|
|
Post by Educate Me on Dec 9, 2005 21:10:17 GMT -5
I dont think he will change.
I think he said his group of berbers are very secular, like they drink alcohol, eat in ramadan, so, probably he wouldnt have a problem practicing his secular beliefs, he is also quite anti arab.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeLacroix on Dec 9, 2005 21:12:41 GMT -5
There is the example of IGU, a genuine former muslim who's really disgusted by Islam, so I won't generalize. People change as they grow older. In 20 years, he may lapse, return to the fold. Man, give him a chance. It would be a great thing if more and more muslims leave their religion. Anyway, if he's psychologically stable and smart, he won't return to Islam. Well, it's just my hope. |
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Dec 9, 2005 21:22:12 GMT -5
People change as they grow older. In 20 years, he may lapse, return to the fold. Man, give him a chance. It would be a great thing if more and more muslims leave their religion. Anyway, if he's psychologically stable and smart, he wouldn't return to Islam. Well, it's just my hope. Why is it you want to change muslims, presumably to turn them into atheists? I have no problem with Islam, as long as Muslims remain in their historic lands. I don´t want Muslims around me, but they´re free to worship Allah in their countries for all I care. |
|
|
|
Post by DeLacroix on Dec 9, 2005 21:32:49 GMT -5
Man, give him a chance. It would be a great thing if more and more muslims leave their religion. Anyway, if he's psychologically stable and smart, he wouldn't return to Islam. Well, it's just my hope. Why is it you want to change muslims, presumably to turn them into atheists? I have no problem with Islam, as long as Muslims remain in their historic lands. I don´t want Muslims around me, but they´re free to worship Allah in their countries for all I care. I'm not talking about muslims who remain in their land, I'm talking of those who live among us. Since, we can't get rid of them, it's better for them and for us, that they leave their faith. |
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Dec 9, 2005 21:48:10 GMT -5
If you don´t ask them to leave, they will ask you to convert to Islam. They´ll sooner turn France into a muslim country than you´ll turn them into atheists.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeLacroix on Dec 9, 2005 22:11:32 GMT -5
If you don´t ask them to leave, they will ask you to convert to Islam. They´ll sooner turn France into a muslim country than you´ll turn them into atheists.  In their dream. Tell me, how many north africans you already have (including the illegals)? 3 million? I think after a decade, if you go on supporting the socialists, Spain will become, Al Andalus. At least, in France, no one votes for the leftists. |
|
|
|
Post by DeLacroix on Dec 9, 2005 23:02:55 GMT -5
Islam is of course a dangerous religion, especially in a cultural sense. However, even someone from a basically atheistic tradition like myself could decide himself to convert to Islam...because today there is simply too much assimilation pressure on the common people in many parts of the world. If I had to choose between Islam and Christianity (or any other messianic religion), I'd choose Islam. What is your religious background (the religion of your parents) and why you would convert ot Islam?  |
|
|
|
Post by greatness on Dec 10, 2005 0:49:01 GMT -5
My Classical Arabic is perfect. I have read the Coran and most versions I meet of the Bible (Arabic, French and English versions). The Coran asks his followers to aknowledge and respect the Biblical faiths and their major figures (be they christian or judaîc). The Quran asks you to respect Christianity and Judaism, and ONLY those religions. Many times they fail even to do that. Let's face it, Islam is an entirely political creation designed to control the people Why does one have to travel to Mecca in their life, to economically benefit the city, not for "Allah." Why do women have to wear headscarves, to be submissive and in control. Why is the concept of Jihad their, it is supposed to be for internal struggle, but even Mohammad himself misused it to attack and conquer peoples and convert them to Islam. The Coran and the Bible fail miserably in their creationist view of humans' origine. Agreed, their creation stories are myths, not based on fact. |
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Dec 10, 2005 0:56:17 GMT -5
it's funny how every non-muslim smartass on here is like a scholar in Islam and Arabic language. they accuse muslims of blindly following religion, yet they are the masters of copy/paste from anti-islamic websites
they tell you go look at hadith boukhari Vol 5 #3489.
