Travelling to the Middle East
Dear All,
I'm off to Syria and Jordan ( perhaps Egypt too ) . So if anyone wishes to meet up there please drop me an email with your phone number and I will call you.
I will try to blog from those countries as often as possible (I'm officially on vacation right ? ) and provided President Bush does not decide to nuke Iran, or use those 'bunker busters' - whatever, as I'm sure this would escalate the security situation.
Also I realise I still have not posted my Tunisia trip account, well I'll write it up on the plane how's that for a promise ?
Please do not desert the blog , keep the other threads running, I'm reading you and replying as quickly as I can....
28 comments:
Have a great trip! Don't forget to take lots of pcitures for the blog :)
I'm not going anywhere, kiddo .
Seymour Hersh is to truth as Santa Claus is to reality
Hale , glad that you are still blogging. Keep doing it .
Programmer_Craig , thank you , I'll take photos, but knowing how 'lazy' I am - I have no idea when they will be post lol.
Gatorbait :) what can I say ? thank you !
Red_enclave I did bring the camera , but not the videocam. So you are going to Umrah inshallah . I'm sure you will love it just as I did. The feeling when you sit down and pray in Mecca is literally out of this world.
Libyan Warrior , I'm not happy that you chose this nickname because Libya is at peace with everyone ( we are not at war ) , however you seem to like the ID and it only an internet moniker.
Anyway I'm happy that you don't wish to desert my blog - I just have a favour to ask ok ?
When you quote something like this title for example "CHRISTIANITY'S INHUMANE INTOLERANCE
Burn Nonbelievers" please put a link to the article this way we will know that these are not your words but someone elses. Because the way you put it it can be confused that you are advocating the burning of Christians as non-believers and not that the author of the article meant that the some Christians consider the Muslims as non-believers and are calling for burning them.
Quoting from the Old Testament and New Testament is fine too as long as you explain then in your comment why are you using the quote and what do you wish to convey.
Otherwise I think people get confused and think you are attacking other faiths. In the end ya Libyanwarrior, as Muslims we have learnt of the religions preceding us in the Qur'an which has been sent to us to enlighten us about the past religions and that we must love and respect all God's Prophets. LW it is not Jesus or Moses fault if some of their people have strayed right ? In such circumstances we never attack them but we confront them with our mind and excellent behaviour and set an example.
LW ( or ALA) I really understand walahi , what you are trying to say , but the way you are conveying it here and on other blogs puts people in a defensive or offensive mood never one of dialogue- just gets people angry ...
So you and NBA love controversy don't ya ?
Highlander: wish you a safe and nice trip!
Erm, Highlander, I might like controversy (it's not a secret, really, I'm quite open about it LOL)... but, erm, you want to compare my style with that of lybianwarrior? And yes, I might be sometimes off topic but at least I hope not that much and not in an intolerant way...
NBA
so wonderful, Syria and Jordan have a nice trip and if you are going to visite Lebanon too let me know.
Angry Libyan,
I belive, love and respect all of his Prophets, from Adam(PBUH) to his final Prophet and Messenger Prophet Muhammad(PBUH).
Then how do you explain all those insulting remarks you made about Jesus on Sandmonkey's blog? Do I *really* need to copy-paste them here?
I belive in his revalations, The Torah, The gospel, and the Quran, ect.
Then how do you explain all your insulting remarks about the Torah and the Bible, in this thread?
Sorry. You can claim to be a believer all day and all night, but your comments speak for themselves.
1. ISLAM IS PURE. It was not built on Christianity, and Judism
Methinks you don't know much about Islam. Or about Christianity and Judaism, for that matter.
2. Christianity and Judism are man made religions, the old and new testaments are man made texts.
3. The Gospel, the Torah, and the scrolls, are DIVINE REVALATIONS
Interesting contradiction. Did you take some meds between number 2 and number 3? :O
4. The Quran is the final revalation that Almighty God has sent to the dwellers of the universe.
I'm not muslim. I don't believe in the validity of the Quran. Muslims, however, believe in the validity of the Bible and the Torah. Jews don't believe in the validity of either the Bible or the Quran, but only of the Torah. You see how this works? It's a sequential progression. Destroy the 1st or the 2nd element in the sequence, and you never get to the 3rd. Which means without Christianity and Judaism, there is no Islam and there never would have been. You are attempting to destroy the foundation of your own religiuon, which is one of the reasons why I think you are an atheist.
