Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

A new era of islamic calvinism??

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: A new era of islamic calvinism??
    Posted: 16-Feb-2006 at 07:28

Originally posted by Maju

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


Originally posted by Osmanli

How can one call your self an 'Islamic Reformer', since any changhe to Islam is consdered a 'Bidda' which is totally 'Haram' unlawfull.
I totally agree


In that case you should abandon all your hadith and sunna based practices, which are often even against the Quran.

That is truly haram.

the sunna is not again the Quran. not even a littel.

the sunna explains the quran in sayings and practice of the Prophet.

 

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2006 at 08:01
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

Originally posted by gcle2003

According to Paul.

Nor did he see them as binding.

The difference between the ethical teachings of Jesus and the obsessive, frequently sexually obsessive, ones of Paul are immense. Paul substituted another rigorous set of laws in a way that Jesus never did.

It seems like you are playing semantics here in order to find a loophole to justify homosexuality.

Not particularly, just pointing out it doesn't conflict with anything in the gospels I'm aware of. And, incidentally, even Paul doesn't single out 'homosexuality' as particularly sinful: no more than any other kind of sexual activity outside marriage. That's apparent in the passages you quote.

It always amuses me that some Christian sects are so down on homosexuality, but happily accept divorce and consequent adultery. A couple of years ago at a Methodist church in Cobb County, Georgia, when the minister welcomed homosexuals into the congregation, about half the congregation broke away and established a new church. But many of those involved were divorced and cohabiting with second 'wives'.

Paul disdained all kinds of sexual behaviour: it was simply 'better to marry than to burn'. His followers are somewhat more selective.

I was stating what it says in the Scriptures about Paul's conversion; what you said here is your characterization of the way that he preached.

Well, I would claim it was 'mine', it is pretty obvious and commonplace. But it's what I subscribe to, yes.

The Jews and the Christians wanted their lifestyles to be different than the non-Jews and non-Christians who surrounded them.  This is one of the reasons why God promulgated such a strict code of laws and regulations for Moses to give to the Hebrews. 

I've no doubt they wanted to be distinguished from followers of other religions. I think that's probably true of most if not all religious sects.

This concept carried over into the early Christian church; only now, strict adherence to the law was not required for salvation.  However, homosexuality was a major lifestyle issue that set apart Jews and Christians from "Gentiles", in particular the Romans and Greeks.

However, to jump from that to saying God promoted that desire, or even went along with it, is somewhat presumptuous.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2006 at 08:10
Originally posted by malizai_

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by Malizai

For u can not reconcile the Christian text with a practice, that the text openly abhors

Where do you find that in 'the Christian text'?

The fact of the matter is gcle2003 that the "christian text" includes the old and the new testament, of which the Gospels are a part, therefore what paul says matters.

I think other forumers have provided u with ample evidence to validate the earlier assertion.

But in case u r not satisfied, let me quote u the old testament of which the gospels are not a part.

Leviticus 18:22
Do not have sex with a man as you would with a woman. It is an abomination.

For ur further satisfaction:

Genesis 19:4-7

Lev 18: 22; 20: 13; Deut 22: 17 18

Judges 19: 22 23

Kings 1 Kgs 14: 24; 15: 12; 23: 7

Ezekiel 16: 49-50

All of course from the Jewish scriptures. Scriptures that permit and justify genocide, just for starters. Hardly compatible with Jesus' message,

It's very notable that no-one has been able to come up with a passage from any gospel.

And as for Paul - how do you stand on marriage after divorce, which is forbidden not just by Paul but by Jesus himself (Matthew 5:32) or swearing in God's name (Matthew 5:34-38) or about claiming charitable deductions from taxes (Matthew 6:1-3) or saving for your old age (Matthew 6:19-21)?

I find it odd that 'Christians' who fail to follow Jesus' own teachings respond so readily to the Old Testament and to Paul.

 

 

Back to Top
sedamoun View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
  Quote sedamoun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2006 at 08:36

No offense to all you followers/Beleivers but i think that every religion has to "adapt" to its time.

It's impossible to live exactly like during Mohamed's time (what the Talibans want). Christianity has evolved, just like Islam and Judaism since their creation.