I say go look at the 3488 hadiths before them
they tell you go read verse 2:56 (which is often not stated correctly), while they don't even bother to look at the whole sora, not even say 2:55 or 2:57...
anyways keep on complaining and bitching until one day the things you defend so much come and bite you in the ass, of course then you'd start to whine and cry about it...
enjoy your atheism or whatever you believe in and keep on bowing to the mighty $$
_____________________________________
just some stuff for laudabilis
Al- Quran 21:33
"It is He Who created The Night and the Day, And the sun and the moon: All (the celestial bodies) Swim along, each in its Rounded course."
he Arabic word used in the above verse is yasbah�n. The word yasbah�n is derived from the word sabaha. It carries with it the idea of motion that comes from any moving body. If you use the word for a man on the ground, it would not mean that he is rolling but would mean he is walking or running. If you use the word for a man in water it would not mean that he is floating but would mean that he is swimming.
Similarly, if you use the word yasbah for a celestial body such as the sun it would not mean that it is only flying through space but would mean that it is also rotating as it goes through space. Most of the school textbooks have incorporated the fact that the sun rotates about its axis. The rotation of the sun about its own axis can be proved with the help of an equipment that projects the image of the sun on the table top so that one can examine the image of the sun without being blinded. It is noticed that the sun has spots which complete a circular motion once every 25 days i.e. the sun takes approximately 25 days to rotate around its axis.
In fact, the sun travels through space at roughly 150 miles per second, and takes about 200 million years to complete one revolution around the center of our Milky Way Galaxy.
_____________________________________
Al- Quran 36:40
"It is not permitted To the Sun to catch up The Moon, nor can The Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along In (its own) orbit (According to Law)."
his verse mentions an essential fact discovered by modern astronomy, i.e. the existence of the individual orbits of the Sun and the Moon, and their journey through space with their own motion. The �fixed place� towards, which the sun travels, carrying with it the solar system, has been located exactly by modern astronomy. It has been given a name, the Solar Apex. The solar system is indeed moving in space towards a point situated in the constellation of Hercules (alpha Layer) whose exact location is firmly established.
The moon rotates around its axis in the same duration that it takes to revolve around the earth. It takes approximately 29� days to complete one rotation. One cannot help but be amazed at the scientific accuracy of the Qur�aanic verses. Should we not ponder over the question: �What was the source of knowledge contained in the Qur�aan?�
_____________
Al- Quran 36:38**
�And the Sun Runs its course For a period determined For it; that is The decree of (Him) The exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.�
(** A similar message is conveyed in the Qur�an in 13:2, 35:13, 39:5 and 39:21.)
The light of the sun is due to a chemical process on its surface that has been taking place continuously for the past five billion years. It will come to an end at some point of time in the future when the sun will be totally extinguished leading to extinction of all life on earth.
________________________
Al- Quran 51:47
"With the power and skill Did We construct The Firmament: For it is We Who create The vastness of Space."
The Arabic word m�si��n is correctly translated as �expanding it�, and it refers to the creation of the expanding vastness of the universe. Stephen Hawking, in his book, �A Brief History of Time�, says, �The discovery that the universe is expanding was one of the great intellectual revolutions of the 20th century.�
The Qur�aan mentioned the expansion of the universe, before man even learnt to build a telescope! Some may say that the presence of astronomical facts in the Qur�aan is not surprising since the Arabs were advanced in the field of astronomy. They are correct in acknowledging the advancement of the Arabs in the field of astronomy. However they fail to realize that the Qur�aan was revealed centuries before the Arabs excelled in astronomy. Moreover many of the scientific facts mentioned above regarding astronomy, such as the origin of the universe with a Big Bang, were not known to the Arabs even at the peak of their scientific advancement. The scientific facts mentioned in the Qur�aan are therefore not due to the Arabs� advancement in astronomy. Indeed, the reverse is true. The Arabs advanced in astronomy, because astronomy occupies a place in the Qur�aan.
__________________________
It was believed by earlier civilizations that the moon emanates its own light. Science now tells us that the light of the moon is reflected light. However this fact was mentioned in the Qur�aan 1,400 years ago in the following verse:
Al- Quran 25:61
"Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies, And placed therein a Lamp And a Moon giving light."