The main purpose of my post was to spark a flame
That's called flaming :D
Considered highly anti-social behavior.
I am not trying to "destroy her blog".
I think you are. You think you are going to attract new readers for her with all that hateful bigotry? What type of readers? And how many of her old readers will stick around to particpate in the hatefest?
My intent is not "malicious", I am mearly trying to inform any Jews and christians on this blog about their religion.
You mean "misinform" don't you? Since your Bible quotes were made up, and since you mis-identified the source? Did you copy-paste those from an atheism website?
Were you just trying to "inform" people about what a vile piece of filth you think Jesus was, when you were ranting about Jesus? Is that how muslims show respect to Prophets?
I'm not here to discuss religion with you. You don't know anything about religion, your own or anybody else's. Furthermore, discussing religion with an atheist is a waste of time anyway.
I'm here to talk about your personality problems, of which there are many. The chief one of concern to ME is that you seem to be a griefer. You enjoy making other people unhappy. It's too bad you aren't a muslim, maybe you could find some peace if you were.
Angry Libyan, you just posted the same mis-quotes on Sandmonkey's blog. I just realized something.
You don't even realize that section of Deuteronomy is the basis for the way Islam treats Apostates, do you?
Good example of the folly of attacking the foundations of your own religion, eh? :D
The difference is that muslims actually DO stone spostates to death (it happens in Iran pretty frequently, and other places as well) as Deuteronomy instructs. Jews and Christians stopped doing that a long time ago.
So, of the 3 religions, which did you offend against more? The one that still practices the law that you scorned, or the two that do not?
That's an important question, for a guy who was born muslim but became an atheist, don't you think?
We aren't going to stone you to death over here in America. Good thing, eh?
LW , you are right it is not fair I should have said something to Programmer_Craig too, my only excuse is that first because of the time difference between here and the US (see timestamps) I probably posted my reply to you at the same time that Craig did. So I did not see his comment, and secondly because I'm not in Libya , I have not been checking my blog that regularly either, therefore I aplogise if you also have been offended on my blog - and will address the issue with Programmer_Craig.
On the other hand you state "The main purpose of my post was to spark a flame, I was trying to give highlanders blog a JUMPSTART(and boy did it back fire.LOL)
I am not trying to "destroy her blog".
My intent is not "malicious", I am mearly trying to inform any Jews and christians on this blog about their religion."
That is not nice ,is it not, to hijack my comment section ? If you wish to educate the others do that on your blog and by all means use mine to put a link to it or tell me to link to you and I will do it or do that on mine when the subject is relevant; civil diversity of opinion is fine.
I'm sure you don't have a hidden agenda , but don't change my topic of discussion - currently Syria or even Iran nuclear issue if you want these are 'hot' enough don't you think ? ;)
Programmer_Craig,
I always value your well thought out and logical sense and yes you have learnt a considerable amount about Islam and some Muslims including a little bit of Arab culture, but there is still a long way to go to understand our psyche. We are what is called in
Arabic 'alsahl almumtane3' or the simple yet complex people, hence all the contradictions seemingly defying the logical mind, which for a westerner is not always so easy to figure out ;)- No black and white here and it is not something that you can measure or subject to scientific tests. That's why I still have not lost my patience with LW :)
Hence, I must admit that LW's statement on my blog in this thread did not carry any offense
to religion or it's followers, apart from the section I referred to and which I did not know if it was a quote or from him ( and I pointed that out) or his apparent 'foolishness' in the way he presented the scripture and for which he apologized and explained himself above. Probably LW offended his host ( me- lol )the most by totally changing the topic and 'spicing it up' although Syria and Iran are hot enough as it is (I'm repeating myself here ).
On the other hand LW's state of atheism or not is not ours to judge but only God can do that, therefore telling him that he would get killed for his beliefs or lack thereof is certainly not constructive - I hope you can see what I mean here. So please engage with LW's statements if you wish or ignore him but let's not call him an atheist.
If LW has a hidden 'agenda' then our collective balanced response should prevent that from happening :) , we don't give him ammunition by suspecting his spiritual situation and perhaps offend him. What he does on other blogs is not ours to judge as long as he keeps this one clean.
