Are Christians more tolerant than Muslims

That's about it for the time being. Wish you all the best.

Originally posted by King Kang of Mu Omar, you the man. plz forgive those who trespass your wisdom for they do not know better.

lol, thank you very much.

Sorry my friend (chok gech); but I'm not able for the time being to provide you with teh links. But Iranians like Maziar would do this for you. Ask any Iranian. You might be right also. But as Iranian document, it is believed Khalifa Omar started the war. Especially, we know that, at that time, Iranians were busy, fighting with internal risks rather than thinking to any foreign nation. I'm just surprised to hear 'there's no document about forced invasion'. Ask any Iranian, I told you, and you'll get your answer.

We have had this fight many times on AE (I think even on this thread - maybe). Basically Iran wasn't converted by force, it took hundreds of years. You can search for the other threads if you need more convincing.

EDIT: Cok Gec probably answered this better

Muhammet did not establish taxes on horses, but his most trusted person and his cousin, Ali established taxes on horses after Muhammet death. Was he against Muhammet? Ofcourse no; it is belived rules should be change when time passes, to set for the contemporary period.

Basically you have Gods Law, laid out in the Qur'an and mans law. Muslims must always follow Gods law, mans law but its entirely your choice. Hadises even though they are (reputably) from very important men, are still mans law and before you choose to follow one you should always ask yourself two questions:
1) Do I believe that these are genuine Hadises?
2) What is the purpose of this Hadises and does it still apply today? Hadises are not time-invarient unlike the Qur'an

. Now, for example, when Muhammet lived, there wasn't any satelite receiver. So, do we have to neglect them now? This is a great problem in Iran. Akhunds have banned access to foreign chanals, just because of a few inappropriate chanals out of thousands. See, I can use a knife to murder a buddy. And I can use it to eat an apple. We should cultivate the culture, not to abuse.

Totally agree with you.
Don't be fooled but, restricting foriegn TV has nothing to do with religion there are groups who want that done in Australia too and until recently we did have content restrictions on TV. Its a cultural not a religious thing.

If you're just referring to Quran, I agree my question is false. But Islam is not just Quran you know.

Quran is the only compulsory part though.

Omar al Hashim, I've seen lots of Arabs even from Saudi Arabi and how they act when they see a Shi'a. All Shi'as should pray exactly the way Sunnites do (force). They, whenever they see a Shi'a, they change their face just like they've experinced something sh**. So, please don't try to convince me these problems are neglected by Moslems and they live in peace with each other.

I know people do that sort of thing. They're being idiots.

Yeah, this is the point. You ARE VIRTUALLy inside computer. There's a link. Machine understand your commands when it checks its pre-determined rules. But you can't say the same about time. It's not so easy. Time is a border. You can change inside box if you open it. But time is a bit different.

Not really, time is just another dimension. Have you ever studied relativity? Time only appears that way to us because we are stuck travelling forwards through time. Its a limitation humans have, not a limitation time has. If we have control of 3 dimensions, then an entity with control of 4 should be able to reach into time in exactly the same way we reach into a box.

Good and bad are not meaningless, but different when you pass over religions. Just compare 'sexual interaction' among Moslems and Christians. And it's not ultimately defined by God. Adam and Hava's story... we've all heard about it. When Adam and Hava is sent to earth as first human beings, they haven't got any cloth. This were their first experince in earth, but both were shy enough to wear clothes made by leaves. A part from God and a part from man. As for me, I myself think, bad is what man decides it is bad; not necessarily what religion tells us.

If so, then without referencing a culture or a religion, tell me what is good and what is bad?
Sexual interaction between Islam & Christianity is quite different so I don't get your point. As for clothing, many Aboriginies in Oz still don't wear clothes - there isn't anything wrong with it in their culture.



Edited by Omar al Hashim - 19-Aug-2006 at 21:48

By the way, 4 dimensions theory is a little bit too complicated; at least it's not understandable by man, because:

Edited by gok_toruk - 20-Aug-2006 at 03:58

gok toruk

You really shouldnt "stop it here". Your opinions are just as valid as anyone elses, and you make a lot of sense.
Dont be discouraged - keep up the good work.

The problem is, you cannot really reason from a modern point of view and context, when you are discussing with people who blindly adhere to ancient lawbooks,  scriptures and faith as the only yardstick and full truth.
Specially not, when there is a "free choice on all shelves" in those books to read into things and decide on your own, what IS valid and what is not.
I have learned this applies whether its Judaism, Islam or Christianity or any other religion for that matter.

Old laws were meant for people and communities at the time they were written. They had  good meaning and reason at that time in most cases, but to adapt them literally, word for word into a modern society is like "sticking in the mud" no matter how much the words are twisted in an attempt to adhere to the present.