__________
he Arabic word for the sun in the Qur�aan, is shams. It is referred to as siraaj, which means a �torch� or as wahhaaj which means �a blazing lamp� or as diya which means �shining glory�. All three descriptions are appropriate to the sun, since it generates intense heat and light by its internal combustion. The Arabic word for the moon is qamar and it is described in the Qur�aan as muneer, which is a body that gives nur i.e. light. Again, the Qur�aanic description matches perfectly with the true nature of the moon, which does not give off light itself and is an inert body that reflects the light of the sun. Not once in the Qur�aan, is the moon mentioned as siraaj, wahhaaj or diya or the sun as nur or muneer. This implies that the Qur�aan recognizes the difference between the nature of sunlight and moonlight.
Consider the following verses related to the nature of light from the sun and the moon:
Al- Quran 10:5
"It is He who made the sun To be a shining glory And the moon to be a light (Of beauty)."
Al- Quran 71:15:16
"See ye not How Allah has created The seven heavens One above another, �And made the moon A light in their midst, and made the sun As a (Glorious) Lamp"
__________________
Al- Quran 79:30
"And the earth, moreover, Hath He made egg shaped."
The Arabic word for egg here is dahaha, which means an ostrich-egg. The shape of an ostrich-egg resembles the geo-spherical shape of the earth. Thus the Qur�aan correctly describes the shape of the earth, though the prevalent notion when the Qur�aan was revealed was that the earth is flat.
etc
notice Sir Francis Drake was the first person who proved that the earth is spherical when he sailed around it in 1597.
I mean how can mohammad make up these things back then?
Berter, you are a reasonable man, and I trust your opinion.
do you believe mohammad could have made all these things up during his time?
you probably know his conditions
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousman on Dec 10, 2005 5:07:49 GMT -5
Syriano,
I have a question for you.
How do you explain the following facts? In the golden age of "islamic" science there were a lot of astronomers and scholars, who knew perfectly the Koran and notwithstanding this they ALL were followers of the Ptolemaic-geocentric theory (only possible exception the famous al-Biruni who discussed the possibility - notabene: the possibility, not the reality - of the motion of the Earth around its axis, but not of the motion of the Earth around the Sun).
They were surely smart people, they were at the top of scientific knowledge of their epoch but among them there was no one Kopernic nor a Newton.
Why, if, as you stated, in the Koran there are uncontroverted descriptions of facts ascertained only by modern ("modern" in the sense of XVII century european so called scientific revolution) science? Were that ancient smart people not able to interpret correctly their Koran?
So, From a logical point of view, what is more probable?:
1) that all that smart ancient people were misled in their interpretation of the Koran (so, they ancient muslim scholars were wrong, you modern muslim are right);
2) that the interpretation of the Koran you have proposed is only a recent one and accurately (?) selected to fit (but only ex post factum!) modern science.
So, where is the problem: in Muhammad's foreknowledge or (excuse my frankness) in modern islamic "dawaganda"?
|
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Dec 10, 2005 5:10:17 GMT -5
If you don´t ask them to leave, they will ask you to convert to Islam. They´ll sooner turn France into a muslim country than you´ll turn them into atheists. In their dream. Tell me, how many north africans you already have (including the illegals)? 3 million? I think after a decade, if you go on supporting the socialists, Spain will become, Al Andalus. At least, in France, no one votes for the leftists. We don´t have 3 millions of them, not even 1/4 of that. |
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Dec 10, 2005 5:38:36 GMT -5
Syriano, I have a question for you. How do you explain the following facts? In the golden age of "islamic" science there were a lot of astronomers and scholars, who knew perfectly the Koran and notwithstanding this they ALL were followers of the Ptolemaic-geocentric theory (only possible exception the famous al-Biruni who discussed the possibility - notabene: the possibility, not the reality - of the motion of the Earth around its axis, but not of the motion of the Earth around the Sun). They were surely smart people, they were at the top of scientific knowledge of their epoch but among them there was no one Kopernic nor a Newton. Why, if, as you stated, in the Koran there are uncontroverted descriptions of facts ascertained only by modern ("modern" in the sense of XVII century european so called scientific revolution) science? Were that ancient smart people not able to interpret correctly their Koran? So, From a logical point of view, what is more probable?: 1) that all that smart ancient people were misled in their interpretation of the Koran (so, they ancient muslim scholars were wrong, you modern muslim are right); 2) that