|
|
Post by klabauter on Dec 2, 2005 12:00:34 GMT -5
syriano we have become the among the worst and we have only our selfs to blame....Do not worry about all the self proclaimed Pharaohs and Sultans nothing lasts forever. ;D 
|
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Dec 2, 2005 14:07:46 GMT -5
you missed the most important part of my reply
One thing is for sure: this sort of situation was predicted and happen wherever there are big Islamic communities. To that, you did not answer.Yes, that's Westerners do in the war and they didn't need Islam to adopt such procedure.
Now, what is more important and you forgot to mention, was:
but if they repent, and establish regular prayers
So, Qur'an commands it's believers to make war until the Pagans surrender to Islam.
It's a spiritual imperialism - the strongest source of oppression.How lovely. So, the Pagans know that they will not be killed or forced to conversion during Ramadan. Only after. Ok, that's fine...What a relief... Actually, it was Muhammad that imposed the war upon the infidels, as can be read above.But who are the innocents?
From this site,
www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008314.php
a very meaningful answer from a cleric:
(Q) But you said that you are against killing innocent people and have nothing to do with the Al-Qaeda Organization. Now you are calling for jihad. How do you explain your position?
(A) I have often repeated that I am against the killing of innocent people anywhere in the world but who are the innocent? I keep the answer to myself.
(Q) Who do you define as innocent?
(A) The innocent people are specified by Islam. I denounce killing innocent people regardless of who kills them. However, who are the innocent? I do not have to explain this issue.[/color]
I see... and what is precisely, «spreading mischief»?
Talking badly about Islam?
Spreading Polytheism, i.e., «shirk», which is the worst sin according Islam?
From this site:
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417482/posts
The Myth of Islamic Tolerance Addressing A Common Muslim Polemic
Sam Shamoun
Oftentimes, Muslims present specific Quranic citations in order to convince non-Muslims, especially Westerners, that Islam is a very tolerant religion that allows for or even promotes peaceful coexistence with other religious groups. The most famous citation, one that I am sure many Westerners have heard presented on the media, is surah 2:256:
There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. Shakir.
This passage has already been addressed and analyzed in light of its historical context elsewhere on this site (Interpreting Quran 2:256).
We will therefore not delve too much into this passage, except for providing the following Muslim exegesis of the text:
Question:
Some friends say that whoever does not enter Islam, that is his choice and he should not be forced to become Muslim, quoting as evidence the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad) then compel mankind, until they become believers” [Yoonus 10:99] “There is no compulsion in religion” [al-Baqarah 2:256] What is your opinion concerning that?.
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
The scholars explained that these two verses, and other similar verses, have to do with those from whom the jizyah may be taken, such as Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians). They are not to be forced, rather they are to be given the choice between becoming Muslim or paying the jizyah.
Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, BUT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ABROGATED by Allaah’s command to fight and wage jihad. So whoever refuses to enter Islam should be fought WHEN THE MUSLIMS ARE ABLE TO FIGHT, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah.
|
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Dec 2, 2005 15:33:22 GMT -5
you missed the most important part of my reply
One thing is for sure: this sort of situation was predicted and happen wherever there are big Islamic communities. To that, you did not answer.Yes, that's Westerners do in the war and they didn't need Islam to adopt such procedure.
Now, what is more important and you forgot to mention, was:
but if they repent, and establish regular prayers
So, Qur'an commands it's believers to make war until the Pagans surrender to Islam.
It's a spiritual imperialism - the strongest source of oppression.How lovely. So, the Pagans know that they will not be killed or forced to conversion during Ramadan. Only after. Ok, that's fine...What a relief... Actually, it was Muhammad that imposed the war upon the infidels, as can be read above.But who are the innocents?
From this site,
www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008314.php
a very meaningful answer from a cleric:
(Q) But you said that you are against killing innocent people and have nothing to do with the Al-Qaeda Organization. Now you are calling for jihad. How do you explain your position?
(A) I have often repeated that I am against the killing of innocent people anywhere in the world but who are the innocent? I keep the answer to myself.
(Q) Who do you define as innocent?
(A) The innocent people are specified by Islam. I denounce killing innocent people regardless of who kills them. However, who are the innocent? I do not have to explain this issue.[/color]
I see... and what is precisely, «spreading mischief»?
