Will the real Islam please stand up?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So you believe in this stuff and it runs your life. Must be a poor life when all you got to hope for is a promise in the future. Me, I've got the here and now,where life is happening. Remember "The kingdom of heaven is within you".

I believe this stuff but, I'm not sure why you thing my only hope is in the future. You believe you will receive presents at christmas but, that doesn't stop you from living a full life in between. I don't get your reasoning.

[Looger]

more than one person raised mormon has stated as bald fact to me that one of the more extreme things talked aboot in the book is that native americans were stained red for their betrayal of jesus, and that it's the white man's job to rape their people white again. i have not read the book of mormon and my knowledge of their dogma is very weak. i haven't researched this at all.

so, should we outlaw mormonism? seem like pretty nice folk to me.

find some mormon extremists and give them 15 billion dollars. see what happens.

well, first you'd need some mormon extremists to begin with!

would that be mormons that bake two pans of rice crispy squares for guests instead of one? maybe the extremists use smarties on top!

[ah123]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Also, I have read that the early writings of your prophet embraced the notions of peaceful relations but, later in his ministry he took up the sword and advocated warfare as a means of winning the world for Allah.

Don't really want to get drawn into a major discussion, but I am really curious where you read that?

From my limited knowledge of world history, the expansion of the Islamic world did not really occur until after the death of the Prophet...so I wonder how much of this expansion can be solely attributed to the religion and how much can be attributed to other factors (political/regional forces)?

The other thing I remember from my history courses is that while lot of lands were under Muslim rule, diversity of thought was respected and encouraged - in fact, non-Muslims (Jews, Christians, etc) often held very high posts in the "governing administration" of the regions. As far as I remember, the first centres of learning (universities) were created in Baghdad and Cairo under Muslim rule and scholars from non-Muslim lands were invited to come "teach". This would indicate a great deal of respect for non-Muslims...Also, the Muslim world took a lot of ideas and knowledge from Greek/Roman/Chinese/Indian/Persian/... cultures and built on it to solve problems of the day (medicine, astronomy, math, etc), so there was definitely openness to exchange ideas with others -- a lot of this knowledge was passed on to Europeans (and really added to the flowering of art&science in Europe, i.e. the Renaissance)

So I am trying to understand the worldview you have read (expansion by the sword) and see how it fits with the history that I have been taught (both while I lived in Europe and while living in Canada)...

The article that you had a link to was very one-sided...it seems to be an article which put the blame of all problems in the Muslim world on the religion... And as with many things, I need to ask, how much the problems that the Muslim world is experiencing today (and which are manifesting themselves in growth of radical ideas), are due to seeds sowed in the past 50-100 years (colonialism, political chess by "superpowers of the day"), how much is due to economical/social pressures and how much is due to the faith...

This ended up being much longer than I had anticipated, but it is an interesting issue in general (and it is/has played out in other parts of the world as well - e.g. Northern Ireland, Kashmir)...

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

We've been through this before Cheese. Every witness to Jesus in history you reject because they believe in Christ. You only believe those who deny Christ's existance. Therefore for you and those of your faith Jesus never existed.

yes weve been thru it and besides myself and every other Atheist on this board asking you, you have yet to provide any proof whatsoever....we are still waiting for something...anything. Therefore your goD does not exist.

Did Jesus Live?

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

A large body of opinion in the early church denied the reality of Christ's physical existence. In his "History of Christianity," Dean Milman writes: "The Gnostic sects denied that Christ was born at all, or that he died," and Mosheim, Germany's great ecclesiastical historian, says: "The Christ of early Christianity was not a human being, but an "appearance," an illusion, a character in miracle, not in reality -- a myth.

John E. Remsburg, in his scholarly work on "The Christ," has compiled a list of forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time, of Christ, not one of whom ever mentioned him.

Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world.

...Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ,...

In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party called Christians -- a body of people "who were abhorred for their crimes." These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century -- six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The "Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time -- so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus.

