Islam Discussion (1 Viewer)

[mr EaZy]

With regards to people like sayed Qutb and Ayman al -zawahiri

they lived through the toughest times of islamic history- and thats the colonisation of the islamic world reaching a climax, torture and rape of civilians, scholars being thrown out of planes by the italians, childrens heads being used in soccer etc etc

i think Qutb gave up his communist views later on... but others saw truth in what he wrote. and when a scholar writes something and u read it- all of a sudden you think it originated in islam. Communism is violent in its nature in trying to achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat etc...

Now i condemn some of the things muslims have done in the name of islam... simply because they are human and humans make mistakes. Anything against islam is against me...

killing innocent people is against islam
mandatory detention of Aborigines and children of refugees is against islam
destroying the environment is again against islam
and i can prove all this with the Quran

Whilst Muslims have condemned and distanced themselves from terrorism - and they need to do more of this in future- the west also has to take responsibility over what its done to the muslim world and other countries it colonised and the original inhabitants of those countries such as the original Australians.

Jihad is simply a struggle against inner, social and global evil and oppression and weakness (IMO). We started the war on terror 1400 years ago!!!

 

[mr EaZy]

yeah, but it is the imaams that were on the streets last week and have no degree which are most likely to preach jihad and terrorism. the imaam i go to has rarely said anything about preaching to others. he has always given us advice to preach to ourselves and make us better people. conversions would come naturally if followers of a religion gained support and appeal by the community.

the imaams that appear on tv - not one have i seen on tv

oh i think ive seen Imaam Zoud somewhere but never sat down with him

my teacher is extremely intelligent !! but the media aint interested in intelligent people

 

[Not-That-Bright]

There's alot of prominant pro-suicide bombing muslims, must I get a list?

and i can prove all this with the Quran

You can't prove shit, you claim to know exactly what the will of god is?

Whilst Muslims have condemned and distanced themselves from terrorism - and they need to do more of this in future- the west also has to take responsibility over what its done to the muslim world and other countries it colonised and the original inhabitants of those countries such as the original Australians.

Oh yes the ottoman empire was simply a beautiful place...
I know there are things that need answering... but I would watch the whole playing the blame game.

 

[mr EaZy]

anyone can claim to be a priest too doucheface.

no!

you need accreditation from the church moron!

EDIT: catholic tradition other christians have preachers instead and reverends nad have to wear uniforms- we dont have uniforms!! haha!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

no!

you need accreditation from the church moron!

EDIT: catholic tradition other christians have preachers instead and reverends nad have to wear uniforms- we dont have uniforms!! haha!

Well you can send in a letter, but that's more of an administrative thing...

 

[mr EaZy]

There's alot of prominant pro-suicide bombing muslims, must I get a list?



You can't prove shit, you claim to know exactly what the will of god is?



Oh yes the ottoman empire was simply a beautiful place...
I know there are things that need answering... but I would watch the whole playing the blame game.

blind as a bat

i expected more from athiests
u dissapoint me

 

[mr EaZy]

Well you can send in a letter, but that's more of an administrative thing...

hence point proven!

in other words u have to be literate ehe!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

blind as a bat

i expected more from athiests
u dissapoint me

....
Can you actually say what your problem with what I said is? was it the word 'shit' ?

edit:

There are many problems with definitions... for example;

killing innocent people is against islam

What exactly is innocent? Is it right to attack civilians who contribute to the economy which provides for the bombs which kill your people?

 

[mr EaZy]

at any rate- i condemn terror: be it against islam, the muslims, "white (christian) people", against Aborigines or the environment.

please join me in condemnation!

 

[mr EaZy]

....
Can you actually say what your problem with what I said is? was it the word 'shit' ?

edit:

There are many problems with definitions... for example;


What exactly is innocent? Is it right to attack civilians who contribute to the economy which provides for the bombs which kill your people?

1) that doesnt qualify me using the word "blind" does it??

2) ill leave you to ponder over that question

cheers!

