stands true until it is scientifically disapproved.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I know that Muhammad was illiterate. The Koran was not written until well after his death anyhow. So that much is obvious. The man who wrote the Koran is said to have done so under duress by some. I am sure you have heard that there are those who say the Koran was written by an Israeli scholar by force of Arabs who kidnapped him for this purpose because they did not posses the skills or knowlege at the time to write their own scriptures out. He likely just wrote what he was told to write by the people who wanted it written. However that is history in question and none have shown me evidence either way that one or the other is true. It is just hearsay for me right now.
[quote]<strong>First of all the Messiah is no one but Jesus Christ. That is what the prophecy says. It follows, therefore, that all that talk about Allah of Islam and Messiah of Islam makes me doubt your fairness in addressing the issue. If you are to argue fairly, then the argument should be more philosophical and logical. Who is Yahweh? Is he Satan?<hr></blockquote></strong>
Wrong, the messiah they mention is an Arab Moslem and he speaks arabic. They call him Isa son of Muriam. Jesus was Jewish and he spoke Hebrew. One major diffrence there. According to the Koran Jesus was not the son of God and never died on the cross. If this is the case then there is no reason for Christianity to exist, as it is based on this one important point, salvation. As the Koran states:
The Women
[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
[quote]<strong>Second, Quran does not diametrically differ from the Bible as the propaganda of the Israel Daily has mentioned. You statement above about the similarities is my reference here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In this one instance where Jesus is mentione we see diametric opposition. And that is a huge one. They also do not believe in the trinity, or that Jesus is the son of God.
The Women
[4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.
Without Jesus being the son of God, there is no Christianity. Jesus said he was the Son of God, so then he is a liar. The Islamic Messiah and the Christian Messiah are not the same man. They cannot be.
[quote]<strong>Third, while I am asking for your fairness again, I would assume that the the new testament has not taken anything from the old testament; Thus, you state that Quran has taken words from the Bible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What has this to do with anything. The Old and New Testament are all in the same bible. The Koran is not. The Koran goes out of its way to say how the Jew recieved the revelation first and then twisted it therefore the need for the Koran to be written.
The Dinner Table
[5.12] And certainly Allah made a covenant with the children of Israel, and We raised up among them twelve chieftains; and Allah said: Surely I am with you; if you keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and believe in My apostles and asslst them and offer to Allah a goodly gift, I will most certainly cover your evil deeds, and I will most certainly cause you to enter into gardens beneath which rivers flow, but whoever disbelieves from among you after that, he indeed shall lose the right way.
[5.13] But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).
[5.14] And with those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they did.
[5.15] O followers of the Book! indeed Our Apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah
So we have recieved the revelation, and we have twisted it to our own means and now the Koran is here to put us on the right path.
[quote]<strong>Fourth, I think both the old testament and new testament speak of mass killing in the years to come. House of Esau?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes it does, but that is in a prophetic tense not a command to do so. There is a difference.
Prophetic: "In the years to come there will be great killing that occurs."
Command: "In the years to come you shall commit great slaughter upon those that oppose Allah."
See the diffrence?
[quote]<strong>Fifth, if Christ represents virtue, then by definition AntiChrist represents vice. Therefore, we have two sides of the conflict, which side are you on?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Virtue and vice are only two things in the grand scheme of things. However I am on the side of Christ who tells us that the greatest commandment is to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your spirit. And to love your neighbor as you love yourself. All the commandments can be tied to these two commandments.
It also states in the bible that the Anti-Christ will come and put himself up as a good person who will do many great deeds and miracles and only after those who are deceived are following him will he reveal himself. So it is not like the horrors will be there from the start. Satan is often mentioned as disguised as angel of light, because he is the great deceiver.
[quote]<strong>Sixth, John the Baptist's fires, are they flames of words? How did you come to that conclusion?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am sorry, the verse escapes me. I will look for it, but can you give me an idea of which you are speaking of? Do you mean the baptizing with fire?
[quote]<strong>Seventh, I understand that in from your words that the Messiah will not fight the none submitters.</strong><hr></blockquote>
God is a God of love not war. Jesus will "fight" the last battle against the Anti-Christ in Armegeddon. But not in the sense that it shows in the Koran.