The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in every age of the world. When the world shall have learned that the Christ of the Gospels is a myth, that Christianity is untrue, it will turn its attention from the religious fictions of the past to the vital problems of to-day, and endeavor to solve them for the improvement of the well-being of the real men and women whom we know, and whom we ought to help and love.

[Cheese]

Here is an excellent read on Mohammedism.

A Guide

The Qur’an/Koran (Arabic Qur’an, 'reading' or 'recitation'), as everybody knows, is the bible of the Mohammedans. It is the source of their 'knowledge' that there is but a single god, Allah, and that for men (and probably for women as well) after death there will be a limbo-like state leading to the Last Day, the Resurrection, and Retribution. In the thereafter, wicked men such as infidels will suffer damnation. According to Sura 44:43-50, the fruit of the Zuqqum tree will be their food and it will burn in their guts like molten brass and boil like scalding water. They will be dragged into the midst of blazing fire and then, just for good measure, boiling water will be poured over their heads. "In front of such a one is Hell, and he is given for drink boiling, fetid water. In gulps will he sip it, but never will he be near swallowing it down his throat. Death will come to him from every quarter, yet he will not die; and in front of him will be a chastisement unrelenting" [14:16-17]. Islamic Hell would appear to be even worse than 'life' in a Taliban society — which at least can be circumvented by death.

The Muslim Paradise is decidedly a man's heaven, despite the fact that Sura 9:72 promises to both believing men and women "gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein, and beautiful mansions, in gardens of everlasting bliss." Sura 44:51-54 promises believers they will be rewarded in Paradise with houris (Arabic hur) "with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes." Such damsels are clearly the reward for Jihad-fighting men. That they could also be rewards for burqa‘-wearing women is unthinkable. Occasional proof-texts to the contrary notwithstanding, Mohammed's heaven is a penile paradise. (It is a pity no reliable translation of the Qur’an exists in English; all available English versions have been cleaned up and civilized by apologetic translators.)

To draw attention to the Satanic Verses is to galvanize a still-raw nerve in the body politic of Islam. The Satanic Verses are an acute embarrassment to Mohammedan authorities because they imply that it was Satan, not Allah, who had saved their prophet's life. If Allah was the only god, and if he had previously selected Mohammed to be his last and greatest mouthpiece on this planet, why didn't he save his own appointed prophet? Why would the god of evil want to save his enemy's ambassador? Might not there be more Satanic Verses in the Qur’an — verses that have never been recognized as the handiwork of the prince of devils? Who knows what evils yet may lurk in the Book of Books?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Looger

more than one person raised mormon has stated as bald fact to me that one of the more extreme things talked aboot in the book is that native americans were stained red for their betrayal of Jesus, and that it's the white man's job to rape their people white again. i have not read the book of mormon and my knowledge of their dogma is very weak. i haven't researched this at all.

so, should we outlaw mormonism? seem like pretty nice folk to me.

find some mormon extremists and give them 15 billion dollars. see what happens.

well, first you'd need some mormon extremists to begin with!

would that be mormons that bake two pans of rice crispy squares for guests instead of one? maybe the extremists use smarties on top!

From what I've read polygamy was introduced by their prophet Joseph Smith. It was either him or the next prophet(Young) who set about evangelizing the natives and part of that work was to marry their women in order to produce offspring without this accursed colour. I remember reading a letter where Brigham Young complained that these missionaries were marrying the prettier ones them self and bringing only the uglier ones back to the main group for marriage. I've never read about any rape or doctrine of rape.

Mormon fundamentalists are in fact the polygamist groups we hear about today. At this point in time it is illegal to marry multiple wives but, that law is not being enforced.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Mormon fundamentalists are in fact the polygamist groups we hear about today. At this point in time it is illegal to marry multiple wives but, that law is not being enforced.

yeah, utah had to put the polygamy law on the books to join the union but it's only enforced on the guys that go on television to brag aboot it.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

I don't know who I have the biggest man-crush on - Cheese, RougeUnderdoos, Jesus or Mohammed.