the interpretation of the Koran you have proposed is only a recent one and accurately (?) selected to fit (but only ex post factum!) modern science. So, where is the problem: in Muhammad's foreknowledge or (excuse my frankness) in modern islamic "dawaganda"? hello I just want to note that not all the quran was understood during it's time. I mean for sure the people during mohammads time didn't know what planet and moon circulations were, this was too advanced for their time. In Islam it says you'll learn more and more as time goes on (probably still alot of stuff to be learnt) as for scientists, it's wrong to assume they know the whole religion. Religion science is a big field (which is taught as a major by it self). did christian scientists have knowledge of the whole bible? actually I think it wasn't until "recent" times that they discovered these things present in the Quran. In addition to this, I believe scientists in geenral work with what they can prove or have some clues toward. they can't come up with a theory if they can't (nor have the resources to) back it up. however, I'll look into this matter for you, so don't take this answer as a final word (I don't have enough info about this subject) ps; the old quran and the current quran are the same |
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Dec 10, 2005 8:43:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ndrthl on Dec 10, 2005 8:54:29 GMT -5
But, Archbishop, this is the bleak mid-winter for many Christians By Charles Moore (Filed: 10/12/2005) 'The Koran is the Muslim Bible" is something that most Westerners would say by way of a shorthand description. Although Koran and Bible are the most sacred scriptures of their respective religions, the comparison may be misleading. Last month, Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, visited Pakistan. He went to the Islamic University in Islamabad, and told his audience what he thought Christianity was. He did this with scholarly, scrupulous fairness. Part of his speech, naturally, was about the Bible. He pointed out that it was composed by "ordinary human writers" over hundreds of years, and could therefore err about minor facts. The Bible was inspired by God, he said, but, "We do not think that God dictates the Bible to its writers, but that he works with and in their human minds to communicate his purpose". It "tells one story in different voices".I am looking at a book called What Every Christian Should Know about Islam, published by the Islamic Foundation. So far as I know, it presents an orthodox account of Muslim belief. It says that Mohammed was probably illiterate, and that the Koran was therefore dictated by him from memory after he had received it in visions. It is not his teaching: it is the unmediated word of God: "The Holy Koran differs from any other religious text in that it was not written or edited by any human author; no word has been added to it or subtracted from it."What this means is that all Muslims are what we call "fundamentalist" in a way that no Christian, not even the most literalist, can quite be. One man, the Prophet, was given the perfect truth in one form, and so the truth, and the form, are absolute. To question the status of the Koran as described above is to insult God.Certain consequences flow. Because Islam sees itself as imposing a political order on the world, it makes enforceable law, including the law of blasphemy. In Pakistan, where Dr Williams was speaking, Article 295-B of the country's Penal Code makes it an offence - punishable by life imprisonment - to desecrate the Koran. Article 295-C forbids any defiling of the name of Mohammed. The penalty for this is death.There are about three million Christians in Pakistan, and they are at the bottom of the social pile, low-caste street sweepers and cleaners of sewers - "untouchables". Nowadays, they are constantly persecuted, a persecution effectively, though not explicitly, sanctioned by the Penal Code. In the summer, according to the Barnabas Fund, which monitors these things, one of these Christian cleaners working in a military hospital was ordered to burn some papers: he was then accused of burning the Koran. Riots ensued, and Christian homes were destroyed.Last month, in a town called Sangla Hill, a Christian man was playing cards with some Muslim friends. He won, and they resented this. The story was put about that the Christian had set fire to a copy of the Koran. Thousands of Muslims rioted, burning churches, schools, a convent and several Christian homes. The authorities did nothing to stop it, though they subsequently expressed regret that it had happened.The Archbishop arrived in Pakistan not long after these outrages. In the wake of the regret expressed, he said: "I am immensely encouraged that the problems caused by the blasphemy laws are being recognised by very senior politicians." I wonder how immensely encouraging that news really is. There was no suggestion that the blasphemy laws should be done away with or even modified. They won't be, because President Musharraf would regard such change as literally more than his life was worth. If I were a Christian living in