Talking badly about Islam?
Spreading Polytheism, i.e., «shirk», which is the worst sin according Islam?
From this site:
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417482/posts
The Myth of Islamic Tolerance Addressing A Common Muslim Polemic
Sam Shamoun
Oftentimes, Muslims present specific Quranic citations in order to convince non-Muslims, especially Westerners, that Islam is a very tolerant religion that allows for or even promotes peaceful coexistence with other religious groups. The most famous citation, one that I am sure many Westerners have heard presented on the media, is surah 2:256:
There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. Shakir.
This passage has already been addressed and analyzed in light of its historical context elsewhere on this site (Interpreting Quran 2:256).
We will therefore not delve too much into this passage, except for providing the following Muslim exegesis of the text:
Question:
Some friends say that whoever does not enter Islam, that is his choice and he should not be forced to become Muslim, quoting as evidence the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad) then compel mankind, until they become believers” [Yoonus 10:99] “There is no compulsion in religion” [al-Baqarah 2:256] What is your opinion concerning that?.
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
The scholars explained that these two verses, and other similar verses, have to do with those from whom the jizyah may be taken, such as Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians). They are not to be forced, rather they are to be given the choice between becoming Muslim or paying the jizyah.
Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, BUT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ABROGATED by Allaah’s command to fight and wage jihad. So whoever refuses to enter Islam should be fought WHEN THE MUSLIMS ARE ABLE TO FIGHT, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah.
the answer is; are the following the teaching of Islam or their ideologies? first the answer was copy/paste second I don't really see it evident, but this is not the issue read the thing again "In order to understand the context, we need to read from verse 1 of this surah (9:1). It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriqs (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriqs of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriqs of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them." why didn't he kill them before then? it's not rammadan, the months are the treaty time, and read the previous explanation (same sora) mentioning the time is used to indicated that the verse was related to period (a deal or other timeline of some sort) not a rule for all time no you read again [/color][/quote] are you saying the innocents are the muslims only? if that's the case, how can there be innocents with wars in non islamic lands? god said not to kill innocents in all places not just muslim lands (note: that guy is the type of Bin Laden) here it's "the second crime for which capital punishment can be applied is a bit more open to interpretation. "Spreading mischief in the land" can mean many different things, but is generally interpreted to mean those crimes that affect the community as a whole, and destabilize the society. Crimes that have fallen under this description have included: * Treason / Apostacy (when one leaves the faith and joins the enemy in fighting against the Muslim community) * Terrorism * Land, sea, or air piracy * Rape * Adultery * Homosexual behavior islam.about.com/cs/law/a/c_punishment.htma side note about the murder case "The Qur'an legislates the death penalty for murder, although forgiveness and compassion are strongly encouraged. The murder victim's family is given a choice to either insist on the death penalty, or to pardon the perpetrator and accept monetary compensation for their loss (2:178)." I wont bother with this "reference" note they didn't even bother to put name of the "scholar" notice, until now you didn't prove anything btw, I want to ask you, are you Christian or a non-believer? |
|
|
|
Post by yigal on Dec 2, 2005 17:44:51 GMT -5
i voted islaam because it needs to be wiped of the earth
|
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Dec 2, 2005 20:33:31 GMT -5
It's not important. There are Muslim authorities that legitimize such type of procedures against infidels.
One thing is for sure: this sort of situation was predicted and happen wherever there are big Islamic communities. To that, you did not answer.Yes, that's Westerners do in the war and they didn't need Islam to adopt such procedure.
Now, what is more important and you forgot to mention, was:
but if they repent, and establish regular prayers
So, Qur'an commands it's believers to make war until the Pagans surrender to Islam.
It's a spiritual imperialism - the strongest source of oppression.How lovely. So, the Pagans know that they will not be killed or forced to conversion during Ramadan. Only after. Ok, that's fine...What a relief... Actually, it was Muhammad that imposed the war upon the infidels, as can be read above.But who are the innocents?
From this site,
www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008314.php
a very meaningful answer from a cleric:
(Q) But you said that you are against killing innocent people and have nothing to do with the Al-Qaeda Organization. Now you are calling for jihad. How do you explain your position?