[JohnnyFlame]

What disturbs me and has for many years is the blabbing and yes blabbing seems very much the appropiate word from Muslims. IF you remove the whether you believe in this religion or that one or none of them to me you get down to the heart of the matter.

If as a Muslim people you are decidely against terrorists and against violence then why is there open acceptance of both terrorists living amongst you and of violence as a means to solve problems.

Where is the condemnation of terrorist activities? Where is the repudiation of violence? I see state sponsored terrorism, Muslims dancing in the streets after 9/11 and statements that the Americans et. al. deserve to die after what they have done to us from Muslims worldwide. I see schools dedicated to teaching hatred all over the world.

And I'm wondering where are the opposing Muslims. Not other faiths calling them down or atheist's saying well all these religions are causing problems. NOPE where are the opposing Muslim's. Where is the Ayotollah or leader who is saying we need to close these schools and turn in terrorists and remove this blight from our religion. If as they say when you talk to them the vast majority of Muslims feel this way then why don't we hear that HUGE voice resounding? Where is the leader of that majority cause I sure don't see him.

Why is there even a need for anyone/any religion/ any country to have to deal with this? You would think true Muslims would have turned against them in DROVES and would be turning them in left, right and center.

Frankly I would say that it certainly appears that the normal Muslim attitude is far more a condoning of violence and terrorism if not outright support than anything close to a condemnation of it?

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

What disturbs me and has for many years is the blabbing and yes blabbing seems very much the appropiate word from Muslims. IF you remove the whether you believe in this religion or that one or none of them to me you get down to the heart of the matter.

If as a Muslim people you are decidely against terrorists and against violence then why is there open acceptance of both terrorists living amongst you and of violence as a means to solve problems.

Where is the condemnation of terrorist activities? Where is the repudiation of violence? I see state sponsored terrorism, Muslims dancing in the streets after 9/11 and statements that the Americans et. al. deserve to die after what they have done to us from Muslims worldwide. I see schools dedicated to teaching hatred all over the world.

These people see the terrorists as fighting for them.

And I'm wondering where are the opposing Muslims. Not other faiths calling them down or atheist's saying well all these religions are causing problems. NOPE where are the opposing Muslim's. Where is the Ayotollah or leader who is saying we need to close these schools and turn in terrorists and remove this blight from our religion. If as they say when you talk to them the vast majority of Muslims feel this way then why don't we hear that HUGE voice resounding? Where is the leader of that majority cause I sure don't see him.

There are plenty of Muslims who speak out against Terrorism. You need to read more.

Why is there even a need for anyone/any religion/ any country to have to deal with this? You would think true Muslims would have turned against them in DROVES and would be turning them in left, right and center.

Frankly I would say that it certainly appears that the normal Muslim attitude is far more a condoning of violence and terrorism if not outright support than anything close to a condemnation of it?

What do you want them to do? Plenty of them speak out. The ones that are in the middle east live in countries where these extremists are in control, can't really speak out against there gov't. Who do you want them to turn them into? I actually don't know who you are talking about when you say turning them in? People also are fearful for their lives.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Jack Van Impe has been writing and teaching on the Apocalypse for well over 20 years. I'm not familiar with his current stuff but, in his older writings he never advocated helping prophesy fulfill itself. Since then from what I've heard he's gotten quite ecumenical. That is why I don't read his stuff anymore.

The most orthodox interpretation of biblical eschatology would have a man(anti-Christ) make a peace treaty with Israel and then break it after 3.5 years. He then will attempt to destroy Israel with a confederation of nations. This war will be stopped in the valley of Hinnon(sp) by the returning Jesus Christ. If Jack is still pre-tribe he believes all Christians will be gone before the anti-Christ takes power. Either way there is no way a Christian could speed up these events without being on the wrong side of them.