With regards to Islam and the other two monotheistic religions. I would like to clarify that
it is true that the conventionally held wisdom for Muslims is that the messages of the Nazarene and of Moses have been tempered with to suit individual or nationalistic whims since before your time - viz the evolving of Catholicism for example- and consequently the Torah and the Bible though containing the seeds of the earlier message from God have become adulterated by humans as per the Muslim view ( as mentioned above), whilst the Qur'an has been the same for 1400 years. However, that in my opinion does not negate the validity of Christians' or Jews' spirituality or practice of their religion and beliefs as humans and we MUST respect their choice without proselytising. This would be in
accordance with what Islam and the Prophet have taught us, namely to each their own religion. As Muslims we can try to explain,reach out and have an interfaith dialogue but not force our opinions on others by demeaning their faith. Prophet Jesus' message of Love should therefore also guide us here in dealing with the 'other' who is really a mirror image of us.
So yes Muslims believe that all the messages of religion sent to us by God since Adam & Eve carry the basic principles of Islam , perhaps under different names because they came to different people in various languages. Islam for us is the finally completed version when humans have become evolved enough to understand the whole concept. The Old Testament and the New Testament though, as I said above, are an echo of the Qur'an with regards to God's
commandments, they tend to diverge at times because they have been further detailed and clarified by the various apostles and holy men with the consequence of patriarchical and culural mores of those times added to scriptures which makes them no longer the sole words of God but rather that of men. It's somewhat comparable to the interpretations of the Sharia Law by the various learned men and many of the contested Hadiths which is not infallible because humans are imperfect creatures.You have to approach the issue from this angle when listening to Muslims justifying their beliefs.
Some do it calmly others have not got the same patience. That means the burden is on all sides to aim to understand each other. Does that make sense ? i.e. LW should say why he thinks this or that is wrong and ask for explanations and historical context, while you or
someone else should do the same from your side. Otherwise we have a discussion of the deaf and blind which may lead to a lot of bitterness.
Programmer_Craig, thank you for sticking up for me and my blog and for caring I'm proud of my readers who are really friends because of their loyalty.
However, you state " I'm not muslim. I don't believe in the validity of the Quran. Muslims, however, believe in the validity of the Bible and the Torah. Jews don't believe in the validity of either the Bible or the Quran, but only of the Torah. You see how this works? It's a sequential progression. Destroy the 1st or the 2nd element in the sequence, and you never get to the 3rd. Which means without Christianity and Judaism, there is no Islam and there never would have been".
It is your prerogative not to believe in the validity of the Qu'ran, however for a Muslim, Islam is there and has been there since time immemorial it is a stand alone religion and the complete version. To correct your statement it is not important if the other books remain or not yet Islam still advocates their validity and full respect for their fOllowers namely the people of the Book, because these contain God's message.
So to be fair to LW I am going to delete/edit Programmer_Craig's comments about killing of 6.31. AM, 6.37 AM and 11.41 AM.
Libyan Warrior and Programmer_Craig, you both live in the free world and have the opportunity to consult thousands of ancient manuscripts, please exploit this. I would give half my life to be able to read them from the national libraries and other places...
Programmer_Craig's comment of 11.41 edited ( not much as many comments already follow it ).
"Highlander, ALA is not a muslim, he's an atheist. I think it's important that everyone knows that about him. The proof is in the vigor with which he attacks the two religions that Islam is based on. Those are indirect attacks on Islam also. What's more, those are not even Bible quotes anyway, which makes his words all the more offensive, because he's pretending that they are.
He's trying to destroy your blog. His intent is malicious. [...]I think you know I don't make a habit of launching personal attacks on people, [...]he's got a definite pattern, and a definite agenda.
"
Important note
Programmer_Craig is one of my earliest and most favourite readers, and I have still edited his comment this time even though I totally understand what he means and why he said what he said. This is to show Libyan Warrior and the others that even my best friends get moderated here...so please Libyan Warrior do not give me a reason to do this to my readers and friends anymore and prove Craig's point that you have an agenda- can we stick to a pact ? no more flaming and no more misquoting ! If you need to say something to me of which you are unsure then email me .
NBA , I'm not comparing you to LW :) , I just meant you both like controversy in your own way lol
A.Adam :) Thanks are you going to Lebanon ?
Hannibal thank you for the wishes .:)
Highlander,
I cannot believe you let Angry Libyan's comments stand, where he makes a mockery of Christianity, and you edited mine. Are you the same person who came out so strongly saying that nobody should be insulting religion, during the cartoon controversy?