Revelation 19 I believe is the verse you would be referring to.
19Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.
The sword that comes from the motuh of the rider is often spoken of in the bible. It is not a literal sword. The bible is often spoken of as a two edged sword. This is not going to be a literal sword either, it will be the spoken word of God. God will speak and those that are arrayed against him for battle bearing the mark of the beast will die.
It is better described in this commentary.
Together the visions of the birds of prey in the sky (vv. 17-18) and the outcome of the so-called battle (vv. 19-21) form a kind of chiasm, that is, the same three elements are repeated in reverse order:
(a) the birds of the sky are invited to feast (v. 17)
(b) the doomed armies are described (v. 18)
(c) the beast gathers these armies for battle (v. 19)
(c') the beast and false prophet are captured and thrown into the lake of fire (v. 20)
(b') the armies are killed by the sword of the rider on the white horse (v. 21)
(a') the birds feast on their flesh (v. 21) The effect of the chiasm is to dramatize the inevitability of the outcome. The armies arrayed against the rider on the white horse are slaughtered by the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, that is, "the Word of God." God speaks and it is done. The angel standing in the sun (v. 17) knows the end from the beginning. The beast has not been heard from since chapter 17, where his involvement in the conflict was made unmistakably clear (17:13-14). The false prophet, mentioned only once before in passing without further identification (16:13), is here explicitly said to be the one who had performed the miraculous signs on the beast's behalf and had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image (v. 20). This identifies him as the second beast "coming out of the earth" who had enforced on the earth's inhabitants the worship of the beast from the sea (13:11-17). The false prophet played no role in the vision or the explanation by the angel in chapter 17, yet the two beasts are to John inseparable, and they go to their destruction together in this their final scene.
Quite different from the interpretation of this by the Koran, a warrior god who brutally slays his enemies thus exacting punishment and justice.
[quote]<strong>Eighth, since the Messiah is not going to fight the none submitters or slaughter them, they will submit either by force, or maybe they are just blessed into submission.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By the time this battle occurs sides have been chosen and the "non-submitters" fate has been sealed if they have taken the mark. You can read all about this in my End of the World thread. It is all there.
[quote]<strong>Ninth, if they are blessed into submission, then why go through all this from the start. Let us all just go to heaven and get over it.[/qb<hr></blockquote>
See above replies.
[quote][qb]Tenth, if we are all going to heaven anyway, why, then, there is vice and there is virtue.<hr></blockquote></strong>
We are not all going to heaven, although we all could if only we accept the free gift of salvation through Christ Jesus.
<strong>Eleventh, GOD is going to ask us to forgive OBL for what he did and asks us all to hug and kiss and be friends and neighbors in paradise from then on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
God already has asked us to do so. It is written is the bible.
Matthew 5 (Jesus speaking)
[b]43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.[/qb]
[quote]<strong>You are not required to comment on any of the above. It was just put to show you that it is not a light matter this life that we are living. I think you are better on the Buddhist side than on the Christian if you do not believe that there is reward and there is punishment. (As a side note, I believe that Buddha, Zarathushtra, and Thales are the pupils of Abraham)</strong><hr></blockquote>
You claim you have read my other posts and yet you say that I do not believe that there is reward and punishment. Remember, "Vengence is Mine," says the Lord. He does not tell his people that they are the instruments of his vengence in all things. God will exact judgement in his time and by his methods. The Koran gives its followers license to exact that judgement, the Bible in stark contrast, does not when read in its entirety. The Koran has many exceptions for its commands, the bible does not.
[quote]<strong>I am in no position to tell my Creator how to reward or punish, though. I believe if anyone believes that there is a Creator, he/she will also be in no position to defy the Creator in the way He rewards or punish. It is better, therefore, to leave this kind of punishment in this life and in the next for the time when Messiah comes and he will decide how this whole deal should be carried out. Still, you have to choose a side.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I agree, if I can tell God how He has to act then He is not God. And yes, there will come a day when all will choose sides, either for God or against.