Christian eschatology starts with the end of the church age at the rapture and then has God fulfilling the rest of his promises to wards Israel and then finally a judgment and new beginning. Revelations has something like 22 chapters but, doesn't mention the church after the fourth chapter.

I like that Revelations tells people not to try and interpret it, but doesn't stop any of the whackos from giving it a go.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Sowa

These people see the terrorists as fighting for them.

There are plenty of Muslims who speak out against Terrorism. You need to read more.


What do you want them to do? Plenty of them speak out. The ones that are in the middle east live in countries where these extremists are in control, can't really speak out against there gov't. Who do you want them to turn them into? I actually don't know who you are talking about when you say turning them in? People also are fearful for their lives.

People who don't believe in fighting see these people as fighting for them ---Hmmm ahh no that dosen't compute.

I need to read more --Hogwash. Care to relate how the leader's of Syria and Iran etc. etc. have denounced terrorism? Care to show us a noted Ayotollah who is out there campaigning against it. Can you show us a demonstration of Muslims in the hundreds of thousands demonstrating against sucide bombers? I see that over a cartoon but against what they supposedly believe then what baloney your statement is.

Plenty of them speak out --Rubbish. If it's only a tiny tiny minority that are terrorists and supporters of them then with a billion of them we would have a never ending, incredibly HUGE , unbelievably LOUD condemnation and every known terrorist would have long since been turned in to the authorities.

A majority --Baloney there is ZERO evidence that is true!!

[Cheese]

Muslims believe they hold the moral high ground. Jihad has many meanings for them, and they use it efficiently to back out of any area that may cause them discomfort. Look at most Muslim countries and you will see the same patterns. Women are to be covered outside from head to toe. Homosexuality is strictly forbidden and even punishable by death in countries like Saudi Arabia. As for taboo forms of sex (i.e. the good ole backdoor) don’t even think about it.

Are Muslims much different from North Americans or from behind closed doors?

Google has a tool called Google Trends and is free for anyone to use. Go ahead and click it as it will open in a new window. Essentially, this tool allows you take a word or phrase and see the search volume for it with respects to countries and/or cities. Go ahead and type in something like "Christmas" then click search. On the results page click on ‘region’ below the graph to display the top 10 countries that searched for "Christmas". Not surprisingly, you’ll see the UK, Canada, and the US rounding out the top 3.
What’s the point? Well, at the top of the page type in a different word like, "sex" and click search. Look at the results and you’ll notice that the top searches are from Muslim countries, with Pakistan leading the way.

Moral high ground is not the Muslims it appears.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Muslims believe they hold the moral high ground. Jihad has many meanings for them, and they use it efficiently to back out of any area that may cause them discomfort. Look at most Muslim countries and you will see the same patterns. Women are to be covered outside from head to toe. Homosexuality is strictly forbidden and even punishable by death in countries like Saudi Arabia. As for taboo forms of sex (i.e. the good ole backdoor) don’t even think about it.

Are Muslims much different from North Americans or from behind closed doors?

Google has a tool called Google Trends and is free for anyone to use. Go ahead and click it as it will open in a new window. Essentially, this tool allows you take a word or phrase and see the search volume for it with respects to countries and/or cities. Go ahead and type in something like "Christmas" then click search. On the results page click on ‘region’ below the graph to display the top 10 countries that searched for "Christmas". Not surprisingly, you’ll see the UK, Canada, and the US rounding out the top 3.
What’s the point? Well, at the top of the page type in a different word like, "sex" and click search. Look at the results and you’ll notice that the top searches are from Muslim countries, with Pakistan leading the way.

Moral high ground is not the Muslims it appears.

This is the argument that Al-Queda spouts --that they are the only true Muslims. Again rather than the usual anti-religious crusade from Cheese where is the voice of the Muslims who believe that the terrorists are the aberation? I don't see that voice to any degree anywhere in the Muslim world and I'm beginning to believe that most Muslims do agree that the terror organizations represent the vast majority of those who actually believe in Islam.