Islam in its first hundred years was much more permissive than it was today (women's right, nudity in art, artists and poets openly speaking about love and feelings...).

Islam today is very much influenced by the retrograde Saudi Wahabism doctrine (Saudis funding mosques all over the world, bringing Imams for training/mind washing in Saudi Arabia...). Let's not generalise here, lets make it clear that all Saudis are NOT fundamentalists/wahabism followers.

Wahabism is what is giving a bad name to Islam today. If you want to beleive in GOD, fine by me... but that is something personal. Have you heard that saying: "The more you scream out your faith, the less you beleive in it" ?

Cheers.

Modern spread of Wahhabism

In 1924 the Wahhabi al-Saud dynasty conquered Mecca and Medina, the Muslim holy cities. This gave them control of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage, and the opportunity to preach their version of Islam to the assembled pilgrims. However, Wahhabism was a minor current within Islam until the discovery of oil in Arabia, in 1938. Vast oil revenues gave an immense impetus to the spread of Wahhabism. Saudi laypeople, government officials and clerics have donated many tens of millions of dollars to create Wahhabi-oriented religious schools, newspapers and outreach organizations.

Some Muslims believe that Saudi funding and Wahhabi proselytization have had a strong effect on world-wide Sunni Islam (they may differ as to whether this is a good thing or a bad one). Other Muslims say that while the Wahhabis have bought publicity and visibility, it is not clear that they have convinced even a sizable minority of Muslims outside Saudi Arabia to adopt Wahhabi norms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabism#Modern_spread_of_Wahha bism

Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2006 at 11:07
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by malizai_

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by Malizai

For u can not reconcile the Christian text with a practice, that the text openly abhors

Where do you find that in 'the Christian text'?

The fact of the matter is gcle2003 that the "christian text" includes the old and the new testament, of which the Gospels are a part, therefore what paul says matters.

I think other forumers have provided u with ample evidence to validate the earlier assertion.

But in case u r not satisfied, let me quote u the old testament of which the gospels are not a part.

Leviticus 18:22
Do not have sex with a man as you would with a woman. It is an abomination.

For ur further satisfaction:

Genesis 19:4-7

Lev 18: 22; 20: 13; Deut 22: 17 18

Judges 19: 22 23

Kings 1 Kgs 14: 24; 15: 12; 23: 7

Ezekiel 16: 49-50

All of course from the Jewish scriptures. Scriptures that permit and justify genocide, just for starters. Hardly compatible with Jesus' message,

It's very notable that no-one has been able to come up with a passage from any gospel.

And as for Paul - how do you stand on marriage after divorce, which is forbidden not just by Paul but by Jesus himself (Matthew 5:32) or swearing in God's name (Matthew 5:34-38) or about claiming charitable deductions from taxes (Matthew 6:1-3) or saving for your old age (Matthew 6:19-21)?

I find it odd that 'Christians' who fail to follow Jesus' own teachings respond so readily to the Old Testament and to Paul.

The point was simply this: "homosexuality is abhored by the christian text". It doesn't really matter what your or my view is of the text or if we agree with its ethics.

First u had the problem with the new testament, now the old. So u now have a problem with the "whole testeament".  Sorry mate but u cant be helped.

 

Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2006 at 13:01

Originally posted by gcle2003

It always amuses me that some Christian sects are so down on homosexuality, but happily accept divorce and consequent adultery.

I do not accept divorce and adultery.  I don't accept homosexuality, but I tolerate its existence.  It is a sin just like all other sins. The Scriptures say that man is not to divide what God has joined together, in terms of marriage.  Adultery is prohibited by the commandment against covetousness, if you ask me.  The only possible exception that I can see for divorce is in the extreme case of spousal abuse.

Originally posted by gcle2003

A couple of years ago at a Methodist church in Cobb County, Georgia, when the minister welcomed homosexuals into the congregation, about half the congregation broke away and established a new church. But many of those involved were divorced and cohabiting with second 'wives'.