[quote]<strong>It is very obvious that you have a clear stand against all that is not christian since the argument started of why singling out the Jews but progressed into the way the none submitters are to be killed. Kindly follow the line of reasoning above and you will see how it balances out at the end.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I am merely trying to show that Islam seems to me to be based on showing how they are right and specifically how Judaism and Chrstianity is wrong. Why do they feel the need to pull both religions out specifically and show how they are wrong if the Islamic message is true? Just let it stand on its own like the bible does and any that come against it with a false message would be shown as false. God does not need to bicker over things, His words are set and He does not argue over them.
[quote]<strong>I wonder how the Bible depicts the extermination of the house of Esau. That is genocide according to the civilized definition. So in the name of Christ's prophecy the rally has started already.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I am unsure where this is depicted or if it is even depicted. It likley just speaks of the house of Esau being wiped out (I will look for the refrence) in a prophetic sense, not in a command sense.
[quote]<strong>I tell you about what is more illogical. Expecting an individual to do evil because he will be fulfilling the prophecies of the Bible. How dare we defy the prophecies of Christ.
Who is defying Christ's prophecies. Just because Jesus said it does not mean it is up to you and me to see to it that it happens. When it happens it will likely be according to God's plan and not a person saying, "You know, Jesus said the house of Esau will be wiped out, I think I will make that my mission in life." That would seem to breed hatred for a group of people which is not consistant with the rest of scriptures. It is not being advocated, it is being predicted.
[quote]<strong>Here is my line of reasoning for the existence of reward and punishment:
If He who claims to be GOD is truly a GOD, then He is the Creator. If He is the Creator, then He is the All Knowing. If he is the All Knowing, then He is the All Great and Strong. If He is the All Great, Strong, and Knowing, He should be the All Just. How could He be the All Just, if His scale has virtue and vice on one side?</strong>[quote]
Once more you are arguing a point that i am not making.
[quote]<strong>There is no reason in arguing the rules of Islam, if you do not even believe in the basic principles of life itself. It is like arguing which comes first, the Constitution or the Amendments. Still, here is my comment regarding the word "slaughter":
Slaughter, which depicts a graphical way of killing, is rarely mentioned in Quran. In one place that I remember that it is mentioned, it is in the verse that speaks about sacrifice of what muslims claim to be Ishmael but Jews and Christians claim to be Isaac. In both incidents a lamp is slaughtered in place of the son.
The punishment that you have mentioned with removal of limbs is a choice that depends on the terrorists crime and severity. There, the judge has to make the decision depending on the severity of the terrorist crime of which punishment is better carried out. In the case of OBL for example, some muslim scholars might choose for opposite limbs removal to take place. Others might choose execution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This comes down to translation I think. However, removing limbs and brutally murdering someone would fit into slaughter in many ways as well.
[quote]<strong>Your last comment about Quran is not winning you could be turned around and said to you by a person who does not believe in GOD. The answer is simple and clear: It is your choice. Your choice is not the Almighty Right and Infallible choice. So, let people carry on with their believes and holy books and that who inflicts harm should be punished.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I put that statement in there for one reason. I have been told by many that I am opposed to something that I have not read and therefore cannot understand. Upon reading it, I am still opposed. And upon comapring it to the bible I can give reasons why it seems to fall apart. I never said my view was the end all, however it is my view and I am putting it out there.
[quote]<strong>You can ignore or reply to all of the above. However, I would really like to understand your thoughts clearly on the following since this is what matters to me first and most:
If the term "Radical Islam" is used in any writing of any form, then it follows that there must be a "Moderate Islam". If a propaganda attacks "Radical Islam" by quoting the Quran in a devious mischievous way, then that propaganda is in essence attacking "Moderate Islam" since both the Radical and the Moderate believe in the same Quran. Therefore, the term "Radical Islam" is not the proper term to use in such writings. The proper term would be Islam. Are you willing to rally people around the world against Islam and Quran?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the Koran is not to be interpreted and the words in them are to be taken literally than I am against what it teaches. It is full of conflicting verses and commands, exceptions to rules that should not have exceptions at the human level, and advocated murder and hateful acts.
[quote]<strong>Finally, since we are obviously arguing what Mr. Murdacai's propaganda is thinks about Islam, I find it extremely important to understand how many of his claims I have to discredit until his propaganda turns into rubbish? I keep thinking that one is enough, but you keep coming back with more. I hope you are not asking me to refute all his articles.