(A) I have often repeated that I am against the killing of innocent people anywhere in the world but who are the innocent? I keep the answer to myself.
(Q) Who do you define as innocent?
(A) The innocent people are specified by Islam. I denounce killing innocent people regardless of who kills them. However, who are the innocent? I do not have to explain this issue.[/color]
I see... and what is precisely, «spreading mischief»?
Talking badly about Islam?
Spreading Polytheism, i.e., «shirk», which is the worst sin according Islam?
From this site:
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417482/posts
The Myth of Islamic Tolerance Addressing A Common Muslim Polemic
Sam Shamoun
Oftentimes, Muslims present specific Quranic citations in order to convince non-Muslims, especially Westerners, that Islam is a very tolerant religion that allows for or even promotes peaceful coexistence with other religious groups. The most famous citation, one that I am sure many Westerners have heard presented on the media, is surah 2:256:
There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. Shakir.
This passage has already been addressed and analyzed in light of its historical context elsewhere on this site (Interpreting Quran 2:256).
We will therefore not delve too much into this passage, except for providing the following Muslim exegesis of the text:
Question:
Some friends say that whoever does not enter Islam, that is his choice and he should not be forced to become Muslim, quoting as evidence the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad) then compel mankind, until they become believers” [Yoonus 10:99] “There is no compulsion in religion” [al-Baqarah 2:256] What is your opinion concerning that?.
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
The scholars explained that these two verses, and other similar verses, have to do with those from whom the jizyah may be taken, such as Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians). They are not to be forced, rather they are to be given the choice between becoming Muslim or paying the jizyah.
Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, BUT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ABROGATED by Allaah’s command to fight and wage jihad. So whoever refuses to enter Islam should be fought WHEN THE MUSLIMS ARE ABLE TO FIGHT, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah.
Also, there are Muslims who state that everything that belongs to Kafirs can be taken. Isn't that right?Yes, and right on the spot. Where is your answer?That is of secondary importance. What really matters, and you did not answer again, is that it is clearly written that the infidels are to be forced to pray to Allah. So, this is not a situation where the Muslims are defending themselves, but a situation where the Muslims are demanding the submission of the infidels. Maybe because he wanted to force their conversion? Whatever. Same above. That's Muhammad version of the story. What is known is that Pagan Arabs did not make any war of conversion. Muhammad did - and wanted to force the Pagans to worship Allah alone.You should ask him, the man who said that. He is a cleric.He explained it - when the innocents do not participate in the war somehow. And he is an authority in Islam.That's why apostasy is punished with death in many Muslim countries. Another prove of lack of freedom.No sexual liberty as well.Yes, they did. Throughout all the page, there are lots of references to Muslim scholars. See for yourself.As for the real meaning of mischief, take note:
In Ibn Kathir's tafsir on verse 2:11-12 he writes:
Meaning of Mischief In his Tafsir, As-Suddi said that Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Mas`ud commented, ...
"They are the hypocrites. As for, ... <"Do not make mischief on the earth">, that is DISBELIEF AND ACTS OF DISOBEDIENCE." Abu Ja`far said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah said that Allah's statement, ... , means, "Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is DISOBEYING Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, OR COMMANDS THAT ALLAH BE DISOBEYED, he has committed mischief on the earth. Peace on both the earth and in the heavens is ensured (and earned) through obedience (to Allah)." Ar-Rabi` bin Anas and Qatadah said similarly. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 1, Parts 1 and 2 (Surat Al-Fatihah to Verse 252 of Surat Al-Baqarah), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: January 2000], pp. 131-132; online edition; capital emphasis ours).