 

[mr EaZy]

this is too easy

im off!

TA!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well I dunno if u've even been talking to me or if you're off in your own fantasy world, but you kinda didn't respond to anything I asked.

 

[veterandoggy]

NTB, for me, anyone who isnt appointed by the government to fight me or as they say "fight terror", is classed as innocent. yes i know: on ten tonight there was a suicide bombing in iraq, and 4 hostages plead for their life. arent all of them innovent? yes they are by all means. unfortunately for them not everyone shares my ideas.

i hoped i answered that question, cos im off too. cya!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But see... there is the problem... you say that

anyone who isnt appointed by the government to fight me or as they say "fight terror", is classed as innocent.

But when you say 'the koran says killing innocents is against islam'... the question of what constitutes an innocent is not covered, and there is obviously deep divisions amongst muslims.

 

[physician]

why is the quran made out of the coomon materials that humans had in the 7th century,

The Quran is made available to the Muslim Ummah - as well as the entire human population- through what we may call a 'book', However, as has been said many times before, if u paid close attention, The Quran is primarily preserved by the millions who've memorises it BY HEART over the years. As has also been noted a dozen times previously, Mohammad recieved the message from the angel Gabriel, MEMORISING the Quran word for word, It did not come down on the materials available in the 7th century.

why does it have to be preserved so it doesnt get deteriorate through time?

sorry, that made no sense!

would god really make a book for everyone to follow that can easily get destroyed and be made out of material available to people at the time?

Easily destroyed? made out of material available to people at the time?


If u destroy and burn every single Quran available today in every single part of the globe, the message will not be lost, there are so many hufadh (those who've memorised the Quran in full) spread right across the entire world, from Australia, Indonesia, China, Russia, Germany, America and even Japan, Korea, Italy....etc etc etc.

And let it be noted as a fact: every single one of these Hufadh has memorised the exact same Quran, word for word! I have a mate from school, I was just with him now in fact, he's memorised the Quran in full and is infact considered a Hafith (the singular of the plural Hufadh). He memroised the Quran in Kenya or Soumalia, not sure, I have another friend who memorised the entire Quran in Australia, yet they both know the same Quran, word for word. There is infact no argument against the alteration of the Quran. U can grab anyone from any country who is considered a Hafidh, and they will recite for u, the exact same verses, I can gurantee u that.

There is also a certificate well known in all parts of the Muslim world, it is called an Ijaaza, in order to achieve this certificate one must recite the entire Quran in full, to a Hafith, this hafith would have also recited the Quran to another Hafith, who would have recited the entire Quran to another Hafith, eventualy leading the chain to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

I've personaly memorised a few verses from the Quran not by reading them, but by listening to someone who had memorised them by heart, this was the case before I could read arabic when I was still at the age of approximately 7 or 8.

The Quran is preserved in the believers heart and mind!

 

[tfiuc]

Not-That-Bright: Maybe if you took a look at your posts from our shoes, you would realise that almost everything you say is completely retarded. You do not accept any one elses beliefs, nor do you even give them half a chance- you shoot them down with your dark way of thinking, and think that some how without religion in the world, there would be peace. Without religion we would be like the wild animals which freely rape (yes, it happens..) and kill other wild animals, without restriction- most laws are based on religious laws brought up by the abraham based religions, which in turn have finely tuned our moral values which we have in the western world. Why is the middle east failing? Because they are not following and applying laws and teachings justly.

But when you say 'the koran says killing innocents is against islam'... the question of what constitutes an innocent is not covered, and there is obviously deep divisions amongst muslims.

Again, a retarded response. If you can't figure out for yourself what innocent means, than thank god almighty that you aren't muslim- as we would have another jack ass extremist to deal with on our hands. Only extremists will stretch the meaning of innocence to justify their actions, only extremists need someone to tell them how they should feel about something that is wrong, and only complete fools judge a religion based on the actions and words of an extremist.


MoonlightSonata:

Excellent, you have provided a reason to back up your belief - I commend you.