I am not asking you te refute all his articles. But I have not seen you refute any except to say that he does not have any authority on the subject that you recognize. You quibble over some words, but do not put forth all your cards and then say that you have proved your point. I am not swayed by only half of the information. By what I have seen in history, and what i am reading in the Koran now, his interpreation of what is said and the actions of those who follow the strict Koran line up.
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
<strong>The jews at the time did speak Aramiac. Not to mention greek too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is true, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic... Sorry.
If I were asked to use the black history of the Arabs and the muslims to justify the stance of Israel, then why should I decline to use the recent history of Israel against Israel, a history marked by political deviousness to say the least. This deviousness is evident in the fact that Israel has built settlements in Sinai during the time of occupation. That deviousness is evident in leaving the head of Hamas at home unharmed while making a hero of another terrorist. That deviousness is evident in the fact that the undemocratic government of Arafat and the suicidal bomb terrorists promoter of Hamas are serving nothing but the image of Israel in the western world.
That?s not a fair statement. As far as I know Israel has only built a military airport, and the town of Yammit in the Sinai. I guess, if you want, you can call this ?devious?, but they to a large extent served as a catalyst to bring, what until then was an unwilling Egypt, to the negotiating table. Unfortunately, even though Egypt, thanks to her treaty with Israel, received the Sinai, and also receives billions in financial and military aid from America on a yearly basis, Egypt has not truly made her peace with Israel, and her relationship with Israel can be best described, as a cold war.
As far as Israel?s ?deviousness? with regards to Arafat: You speak as though Israel is all powerful. And to me, this echoes Nazi propaganda. I?ll remind you that Israel was bullied by the United States, then under George Bush senior and his Secretary of State James Baker, to the Madrid conference. Remember the Loan Guarantees the US refused to back so that Israel could get a better interest on the loan she was taking so as to accommodate the Russian and Ethiopian mass immigration. Well, even then Israel refused to deal with Arafat, and in fact insisted that local Arab representatives represent the local Arabs at the conference. But what happen then? These same representative, like Hanan Ashrawi, refused to accept any responsibility for their affairs, and would not negotiate with Israel unless Arafat approved. It got so ridiculous that these representatives came to the negotiating table with cell phone at hand, and with Arafat dictating the negotiations through their cell phones. Israel did all it could to marginalize Arafat, but the Arabs and the international community threw it in our face, and insisted on Arafat. And they are still doing it today. So what?s there for Israel to do?
quote
But how are you going to convince me that Judaism is not to be blamed for the same kind of radicalism and devious interpretation of the "Torah" by some Jews.
I really think it is you who will need to show me examples here, and compare those to Islam and Muslims. I?m not at all convinced you can make such an argument.
quote
Personally, I do believe that a secular system would be best to apply. Those who live peaceful amongst us are welcome, and those who choose other than peace they will subsequently be punished regardless of their religious background. If you agree with me on this, then I find the purpose of getting into this discussion served. I can not find an excuse, however, to attack, as opposed to question and inquire about, what others believe to be sacred just because you do not believe in it.
You know very well it?s not as simple as ?live, and let live?. Islam is an expansionist religion as I explained earlier. Not only that, Islam seeks to humiliate and subjugate those within its domain. Does the term ?Dhimmis? ring a bell?
quote
I know that the overwhelming population fo the Jews around the world are not religious. But supporting Jordan can also be explained as a momental political move. That is to say that Jordan is nothing but a momental buffer state.
I assume that by momental you mean temporary. Ok, so what do you think will cause Israel to change its policy towards Jordan?
quote
What you claim also implies that these populations were implanted by the Arab muslims as inhabitants of the land for the past 1400 years or so.
Actually I believe the vast majority of these populations were implanted there between 1947-1967. Unfortunately, you must have missed my ?lively? discussion with NEW regarding this subject. I?ll refer you to the thread later.
quote
With all that said, it should follow that what the world thinks about establishing an independent and autonomous Palestinian State on the lands which Israel regained in 1967 will not be viewed favorably by Israel.
Not anymore. Most Israelis, myself included, view these populations as a 5th column for hostile Islamic states such as Iran. Much like the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia prior to Hitler?s take over.
quote
This further insinuates that the borders of Israel are not going to stop there since Judaea's borders extend well into Syria up to the outskirts of Damascus and will include miles of lands east of the river which are the Lands of Jordan.