It is your prerogative not to believe in the validity of the Qu'ran
If I believed that teh Qiran was scripture, and that Mohamed was a Prophet, I would be a muslim - by definition.
I am not a muslim.
however for a Muslim, Islam is there and has been there since time immemorial it is a stand alone religion and the complete version.
Since time immemorial? Explain please? The only way that could be possible is if muslims consider Judaism and Christianity to be inherent parts of Islam. In which case, to attack Christianity or Judaism is to attack Islam at teh same time.
You can't have it both ways, Highlander. You cannot co-opt Prophets from Judaism and Christianity, and co-opt their scripture, and claim it's all part of Islam, and then say that Islam isn't *really* based on the other two religions.
That comment is just not logical, or well thought out. How is Islam a "stand alone" religion? If everything and everyone that came to Islam via Judaism and Christianity was removed, what would be left?
Maybe you should try that, as an experiemnt. If you really believe Islam is not based on Christianity and Judaism.
To correct your statement it is not important if the other books remain or not
I've always thought it was a serious flaw in Islam, that no education the religion that Islam is based on is provided. For instance, Angry Libyan quotes the section of the Torah which calls for apostates to be stoned. He doesn't even realize that is where the Islamic penalty for being an apostate comes from.
yet Islam still advocates their validity and full respect for their fOllowers namely the people of the Book, because these contain God's message.
I don't see any respect, here. Not from you, and not from Angry Libyan. I expected better, Highlander, after you came out so strongly claiming that all people should respect other's religions.
I guess that's not really true, is it? You're the most moderate muslim I know, and if you think it's OK tos how contempt for Christianity and Judaism, then I have to believe all muslims do.
I really don't understand this. Sorry. I'd appreciate some clarification, because I value your opinions very highly, but my esteem for muslims just went down a few notches because of your words. Not Angry Libyans, because I (still) consider him an atheist.
By the way, I reject the claims that Islam is "pure" and unadulterated. You might be able to make that arguument, if it wasn't for the Hadith and the Sunnah. And fatwahs. And warped interpretations of scripture - such as the interpretations that claim it's OK for a muslim man to marry outside the faith, but it's not OK for a woman to do the same, in direct contradiction to what is written in the Quran. And other things.
Islam is just as "polluted" as Christianity is, and it's probably more polluted than Judaism is. Despite what you say, the Torah still exists in it's original form. It's the Christian New Testament that does not.
I haven't challenged you on this claim before, but since we're doing our "bash the otehr guy's religion" thing these days, then I'm going to state my opinion, whether it's "respectful" or not.
I'm a critic of Christian doctrine and the way it has evolved away from teh teachings of Jesus. Unfortunately, I see the same sorts of dogmatic warping of the true intent in Islam.
I found an interesting link on the origins of islam, Highlander.
Origin of Islam
Origin of Islam: According to Islam
The origin of Islam is generally accredited to the prophet Muhammad but to the devout Muslim, Islam began long before Muhammad ever walked the earth. The Qur'an was dictated by Muhammad but, according to the Qur'an, it did not originate with Muhammad. The Qur'an testifies of itself that it was given by God through the angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad. "This is a revelation from the Lord of the universe. The Honest Spirit (Gabriel) came down with it, to reveal it into your heart that you may be one of the warners, in a perfect Arabic tongue" (Sura 26:192-195). "Say, 'Anyone who opposes Gabriel should know that he has brought down this (the Qur'an) into your heart, in accordance with God's will, confirming previous scriptures, and providing guidance and good news for the believers'" (Sura 2:97).
What does that part, "confirming previous scriptures" mean, anyway? And if no less an entity than the Arch-Angel Gabriel confirms the validity of Deuteronomy and Leviticus from teh Torah, doesn't that make what Angry Libyan is doing (casting doubt on them) nothing less than outright blasphemy?
The Origin of Islam: The "Previous Scriptures"
The origin of Islam is controversial. The "previous scriptures" mentioned above are the Hebrew Torah, the Psalms of David, and the Gospels of Jesus Christ (Sura 4:163; 5:44-48). The Qur'an accepts these books as divinely inspired and even encourages us to test its claims by these "previous scriptures." "If you have any doubt regarding what is revealed to you from your Lord, then ask those who read the previous scripture" (Sura 10:94). But this is where we run into a problem. The problem is that the Qur'an thoroughly contradicts the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospels. For example, the Qur'an explicitly denies Jesus Christ's crucifixion (Sura 4:157-158) while all four Gospel accounts clearly portray Jesus Christ as crucified and resurrected.