Unfortunately, it is not a particularly good one --
Quote:
Claim
The text contains many prophecies that have accurately been fulfilled, proving it is a divine source.

Response
1. There are several mundane ways in which a prediction of the future can be fulfilled:

* Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
* Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
* Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to prophecy, it will.
* Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
* Self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.


There are no prophecies in the text that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories.

2. In biblical times, prophecies were not simply predictions. They were warnings of what could or would happen if things did not change. They were meant to influence people's behavior. If the people heeded the prophecy, the events would not come to pass. A fulfilled prophecy was a failed prophecy, because it meant people did not heed the warning.

3. Other religions claim many fulfilled prophecies, too.

(www.talk-origins.org)
So you can strike out the prophecy reason from your head.

http://islam.speed-light.info/relativity_quran.htm

Yes, very vague.

 

[Generator]

Without religion we would be like the wild animals which freely rape (yes, it happens..) and kill other wild animals, without restriction-

No.

most laws are based on religious laws brought up by the abraham based religions, which in turn have finely tuned our moral values which we have in the western world. Why is the middle east failing? Because they are not following and applying laws and teachings justly.

and the abrahamic religions merely codified already existing social structures and norms.

Get the idea that religion alone provides a framework for social interactions and norms out of your mind, because quite frankly I doubt that anyone of a reasonable mind would take such a suggestion seriously.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

MoonlightSonata:

http://islam.speed-light.info/relativity_quran.htm

Yes, very vague.

That is unrelated to prophecies and therefore does not refute the counter-argument.

Instead, you make the different argument that scientific accuracy proves the accuracy of the Quran. Again, talkorigins.org comes in handy to quickly demolish such nonsense:

Claim

The text's accuracy on various scientific and historical points shows its overall accuracy.

Response

1. The accuracy of the text is not remarkable. All of its accurate points can be explained by simple observation of nature or by selective interpretation of scriptures.

2. Accuracy on individual points does not indicate overall accuracy. Just about every thesis that is wrong overall still has some accurate points in it.

3. Claims about accuracy assume that the purpose of the text is to document scientific data. There is not the slightest indication that the text was ever intended as a scientific textbook. It is intended to teach people about God; even those who claim scientific accuracy for it use it with that intent. For at least some of the text's teachings, scientific accuracy is unnecessary and perhaps even counterproductive.

4. If occasional scientific accuracy shows overall accuracy of the text, then the same conclusion must be granted to the Bible, Zend Avesta, and several other works from other religions, all of which can make the same claims to scientific accuracy.

 

[acmilan]

On scientific evidence, very earlier on someone mentioned the accuracy of the quarans description of embryonic development - something which no human had discovered before?. However, what is said in the quaran (surprisingly?) mirrors what Galen said some 500-600 years earlier (which naturally isnt entirely accurate anyways), and what scientists had known for even longer than that. The only thing that was right is that it described that embryos develop in stages which, like I said, was known more than 600 years ago anyways. I'd like to repeat one of the things MS said:

4. If occasional scientific accuracy shows overall accuracy of the text, then the same conclusion must be granted to the Bible, Zend Avesta, and several other works from other religions, all of which can make the same claims to scientific accuracy.

Key word: occasional.

Sure, some things it says are scientifically right (eg. embryos develop in stages). But if it was truely a completely accurate book, everything it said in a scientific context should be 100% accurate, which it is not.

 

[SashatheMan]

MoonlightSonata:

http://islam.speed-light.info/relativity_quran.htm

Yes, very vague.

nice try buddy.

let me first demolish yuor "scientific" view of the quran by pointing out that it contradicts it self

this is the supposive accurate verse from the quran from that site

[Quran 32.5] (Allah) Rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels to Him a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count.

this is another verse you forgot to mention:

70:4 The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years

wow quran is so accurate, the day is anywhere between 1000 and 50000 years. And how convinient that 1 day is equal to such a round number, its as if it was made up. but it counts be , could it?