Actually, King David kingdom was much more extensive than that. : )
quote
Do you see how the borders of Israel can expand even if we disregard the religious cause and only stick to the historical account (which is in turn only a rephrase of the biblical account). Those historical accounts definitely justify what the world considers as occupied territories. The historical accounts will justify further expansion of Israel. To annex those extra lands, it only takes a war which Israel will win. Anyway, you will get what you want.
How do you know what we want?
quote
I ask for the benefit of the doubt here.
I ask the same.
quote
History states that the muslims have committed atrocities against the populations of the lands they have conquered. But that does not grant the muslims the right to interpret the Quran as they wish or as Mr. Shaikh wish's it to be interpreted.
The damage is done. You cannot take it back. The system is too open to abuse. Even in our modern age, the same gross abuse is recurring every day, and in almost every part of the globe where Muslim are to be found.
quote
It is also obvious that you can not have a constitution made up of one sentence.
Can you imagine if you had a ?Constitution? where one sentence contradicted the next. Would you then also consider it to be a masterwork of human subtlety or would you toss it in the garbage?
quote
Therefore it should be obvious that the context of the Quran is the whole book from cover to cover. If Mr. Shaikh is not willing to present his case in such a way, then his argument will collapse on the merits described in the Quran itself about what the context should be.
So I need to read all the volumes of Shakespeare to understand what Hamlet meant when he uttered the words: ?to be, or not to be?.
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?
Look no further than recent history, extreme right parties have clearly denounced and managed to set back the peace negotiated by Arafat and Rabin.
You did not answer the question. When did Jews practice democracy? When did they break a treaty they signed? I?ll refer you to the 'Hudibiyya' and 'Salah a-Din' Agreements. Which reminds me. I?m still waiting for your answer as to what happened to the Jews of Medina. As I?m also waiting for your answer regarding the authentic translation of the verses. The Table V: 55. among others.
quote
Well, remember when I said I will be talking about the black history of muslims. It turns out that they have forged many sayings of the prophet shortly after his departure. In fact, Arab leaders used to pay for those who would put one or more saying for the prophet, along with false interpretations of the Quran by the way of the prophet, which would serve none but the leader's throne. Of course, the truth can not be buried, but it can always be masked. This is why I thought that taking everything for granted in the books other than the Quran and according to the muslims roles is a mere foolishness. Again I bring to you attention that the context is from cover to cover. With good will, and lot of research, I have managed to verify the truth of this claim about how the a lot of the prophet sayings are forged.
Yet you claimed that words in the Koran are the undoctored words of God, the poetry and mastery of which never matched by mere mortals.
Anyway, what is it about Islam that so attracts you? Are you so deprived of honey or milk in your diet? Or maybe you don?t get enough sweet fruits? Or is it the scores of virgins Allah will provide for. In which case, how is Allah different from the local pimp who pushes girls at the local street corner. You are so sexually deprived? Why not find yourself a street girl, and get busy.
If you are truly so inquisitive about ?God?, why not apply yourself to a discipline that actually requires a little logic and thinking. Why not apply yourself to a science like mathematics, or physics, or astronomy, or maybe chemistry, or biology, or maybe a mixture of the two, like pharmacology, etc. These are all relatively uncharted disciplines, where much is yet to be discovered. And you?ll be contributing something useful to mankind. Are these disciplines not challenging enough for your brilliant mind? Are you so admiring of those religious sophists that by your own words abuse plagiarized scripture to suit their megalomaniac ambitions, that you want to spend the rest of your life studying and defending their creation?
quote
This is why I have been thinking that once I fulfill my responsibilities, I might just avoid all this fake "civilization" so to speak and find me a secluded place to live in and maybe worship quietly.
You know what is heaven for me. It is a chance to spend time with those I love: my family, my friends, my girl friend, my comrades from my army unit. That is heaven for me. Too bad your so called friend turned you away from life. And it sounds to me like you are already marching towards death. Maybe that?s the real attraction you have for Islam.
mika.
If the Koran is not to be interpreted and the words in them are to be taken literally than I am against what it teaches. It is full of conflicting verses and commands, exceptions to rules that should not have exceptions at the human level, and advocated murder and hateful acts.