Sangla Hill this Christmas, rather than Dr Williams with a return ticket to Lambeth Palace in his cassock, I would not be feeling immensely encouraged.The Archbishop asked two questions in Pakistan, which he linked. "Are we, … as Christians," he wondered, "in thrall to an uncritical support of a Western political, geopolitical agenda?" Then he asked Muslims: "Can those who live in Muslim states create the conditions in which a Christian can be fully a citizen?" Perhaps he was just trying to be polite, but the Archbishop was setting up a moral equivalence that is quite false. The answer to his first question is blatantly "No". Have you ever been to an Anglican (or indeed Catholic) church where the sermon offers "uncritical support of a Western political, geopolitical agenda"? I calculate that I have heard more than 1,000 Anglican and 500 Catholic sermons in my life and I have never heard such a message preached.The other problem Dr Williams raised, however, is as real as real could be. There is no declaredly Muslim state which offers full civil rights to Christians. In Saudi Arabia, it is an offence to hold a Christian service in public. In Iran, the new president has said, "I want to stop Christianity in this country", and in the past month, a Protestant pastor has been murdered there because he himself converted from Islam and was converting others (all five schools of Islamic law agree that the penalty for conversion - "apostasy" - is death). In Indonesia, three women have been given prison terms for taking Muslim girls to an after-school Christian club. In Egypt, Christians face increasing restriction on what they can build, as well as harassment in the form of rapes, kidnappings and forced conversions. And so on. Even in our own country, Muslims who convert to Christianity are often threatened by their own community and offered little help by the Church of England.There is no doubting Dr Williams's sincere concern, but isn't it sad that his protests - and those of most Western Christian leaders - are so muted? If you read the Acts of the Apostles, you see that Christianity spread, perhaps only survived at all, because its disciples travelled to teach it and risked their lives doing so. St Peter and St Paul were both martyred in the persecutions of Nero. How many people would have signed up to the faith if the two saints had instead professed themselves "immensely encouraged" by the protestations of a few Roman senators that all this crucifixion business was going a bit too far, and sailed back home to Judaea?It occurs to me that the Archbishop, and other Western church leaders, are indeed promoting a Western political agenda, but it is almost the opposite of the one he described. The agenda - and, in the case of the Anglican Church, this is very closely co-ordinated with the British Government - is to try to placate. Sorry about the Crusades, sorry about George Bush, sorry, sorry, sorry, they say, in the hope that Muslims will start to say sorry, too. But where is the evidence that this pre-emptive self-abasement is working? The grim fact is that the development of Christian/Muslim official dialogue has coincided with much greater Muslim persecution of other faiths than 30 years ago.It comes naturally to Anglicans - the product of an imperial structure, still known in the Gulf as "the Queen's Church" - to want to have talks with the potentates of other religions and polities. But these jaunts remind me of peace delegations to the Soviet Union in the 1930s. They create a structure of unreality and leave millions of the victims of persecution where they were before the delegations arrived - frightened and alone. www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/12/10/do1002.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/12/10/ixopinion.html |
|
|
|
Post by blueskygod on Dec 10, 2005 9:33:03 GMT -5
I think this is an offensive post. Islam is no more psychotic than Catholicism or Judaism, where there are many examples of people that follow the literal dogma. Like all religions Islam is supposed to be conveying metaphorical messages, however, the masses fail to understand the purpose or the nature of the metaphors and blindly follow the literal meaning. In Arabic countries, the Qu'ran is interpreted by crafty clerics who know they can fool the uneducated majority, and seize absolute power for themselves, disguised under religion.
Religion is a great concept, since it helps billions of people have a meaning in their lives, yet religion should not be the basis of everyday affairs. Turkey is a perfect example of Islam being in an enlightened form. I am a strict secularist, and I admire the masons and factions such as the military.
Instead of calling Islam a psychotic religionand sucking up to all the European Imperialists in the forum, you should propose that the religion is simply reformed, and all the clerics are suppressed or something.
|
|
In their dream. Tell me, how many north africans you already have (including the illegals)? 3 million? I think after a decade, if you go on supporting the socialists, Spain will become, Al Andalus. At least, in France, no one votes for the leftists.