Notice that, until now, I proved everything:
- I proved that Islam commands spiritual imperialism – against that, you said absolutely nothing;
- I proved that, indeed, the Qur’an orders Muslims no to befriend Christians and Jews – it doesn’t matter the context since there is no contradiction to that commandment (or, at least, you did not present it). - I proved all the statements of my first message - to that, your only answer was that those sources were not good enough, because you say so, even having in mind that Jihad Watch always take it's news from newspapers.Moreover, you did not answer to lots of my statements.And now, for the question of the Jews and the Christians, here is another quote:
There are essentially three responses to this assertion. In the first place, Dr. Badawi’s explanation conflicts with the way Muslim translators have rendered the passages:
5:51
O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. Pickthall
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friendsand protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust. Y. Ali
O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. Shakir
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends of each other. And whoso among you takes them for friends is indeed one of them. Verily ALLAH guides not the unjust people. Sher Ali
O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Nazarenes for friends, they are to each other and if any of you befriends them, verily then he is one of them. Surely Allah does not guide a transgressing people. Daryabadi
Believers, do not consider the Jews and Christians as your intimate friends for they are only friends with each other. Whoever does so will be considered as one of them. God does not guide the unjust people. Muhammad Sarwar
O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyâ' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliyâ' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliyâ', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust) Hilali-Khan
O believers, do not take the Jews and Christians as friends; some of them are friends of each other. Whoever of you takes them as friends is surely one of them. Majid Fakhry - An Interpretation of the Qur’an (Approved by Al-Ahzar University)
O you who believe, take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends of each other. And whoever amongst you takes them. Surely Allah guides not the just. Maulana Muhammad Ali
O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another-and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers. Muhammad Asad
Asad notes:
72 According to most of the commentators (e.g., Tabari), this means that each of these two communities extends genuine friendship only to its own adherents - i.e., the Jews to the Jews, and the Christians to the Christians - and cannot, therefore, be expected to be really friendly towards the followers of the Qur'an. See also 8 : 73, and the corresponding note. (Source; italic emphasis ours)
5:57
O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport, ... Y. Ali
O ye who believe! take not those for friends who make a jest and sport of your religion... Sher Ali
O you who believe! Do not take as friends those who make a mockery and fun of your Religion from among those who have been given the Book before you and other infidels... Daryabadi
O believers, do not take as friends those who take your religion as a mockery or a sport, be they from among those who received the Book before you, or the unbelievers... Fakhry
O you who believe, take not for friends those who take your religion as mockery and a sport... Muhammad Ali
O you who believe, do not befriend those among the recipients of previous scripture who mock and ridicule your religion, nor shall you befriend the disbelievers.... Khalifa
Thus, if Dr. Badawi is correct then all these Muslim translators are distorters of the Quran.
This leads to the second point. Dr. Badawi ignores the fact that auliya in a broader sense does mean friendships, that the Muslims should not take Jews and Christians as friends, not just as protectors. Here are Ibn Kathir’s comments which support this view:
The Prohibition of Taking the Jews, Christians and Enemies of Islam as FRIENDS
Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as FRIENDS, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them. Allah then states that they are FRIENDS of each other and He gives a warning threat to those who do this, ... A gentile.
And you? |
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Dec 2, 2005 20:38:59 GMT -5
Is this tolerance? I don't think so.
Quoting from www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417482/posts:Some of the scholars are of the view that others may also be given the choice between Islam and jizyah, but the most correct view is that no others should be given this choice, rather these three groups are the only ones who may be given the choice, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) fought the kuffaar in the Arabian Peninsula and he only accepted their becoming Muslim. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Tawbah 9:5]
He did not say, “if they pay the jizyah”. The Jews, Christians and Magians are to be asked to enter Islam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them IF THEY ARE ABLE TO DO SO. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”
[al-Tawbah 9:29]
And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above.
The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):
“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]”.[/color]
|
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Dec 3, 2005 1:26:56 GMT -5
it doesn't work that way
for example, biggest percent of perves now are "christians", does this mean christianity is perverse religion?
maybe I agree with you if Islam was in one huge united country, then I guess then you could blame them if they don't solve the problem, but now with so many countries and many stands, who can you blame?
the country they belong to? their family who taught them? the teacher?...
look in order to answer your questions, three things should be taken into account
knowledge in:
1- the whole Quran (not selective)
2- the hadith el saheeh (the correct hadith)
3- the history
I don't have good knowledge in all these fields (yet I am convinced from basic religion classes at school). and I really don't have the time to research as I have exams and assignments due.
however, if you are really interested in learning, you should ask a person who has a knowledge in all the three together. There ae plenty of Islamic website where they would answer your questions, so go try there (however make sure you pick a good one, most people on forums and such are not much of use)
looking at anti-islamic websites (who often twist the facts or be selective) isn't really a fair approach, don't you say?