This passage speaks for itself.
I'm sorry, Highlander, but I think you are completely mistaken if you don't believe Islam is based on Christianity and Judaism. That's at odds with historical fact and it's at odds with what is written in the Quran itself. An example perhaps of that dogmatic corruption of established doctrine I was talking about earlier? I have no doubt most muslims believe as you do. But that doesn't mean they are right. It means they've been taught improperly.
Anyway, there's good stuff on that website, and there's plenty more, I'm sure. I learned this in junior highschool back in the 70s, in theology class, so I'm sure it's well established and readily avialable information.
I don't speak for Highlander, obviously, but I personally am I completely unineterested in reading anything you write, Angry Libyan. The only time I've seen you post a coment on this blog (or Sandmonkey's!) that WAS NOT intended to harm somebody's pysche is when you posted insincere apologis, like this one. You've established quite a pattern, I've seen you dothe same thing at least 4 times now, and I haven't even been paying attention.
As for your "folluw-up" - you've already said what you have to say. I didn't intend that comment for you, nor did I address it to you, and I'm not interested in your input. I already know your opinions on the matter, why do you want to insult me (and every other Christian on the planet) more? Haven't you trashed Jews and Christians (and muslims) enough? I've discussed tolerance and acceptance with Highlander before, and it's something I know with both believe to be important. The difference between us is, I don't feel any moral obligation to show tolerance and acceptance towards a person who obviously means me harm. I'm not a door mat. A person who bears me ill-will is my enemy. Treating your enemies well is one of the teachings of Jesus but I'm not a very ood Christian in this regard I guess. And I'm un-repentent about that. Kindness shown to a person who bears ill will towards you just gives them an opportunity to victimize you. That's my experience. Result is *always* the same.
By the way, you have already harmed highlander, in payment for her kindness. You've created a rift between her and her readers.
Libyan Warrior, if you are asking my permission then NO I would appreciate if you do not respond to Programmer_Craig. You can do that on your blog . Yes you have done harm enough already but I do hope this can be repaired. You are still welcome to comment on this blog if you can keep to the topic and not create a flame war .
Programmer_Craig : Unfortunately while I was typing the post, I knew you would come out this way ... Please re-read my comment, I said :
"conventionally held wisdom for Muslims" & NOT for Highlander even if she is a Muslim i.e I tried to explain to you the way of thinking of LW ( in my opinion) as I understand it from my observation of Muslims, and not my opinion on Christianity or Judaism ( that you already know from previous posts etc..).
You have chosen to ignore a huge chunk of my long comment ( I knew my English teacher was right when he said not to use run-on sentences should have listened to him!). So your post basically agrees with my views I don't see any crontradictions in that .
However I may have to correct the following sentence which may have been misleading :
"To correct your statement it is not important if the other books remain or not yet Islam still advocates their validity and full respect for their fOllowers namely the people of the Book, because these contain God's message".
into the following :
To correct your statement it is not important if the other books remain as they were orginally or are changed as claimed , because Islam still advocates their validity and full respect for their followers namely etc..." .
I understand how the first version may have sounded offensive- yet it should not have been so as the second part of the phrase contains the words 'validity', 'respect' and 'God's message'.
So yes Islam is one religion , it considers all religions before it to be an inherent part of Islam but with different names i.e called Judaism or Christianity or the other monotheistic books. But they are all Islam. For Muslims I repeat Islam is the last 'installment' which let's say condenses all the past religions in one volume. It's like a windows microsoft program sort of , windows 95 or windows xp and all those in between they are all windows right ? but you have XP containing more features yet combining all the others.I'm not trying to be blasphemous here , but simply to explain how your average Muslim is thinking not how I am thinking .I'm giving you insight .
I'm sure someone is gonna have a fatwa against me now for comparing religions to a Microsoft program :)
I hope this clarifies any misunderstandings and helps to heal any rifts.
Highlander, thank you for the correction, but it doesn't really help. The Tirah and the Bible both still exist in the form they were in during the time of Mohamed. If they were confirmed as the word of God in the 7th Century AD (that's 700 years after the death of Jesus, after all) then they remain exactly that, and nothing else. And so a muslim who attacks the Torah or the Bible is attacking the word of God. It's right there in teh Quran, and the language is clear and easily understood.