[feartheflames]

You think propoganda doesn't exist in America? read up please , "the muslims dancing on the streets after 9/11" was a farce. the footage was from our Eid celebrations kind of like our Christmas ( if you could read Arabic you would know- that footage was shot months before 9/11), the news station that released that footage later issued apologies. Don't say stuff unless you know what youre talking about

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by feartheflames

You think propoganda doesn't exist in America? read up please , "the muslims dancing on the streets after 9/11" was a farce. the footage was from our Eid celebrations kind of like our Christmas ( if you could read Arabic you would know- that footage was shot months before 9/11), the news station that released that footage later issued apologies. Don't say stuff unless you know what youre talking about

Whatever -- how lame. It's all propogada is it. Americans are portraying you one way --Al Queda are portraying you as weak and not really a Muslim. Meanwhile this incredible mass of Muslims has a message that never seems to get out -- Is that it?

NOPE. Don't see it. You can toss that example right out the window and it dosne't make any difference whatsoever. The real farce is that the Muslim majority is anti-terrorist and anti-violence.

[feartheflames]

How is that lame, its a fact, WE ARE THE SECOND LARGEST RELIGION IN THE WORLD, what you are saying means that one small sect of extremists represents them all.. well then I guess the KKK represents all white people then right, You are ignorant, HOW IS THAT NOT PROPOGANDA, as for Jihad that happened ONCE and that happened when Muslims were being killed solely because they were muslims, Our prophet then allowed us to protect ourselves and our families. These men that are claiming JIHAD, ARE NOT PROPHETS, therefore it is NOT JIHAD... If you dont think propoganda exists in the American media, you are naive.

[theikon]

The question in the subject is inherently flawed in itself.

Islam is not a monolithic religion, so there is no single definition.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Whatever -- how lame.

Ha. "What I said isn't true? How lame of you to call me on it".

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

It's all propogada is it. Americans are portraying you one way --Al Queda are portraying you as weak and not really a Muslim. Meanwhile this incredible mass of Muslims has a message that never seems to get out -- Is that it?

NOPE. Don't see it. You can toss that example right out the window and it dosne't make any difference whatsoever. The real farce is that the Muslim majority is anti-terrorist and anti-violence.

The strangest thing is that there are more than a billion Muslims in the world and even though they are all pro-terrorist and violent, almost every single one of them doesn't bother to do anything. I think the biggest problem in the Muslim world isn't terrorism but laziness. I mean come on, a billion violent terrorists and they couldn't even get 20 of them to board those planes? Sheesh.

On the other hand, a couple peace-loving Christian nations have about 200 thousand troops on the ground in a Muslim country. Now that is determination. The Muslims could take a lesson in anti-violence from us, of that there can be no doubt.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ha. "What I said isn't true? How lame of you to call me on it".



The strangest thing is that there are more than a billion Muslims in the world and even though they are all pro-terrorist and violent, almost every single one of them doesn't bother to do anything. I think the biggest problem in the Muslim world isn't terrorism but laziness. I mean come on, a billion violent terrorists and they couldn't even get 20 of them to board those planes? Sheesh.

On the other hand, a couple peace-loving Christian nations have about 200 thousand troops on the ground in a Muslim country. Now that is determination. The Muslims could take a lesson in anti-violence from us, of that there can be no doubt.

Now now Mr Red Underwear...lets not paint one worse than the other. Im sure if you take a deeper look into things youll see more than a few hundred Muslims entrenched in battles worldwide. As a matter of fact Id suggest theres more Islamic/Muslim insurgencies than other at present.
Algeria, Africa, India, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Phillipines and many more are constantly in skirmishes. There are MANY more countries than this as well.
Lets face it...there is no one theism with more morals than the other on this planet. The FACT that all it takes is one radical Muslim cleric to denounce something...aka the cartoon fiasco...to create hatred and death is abhorent anywhere in this world.
The bigger question really is...if the majority find the minority so abhorent why bother being a part of it? Would you remain devout to anything like this?