Dear friends (Northman and Centrix Vigilis),

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim I agree with Northman too, you don't need to stop there. I don't often debate religious concepts like this with someone who is a muslim. Its a nice change. The problem is, you cannot really reason from a modern point of view and context, when you are discussing with people who blindly adhere to ancient lawbooks,  scriptures and faith as the only yardstick and full truth.?Specially not, when there is a "free choice on all shelves" in those books to read into things and decide on your own, what IS valid and what is not.?I have learned this applies whether its Judaism, Islam or Christianity or any other religion for that matter. Although I hate to admit it, I know your right about that. Especially the "free choice on the shelves" part. (This of course doesn't mean I'm going to stop doing it^^) Uh huh; restricting access to channels should be done by a cultural view; not a relious one. But you see in Islamic country, all those restrictions are forced by Akhunds and not specialists in social sciences. That's what has happened in Iran. An Akhund who's studied for a few years is a religous school will become a politician... will become a minsiter... will become everything you think Here, we have three groups. Christian groups - who want inappropriate material censored (although there really aren't enough christians here to have much influence any more) Local TV - who want to make sure that local programs get air time. Lastly people who are afraid of Australia being americanised. This group is much like the local TV except they count Britian as local. That's what I mea when I said 'bad is something man thinks decides it's bad'. Ah, ok. I agree with quite alot on that. Over here lots of muslims will say that its haram to have a girlfriend, but its not necessarily, it depends what you do with her. People are taking their cultural habits, their ideas of right and wrong and then confused it with religion. I started a thread here a long time ago called 'Concepts of Right and Wrong'. Basically how do you define what is right and wrong and therefore the law, in a truely secular society? What is done in western countries is that they rely on tradition that has its roots in Roman times and then make minor modifications, which I don't think is truely secular at all. gcle said and I agree, that in a truely secular country you shouldn't attempt to legislate any form of right and wrong. Just prohibit that which is actually harmful, and then let each person decide. With the bit about time, I don't really understand what the problem is. If you created time, why can't you fool with it?

1- (Although you don't know what it is exactly,) You've already got your own thought and idea about it. Now this might be beacuse of your soceity you've been brought up in. So you do a pre-judgement and try to solve this problem in a way to confirm your old idea. It's man's nature. Quite a lot of people act like this.   2- It's not important if the answer will affect your pride or honor. See, in most case, all of our quarrels are just because to prove somebody's right. In these cases, the person and its pride are important; rather than the answer itself. Anyhow, you try to find the most logical answer; apart from any pre - judgement.

Totally agree.

We say God is this; God is that; so we should act like this. But the question is how do you know God is that, God is this? Have you got any proof rather than some historical texts? Were our prophets or people who have expanded our religions, quite ideal? According to Quran 'religion is based on logic' (now I don't know Christian verses by heart). If so, how come we're just quoting a few sentences from old people? Most of our beliefs are just a result of human's efforts to understand something above nature. See, the concept if you do good, you'll get your award (in another world) and if you do bad, you be punished (in another world), seems like a copy of what father's do about their child. Or beliefs like God gets angry (all of those bad happening for some tribes and nations in Quran are examples of such an idea) is exactly like what mans do. So, our God is somehow a human-like Existance, huh?

I don't think God is a human-like existance. I think that the only way people can attempt to understand God is in a human like way.
People personify everything, from animals to electrons. Especially when we try to understand something. I believe that all we actually know about God is what is written in the Qur'an (I don't think there is any other possible explaination for its existance other than Revelation). What we don't know is why God chose what he did to put into the Qur'an.

Let me define, Good := What God has told us to do in the Quran (only)
and Bad := What God has told us not to do (only)
Then we have neither good nor bad which is not mentioned. This means we can distinguish from culture and religion.
I believe that what is Good is actually Good for a reason. Even if we don't know it. Things like how to pray and fasting turn out to be very very healthy for the body. Marraige, charity etc form a stable society.
Bad is similarly bad for a reason.
Maybe it does seem like a copy of what a father tells a child, and maybe there is a reason for that. It could be that is the best way we can understand it. How does something beyond the comprehension of another creature explain something to that creature?

So, in my opinion, let's check our principle beliefs and see if they're logical.

Completely agree. I've actually spent alot of time think about that. I've decided that the Quran is an axiom. It is logical, consistant and unexplicable by another method. Every other belief I want justified from the Quran before I'll believe it. Have you ever heard of the Mahdi? Supposed to come back and lead the muslim to a perfect state just before the day of judgement? Its not mentioned in the Quran at all. So why should I believe it? As far as I know someone just made it up. I can't see why such an important event relating in to the day of judgement is not mentioned in the Quran.

If someone tells me: This is what muslims should believe. I'll say prove it, and if they don't show me a verse of the Quran which says just that, then why should I do it?

The background of any war is always money and power, and no matter how you try to dress it up.

this thread went off topic alot