Greetings, PC. I come in the peace of disinterest. I just have a comment that I hope will clarify something apparently puzzling you. I'll try to be completely objective, since the point really concerns logic.
Your problem is how can the Muslims or Islam hold apparently contradictory positions on the Bible/Gospel/Torah? The problem actually has to do with the same words being used to denote different things. The Muslims distinguish between the "authentic" or "genuine" books and the "altered" books that were in circulation in the 7th century and are now. So, when Muslims assert the Quran confirms the other books, they mean the ones they believe to be "genuine" or "authentic." The ones they believe to be the "altered" editions may well contain some of the "authentic" message, but they are not THE ones.
If you accept that there are different books being called by the same names, then you would not argue that there is a contradiction.
Another point about Islam being "based on Christianity and Judaism." The view of Muslims is that "authentic" Christianity and "authentic" Judaism and Islam are from the same source; they have the same origin, revealed at different predetermined times, not based on another. If, however, you look at religions as being man-made, then you certainly would be right to conclude that Islam was made with the knowledge of, or in light of the known precedents, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.
Suliman , thank you , you have managed to explain so simply what I have been trying to do for the last couple of hours :) bless you.
Programmer_ Craig I hope Suliman's comment further clarifies things for you.
There is only one issue left to settle "The difference between us is, I don't feel any moral obligation to show tolerance and acceptance towards a person who obviously means me harm. I'm not a door mat."
I'm not sure if you realised that this statement is extremely offensive as it seems to be directed to me personnaly
Angry Libyan, you get no reply from me, because I skipped your comment. Others can read and reply if they want to indulge you.
Hi Suliman,
I just have a comment that I hope will clarify something apparently puzzling you.
This isn't really "puzzling" me - it's a contradiction for muslims to work out. Or not :)
But I'll go ahead and engage in the discussion anyway, since it's of some interest to me (and maybe to you) as long as we try to steer away from giving offense. Discussion of religion is over as soon as one party in the talk has been offended, in my opinion. And despite Highlander's claim that Angry Libyan said nothing that was offensive to anyone's religion, I whole-heartedly disagree. Any Christian will read his comments for what they are - Christian bashing. I've never even heard anybody refernce Liviticus except when they want to insult Christians or Jews. And he didn't even bother taking his Bible quotes from the Bible either, which makes it even worse.
I'll try to be completely objective, since the point really concerns logic.
OK... good... it's the "logic" part that escapes me when I see an apparrent contradiction between what scripture SAYS and what people BELIEVE.
Your problem is how can the Muslims or Islam hold apparently contradictory positions on the Bible/Gospel/Torah? The problem actually has to do with the same words being used to denote different things. The Muslims distinguish between the "authentic" or "genuine" books and the "altered" books that were in circulation in the 7th century and are now.
I don't understand. Already the logic has eluded me! The non-existant scripture is considered authentic, but the scripture that was in existance in the 7th century is considered false?
That's entirely too convenient. Since nobody knows what the "lost" scripture really contained, anyone can make any claim they wish to, and they are immune from challenge. It's just another way of saying Chistianity and Judaism are false religions. Which is CLEARLY not the intent, in the Quran. Islam does NOT consider Christianity and Judaism false religions. It seems to me that this is a case of Muslims ignoring what is written and believing what they wish to believe instead.
So, when Muslims assert the Quran confirms the other books, they mean the ones they believe to be "genuine" or "authentic."
That is not what was written in teh Quran. That is not what Arch Angel Gabriel said. That's an opinion of muslims, apparrently widespread. But that doesn't make it valid. In fact, I'd say this is an example of where Islam has been pollutted by man.
The ones they believe to be the "altered" editions may well contain some of the "authentic" message, but they are not THE ones.
Same reply. That's an opinion of muslims. It doesn't come from Islam. And furthermore, I believe that opinion is completely agenda driven.
If you accept that there are different books being called by the same names, then you would not argue that there is a contradiction.
I don't recall accepting that! For one thing, the Torah has not been altered. And we are discussing teh Torah in this thread. If you are trying to claim the Torah is illegitimate, it's the first I'VE ever heard of it.