<hr></blockquote>
Please note that you are not giving a clear answer.
Let me make clear what I understand from what you have stated:
1. Quran should be regarded as some form of writing from the past.
1. Muslims are judged based upon what you, and Mr. Murdacai believe to be the right interpretation of the Quran.
2. There is only Islam, and no such thing as "Radical Islam" and "Moderate Islam"
3. Since Quran has within it the constitution and laws of Islam, you, Mr. Murdacai, and all those on your camp are against Islam.
4. According to you, and Mr. Murdacai's interpretation, 1,000,000,000 individuals around the world believe in what promotes hatred and inhuman behaviors.
Here is my response if I were to argue more about this issue:
This whole propaganda against the Quran is based on the facts that the words of Quran are taken both literally and out of the proper context, while they should not. Otherwise, like it was pointed out to a renowned blind Wahabi muslim cleric, that all the biologically blind in this life are doomed into hell for eternity. Of course Quran says the "blind" are going to hell which should be, according to the eloquence rules of Arabic put with logic, interpreted into "spiritually blind". That one goes for the literal words of the Quran. As far as context, Quran was not revealed in the form of a 1, 2, 3, ... rules to be followed. This is the primary reason why ,many will fail to understand how the context of the Quran should be defined, and where to draw the lines of context; without good will intended guidance. In other words, one must read it all, absorb it all, eliminate the balancing verses, and finally one will get to the constitution of Islam as opposed to the rest of the laws written in the Quran. I have been doing that for the past 9 years and I am not even 1/3 of the way through to absorb what is being said in order to actually start looking into that constitution,so to speak. I don't know how long Mr. Murdacai has spent out of his life in this process, but it sure looks to me that he has not even considered following the first and most important rule, which is defining what constitutes the context of the Quran. I will be posting a verse that talks about this once I find it. To conclude, obviously if your basic interpretation of the Quran is not based on the requirements that I have put forth in my previous post, that only means that your interpretation not to be accounted for; and further, it should illustrate to the reader that what is going on here is a propaganda and nothing more.
Now, assuming that I give Mr. Murdacai and you the benefit of the doubt by taking your interpretation as you depict to be the right interpretation, then please enlighten me on the following:
1. When and where in the prophets life span did those revelations take place?
2. What was the political situation, incident, individuals and the names thereof which relate to this verse and the purpose of the verse's revelation.
3. How does that political and socio-economical situation in which the verse was revealed apply to your interpretation of what is going on in life today?
Do you see the kind of process you go through in order to have your interpretation verified? If one question is left unanswered in the order at which it is posted then basically your whole interpretation would be reduced into a propaganda.
[quote]
I am not asking you te refute all his articles. But I have not seen you refute any except to say that he does not have any authority on the subject that you recognize. You quibble over some words, but do not put forth all your cards and then say that you have proved your point. I am not swayed by only half of the information. By what I have seen in history, and what i am reading in the Koran now, his interpretation of what is said and the actions of those who follow the strict Koran line up.
<hr></blockquote>
In my posts responding to PC^Killa I have mentioned that the history of the muslims and the Arabs is black no matter how nice they put it. It is so black they can refute it only by their own prejudice accounts. But some sects within Islam will be able to refute those prejudice accounts very easily due to the fact that they are part of that history of oppression and suppression of freedom of speech and freedom of faith. If you really care for the people and believe in the constitution of the United States you should start rallying people to help promote freedom of speech and faith in those countries instead of rallying with what eventually leads to hatred. Peaceful promotion, please. No compulsions, like it was done in other corners of the world.
My final note:
I am wondering how many Mary there were back then which bore a child without biological male/female marriage brought about insemination, she was raised under the supervision of a Zechariah father of a Johann, and her son is called Jesus, which is translated to Isa in Arabic. If you say this is not how Jesus is, I would understand, but saying that this is the Islamic Jesus obviosly we have a problem of communication here not to mention logic, reasoning, and inference.
I really find it degrading to GOD and his son not to be able to speak Arabic, English, or any other language of the father's creation. Such trait could only be held against the son and the father for not teaching the son the languages of his creation. That is to assume that there are no other supreme fatherly traits passed over to the son. Not to mention that the name of the son of GOD can not be said differently in other languages; this would destroy all purposes of translation. Add to that the fact that the son of GOD has an ethnicity. No wonder that super race myth still floats around these days.