(I have seen my fair share of this, so I am not making it up)
here is my personal view.
I believe all of the book religions were sent to solve the wrong doing done by the people it was sent to.
if the people were good, then there would be no need for religion (notice how the prophets aren't in a continuous periods)
for example alot of the pagans used to barry their girl born kids alive (because they want boys). they used slaves, some had like 11 wives, the list goes on...
all these are immoral in religion, and it was indeed aimed to stop such practices.
I also want to note, that it's stated in the Quran (or hadith), that there will be a time in the future when the islamic world will be at the bottom due to their wrong doings (maybe now)
finally, if you want to claim Islam as an intolerant religion, then Christinaity and Judism should at least be put in the same boat.
ps, Osama doesn't have authority among muslims (only the fanatics)
|
|
|
|
Post by klabauter on Dec 3, 2005 2:42:33 GMT -5
To be realistic Osamas religious Ideology is for most people irrelevant what matters in their eyes is that he stood up against the Americans and rebelled. I think for many Arabs and non Arabs it would not have mattered if Osama was a Christian,Communist or Atheist the only thing that counted is that he rebelled. And that is the frightening part and should give some people something to think about...
|
|
|
|
Post by rollerball on Dec 4, 2005 17:17:07 GMT -5
I don't think Buddhism is ontologically in the same league with the others. Some branches of buddhism cannot be considered as religions.
I would love to vote for the three equally malevolent and pathetic monotheistic religions, so I voted for Judaism, being the oldest.
|
|
|
|
Post by kwalka on Jan 5, 2006 18:53:39 GMT -5
I voted for the religion that breeds people like Osama Bin Laden and Louis Farakhan.One wants to see me dead because I am not a Muslim there for an infidel and the other wants to see me dead because just because I am White. Louis Farakhan is not a muslim and osama bin laden's fanaticism is more political than religious. So um...two bad examples. Personally i think atheism is one of the worst "religions" (I call it a religion because it makes positive religious and metaphysical statements, though it lacks an institutional structure) - it places too much emphasis on the self and the corporeal world. One must be very intelligent to formulate a coherent philosophy (of any kind) based on atheism, or even to understand one, which also makes it one of the least practical and intellectually satisfying religions. Just my two cents. |
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Jan 5, 2006 20:55:37 GMT -5
I realize that intolerant zealots exist in every religion, but I chose Islam because a greater number of Muslims than followers of the other religions in the poll advocate fanatical beliefs such as that of the jihad. A holy war?? Come on, that's just an oxymoron. Many more Muslims than followers of other religions are also simply intolerant of anyone who is not Muslim. To them, we're just a bunch of infidels.
I'm not anti-Muslim either, and I also realize that many Muslims are decent people who condemn terrorist activity, but one cannot help but notice that a majority of religious conflicts in the world today involve Muslim extremists. India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, Nigeria, Indonesia, Chechnya, and other conflicts clearly indicate this. Of course let's also not forget the attacks of 9/11, Madrid, and London either. Historical conflicts such as the Crusades (which some Muslims love to blame Christians for) were a direct retaliation to Muslim aggression in Europe. Thus, if I'm forced to choose, these are my reasons for picking Islam.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatness on Jan 5, 2006 23:25:17 GMT -5
Tough choice, I'd say a tie between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
Islam sticks out the worst because of this "war on terro" B.S. but all Abrahamic religions are equally bad at tolerance. IMO.
Now certain sects of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism stick out worse than others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 6, 2006 4:39:54 GMT -5
As I generally dislike the Abrahamic religions, I had to choose between Christianity (the one that immediately affects my daily life and culture the most), Islam (the most militant of the three), or Judaism (the one that started it all). I chose Judaism, since without it, none of the other two would have existed either.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Jan 7, 2006 3:26:54 GMT -5
Hinduism, because of it's caste system, but I generally dislike all organized religions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Jan 7, 2006 3:51:13 GMT -5
Anunnaki is too kind. Instead of picking on Islam or Judaism, she went for Hinduism. You're a sweet girl, 'naki.  |
|