As for the Bible, I myslef have argued that it's been changed in trnslation, and that some of the things that are written seem clearly to have been inserted to help the Church, because they seem out of context with the rest. Nothing big. Just a word changed here and there... a word that cjhanges the meaning of the verse in some subtle way, or implies something that wasn't really intended.
I'll go along with that. But for the most part, it's subtle. And the original intent is still there. I can see it. And so could you, if you looked. In any case, I still argue that since the same Bible that is in use today was in use during Mohamed's time, THAT is the Bible that was endorsed. And none other. Since the "false" version (according to you) was what was in use when Arch ANgel Gabriel spoke to Mohamed, I don't think he would have validated them if he believed them to be false. Right? God doesn't make mistakes, and presumably, neither do his Angels.
Another point about Islam being "based on Christianity and Judaism." The view of Muslims is that "authentic" Christianity and "authentic" Judaism and Islam are from the same source; they have the same origin, revealed at different predetermined times, not based on another.
I cannot agree with that. Jesus, for instance, was a Jewish Rabbi. He not only practiced Judaism, he was a teacher of Judaism. It would be insanity to say Christianity is not based on Judaism, because Christianity didn't even exist as a seperate religion from Judaism until decades after Jesus died. The only reason Christianity even exists at all is because the Jews rejected Jesus and his teachings, so his gfollowers left Judaism and started a new religion.
Muslims are free to believe what they wish about tehir own religion, of course. To an outsider, though, this seems like an argument in semantics. You go far enough with that line of thought and it starts to sound like theft. I guess I don't want to go down that road, because I'll just get angry and then we'll both end up being offended :)
Suffice it to say, I don't think it's proper to tell Jews that muslims are better Jews than they are, or to tell Chrsitians that muslims are better Christians tahn they are. Which is the net effect of the idea that Islam is one in the same with Christianity and Judaism, and that it always has been - the argument Highlander is making, and that you seem to be making.
That's not OK.
If, however, you look at religions as being man-made, then you certainly would be right to conclude that Islam was made with the knowledge of, or in light of the known precedents, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.
You don't expect me to say I believe Islam was divinely inspired, do you? I'm not a muslim, in case I diodn't mention that before :)
Howvere, lets get back to what is actually written. Why would Arch Angel Gabriel have endorsed and confirmed the righteousness of previos scripture, if the intent was not to use PREVIOUS SCRIPTURE as a base for what came next, the Quran?
It seems so obvious to me. And saying that Christianity and Judaism have been one with Islam is... as I said... convenient. Too convenient. I think this "belief" originated amongst muslims out of pride. And pride is a sin :)
Anyway, thank you for the input. I had come to this conclusion after an exchange with Highlander, but you have confirmed it. It hasn't cleared anything up for me, because tehre's nothing to clear up, but at least I feel like I understand a little better why so many muslims think it's ok to condemn Christianity and Judaism.
But... wait...
Christianity and Judaism are integral parts of Islam, and have always been integral parts of Islam, since before Islam existed. So an insult to Christianity and Judaism is an insult to Islam.
Back to square one.
As a programmer, let me juts point out this is what's called an "endless loop" - and there's no way out of an endless loop :D
Highlander,
Not sure what in that comment you think was directed at you. I was talking about myself.
I'm still waiting for an expalnation of why you think it's OK for muslims to insult Christians, but it's not OK for atheists (or anybody else) to insult muslims, Highlander.
Inseatd, you read between the lines to find something else to get angry with me about!?
Seriously, Highlander, I do want an explanation :)
I keep hearing about Islam instead. Muslims are free to believe what they wish. However, you and many other muslims I know, said that Islam demands that respect be shown to other religions. YOU SAID THAT. During the cartoon controversy.
Where's the respect in the things we've been discussing here!?
ykx
Sorry, PC, you're obviously upset. I really "have neither a she- nor a he= camel" in the debate, as the saying goes... I was just trying to clarify the communication, not to take sides, approving or disapproving anyone's point of view. As a programmer, you know there is a difference between a Thing and the name of the Thing. The same Thing can have agreeably different names, while the same Name can stand for different Things, sometimes different in subtle ways.
I'll leave you in peace with an example that comes to mind from another human enterprise that's also replete with intrigue and fanatacism. No, not politics, it's professional sports! Think about the word "football" and what it means in the American vs. British frames of reference.
Cheers!
Post a Comment