---
What I ment by Buddha, Zarathushtra, and Thales being the pupils of Abraham is that the line of master and pupil will ultimately end back to Abraham.
<a href="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/dhimma.html"; target="_blank">http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/dhimma.html</a>;
I am not going to quote your post because we are now treading over the same ground again.
You are either not understanding what I wrote, or you are guilty of what you calim I am doing which is taking my words out of context in the worst possible light. Read my entire post again, in fact read all of my posts in this thread, and tell me where I say that all followers of Islam are evil and should be hated. I believe that Islam at its core is rotten and as such is very, very open to abuse, murder, suicide bombings, killing, and hatred as the justice system in the Koran place it upon the followers of Islam to carry out Allah's justice in this life instead of letting Allah alone be the judge, jury, and executioner.
As for the Mary comment. YOu are then saying that Mohammad was married to Mary? That is what I infer from your post...
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.
How could this be the same Mary since Mohammad was alive well after Mary, the mother of Jesus would have been dead?
OR are you simply saying that the Koran has borrowed the history of Jesus from the Bible and put it in the Koran as the correct interpretation years after the bible was already written?
Sorry, but the Koran has to have better justfication that that. They had the Jewish texts available to plagerise (sp?) and possibly even a Jewish Rabbi writing their texts for them under duress. That make for a lot of room for error, abuse and even teh Rabbi altering the texts a bit. Since they were illiterate how would they know what he wrote. And as far as them not being changed for 1400 or so years. So? If the document is wrong from the start, it is wrong when it comes to you 1400 years later, unchanged.
As far as your asking me the questions about socio political interpretation of the Koran and the time it was revealed. why would that matter to a universal text like the word of God. Is his words constrained by the bounds of current events in such a way they you can only understand them if you know what was going on 1400-1700 years ago? I doubt it. This is not required by the bible as God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He is not bound by context of history as far as if his words are true still. Why would Allah be if he is the same god?
Lastly, Jesus was the Son of God, but he was human and had human limitations just like you and me. If he were simply God in human form with no human limitations whatsoever then his death on the cross would be meaningless as he would have never felt temptation and overcome it, never felt human weakness or fear, never had nagging thoughts about getting out of it. Jesus was a man, he was the son of God, but he was a man like you and I. I am not sure how many languages he spoke, but it does not reflect poorly on God if Jesus did not speak Arabic, or Pygmy, or German, or any other language he may not have spoken. He spoke the language of the people that he was raised with. Where is the shame in that? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>In fact Jesus was the one who told his followers that jews were no longer to be God's people but God's people were to include gentiles and jews who accept him. Remember that most (almost all) early christian were of jewish race and they proselitised to gentiles there after. Centuries later this proselitization became corrupt and christians practised some barbaric acts such as the SI and Crusades to name but 2. But this was more an abuse of the clerics in charge than of an average christian.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Correct!
and Correct
You can easily figure out which Correct goes with which part.
<a href="http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_8.html"; target="_blank">WorldTribune</a>
[quote]Egypt got 24 N. Korean No-Dong missiles, violating pledge
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Thursday, June 6, 2002
WASHINGTON ? The United States has received intelligence reports that North Korea delivered 24 No-Dong intermediate-range missiles to Egypt in the last half of 2001.
U.S. intelligence sources said the CIA report was sent to both the Bush administration and Congress.
The No-Dong missiles did not contain engines but Egypt is believed to have received a separate shipment of up to 50 North Korean engines via Libya, Middle East Newsline reported.
"It's a slap in the face to all those who have been working to stop the Egyptian-North Korean missile cooperation program," an intelligence source said. "Egypt pledged that it wasn't seeking the No-Dong or its engine and then acquired both."
The sources said the No-Dong missile would provide Egypt the ability to attack targets in such countries as Israel, Jordan and Lebanon. They said the main aim of the No-Dong appears to be ensure Egyptian deterrence capability against Israel.
"Egypt appears to be in a panic to obtain capability of operational medium-range missiles that can guarantee strikes anywhere south of Beirut," another intelligence source said.
The disclosure of the No-Dong missile shipment to Egypt was first made last month by a leading analyst at a session of a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. On May 23, Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy, told the House panel on terrorism that Egypt recently received 24 No-Dong missiles from North Korea. He did not elaborate.
In May 2001, the Bush administration won an Egyptian pledge not to purchase the No-Dong or its engine. At the time, Egypt was about to obtain 50 North Korean engines.
Within months, the intelligence sources said, Cairo arranged for the engines to be delivered to Libya, where they were transported by land to Egypt. In contrast, the No-Dong missiles were delivered directly to Egypt. The sources said Washington has failed to persuade North Korea to stop its missile sales. Instead, they said, North Korea has accelerated its missile deliveries to the Middle East since the end of last year.
"North Korea is certainly a serious problem in that respect," U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who did not confirm the Egyptian purchase, said. "They have dangerous technology in almost every category you can imagine. They seem to show willingness to sell anything to anybody who will pay them enough. So, it is a source of great concern."
The No-Dong issue was raised by the Bush administration and Egypt has denied obtaining the missile. A U.S. official said the No-Dong is not expected to be discussed during the meeting by President George Bush and visiting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The two men will meet at the presidential retreat at Camp David on Friday and Saturday. <hr></blockquote>
History appears to be about to repeat itself.
There is only Islam, and no such thing as "Radical Islam" and "Moderate Islam"
heheh, ? that?s open to interpretation, isn?t it? ?
Quote
According to you, and Mr. Murdacai's interpretation, 1,000,000,000 individuals around the world believe in what promotes hatred and inhuman behaviors.
Heheh, ? how many Chinese communist are there in the world? So does that mean that Communism is utopia on Earth?
Quote
As far as context, Quran was not revealed in the form of a 1, 2, 3, ... rules to be followed.
Why not? Is it too much to ask of your God to be clear and logical in his revelations?
Quote
This is the primary reason why ,many will fail to understand how the context of the Quran should be defined, and where to draw the lines of context; without good will intended guidance. In other words, one must read it all, absorb it all, eliminate the balancing verses, and finally one will get to the constitution of Islam as opposed to the rest of the laws written in the Quran. I have been doing that for the past 9 years and I am not even 1/3 of the way through to absorb what is being said in order to actually start looking into that constitution,so to speak.
heheh, ? this is hilarious. So basically you need to study the Koran for the majority of your adult life to ?properly understand? the Koran before you can function as a decent human being. And even then, when one listens to the mullahs and their justifications for murder and hate, it kinda makes you question what have they been studying if not the Koran?
Quote
Now, assuming that I give Mr. Murdacai and you the benefit of the doubt by taking your interpretation as you depict to be the right interpretation, then please enlighten me on the following:
1. When and where in the prophets life span did those revelations take place?
2. What was the political situation, incident, individuals and the names thereof which relate to this verse and the purpose of the verse's revelation.
3. How does that political and socio-economical situation in which the verse was revealed apply to your interpretation of what is going on in life today?
heheh, ? oh, this is too much. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
What difference should that make? God?s words are supposedly universal and eternally true. They are to apply anywhere, anytime, and to anyone. But you follow Mohammed?s story, and you?ll often find that he is above God?s law. That is, ?God? suspends his ?laws? when it comes to Mohammed. So if we are to follow Mohammed in his ways, then we should all be above God?s laws. Now isn?t this fun.
Quote
If you really care for the people and believe in the constitution of the United States you should start rallying people to help promote freedom of speech and faith in those countries instead of rallying with what eventually leads to hatred. Peaceful promotion, please. No compulsions, like it was done in other corners of the world.
If we really cared for you people we would try to free you from the tyranny of Islam. Like we freed the German from the tyranny of Nazism and the Russians from the tyranny of the Soviets. Like we will free the Chinese from the tyranny of Maoist communism. But we don?t care about you, or your Koran. We care about cheap oil. So you go ahead and enjoy your Koran. Light will not shine on your dark religion.
Quote
I really find it degrading to GOD and his son not to be able to speak Arabic, English, or any other language of the father's creation.
Language is a human creation. Just like ?God? is a human creation. Your ?God? speaks ancient Arabic. My ?God? doesn?t speak to me at all. But then, there really is no need to. heheh .. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
mika.
[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
mika.