Well, let me point out the denomination first of all: Methodist.  They tend to be pretty lax on morality and their preachers tend to shy away from the subject in the pulpit.  Second of all, any idiot can see that those people were clearly sinning (both the homosexuals and adulterers) according to the Bible, which is the basis of even the Methodist's faith.  So don't pull one of those "look at the so-called Christians and their hypocracy" deals here. 

Keep in mind that to be a Christian means accepting Christ's sacrifice, having a relationship with God through prayer and Scripture, and an ultimate renewal of one's life and behavior.  Clearly these people did not show any of these characteristics from what you have told me.  It is possible for people to go to church yet never accept Christ and experience a turnaround in their life.  In the end, man will always sin but the word of God remains constant and the same.



Edited by Byzantine Emperor
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2006 at 18:51
This is what my friend said:

Now this is Gospel: (and rather long, but although it is not specifically spelled out when Jesus says: 20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' " then sexual immorality could definitely include homosexual behaviour. It isnt however spelled out. Especially since sex out of marriage is a sexual immorality and marriage is specifically between a man and a woman.)

Mark 7
Clean and Unclean
1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])

 5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"

 6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
   " 'These people honor me with their lips,
      but their hearts are far from me.
 7They worship me in vain;
      their teachings are but rules taught by men.'
8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

 9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,'[d] and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[e] 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

 14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "[f]

 17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

 20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "




All versions show strong rejection of sexual sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-20)

Definitely
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206;&version=31;




Even in the german versions:
Habt ihr vergessen, dass fr Menschen, die Unrecht tun, in Gottes neuer Welt kein Platz sein wird? Tuscht euch nicht: Wer verbotene sexuelle Beziehungen eingeht, andere Gtter anbetet, die Ehe bricht, wer sich von seinen Begierden treiben lsst und homosexuell verkehrt, wird nicht in Gottes neue Welt kommen; 10 auch kein Dieb, kein Ausbeuter, kein Trinker, kein Gotteslsterer oder Ruber. 11 [e]Und all das sind einige von euch gewesen. Aber jetzt sind eure Snden abgewaschen. Ihr gehrt nun ganz zu Gott; durch Jesus Christus und durch den Geist unseres Gottes seid ihr freigesprochen



Edited by Omar al Hashim
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2006 at 09:18
Originally posted by malizai

The point was simply this: "homosexuality is abhored by the christian text". It doesn't really matter what your or my view is of the text or if we agree with its ethics.

First u had the problem with the new testament, now the old. So u now have a problem with the "whole testeament".  Sorry mate but u cant be helped.

It wasn't me brought in the old testament. The point is that while you say 'Christian text' all you can find in support is either from the Jewish text or from Paul's post-Christian text.

I don't have a problem with the 'whole testament' because I don't have a problem with the Gospels. What I was asking you to do was to back up your assertion with something that came from the only central Christian texts - the four Gospels and their recording of what Jesus said.

It seems to me that you're the one who has the problem with the Gospels because they don't back you up.

 

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2006 at 09:45
Originally posted by azimuth

Originally posted by Maju

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


Originally posted by Osmanli

How can one call your self an 'Islamic Reformer', since any changhe to Islam is consdered a 'Bidda' which is totally 'Haram' unlawfull.
I totally agree


In that case you should abandon all your hadith and sunna based practices, which are often even against the Quran.

That is truly haram.

the sunna is not again the Quran. not even a littel.

the sunna explains the quran in sayings and practice of the Prophet.



Actually, most of the time when discussion some of the Islamic practices, wether controversial or not, they aren't in the Quran but in the Sunna/Hadiths. This means that the essence has been decorated with much stuff that is not what The Prophet preached but what other say about his preaching, life or whatever.

And the very Quran, if I'm not wrong, warns that it is enough in itself.

I think that Sunna has corrupted Quran, like St. Paul and the Church dogma corrupted Christ's message. Not that I have anything against that corruption... but each thing must be named by their proper name.

Long life to corruption and distortion of the messengers' messages...

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Mila View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030
  Quote Mila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2006 at 09:58
Originally posted by Cywr

Havn't Bosnians been doing this for ages already?


You mean men and women praying together? Yes and no.

Our mosques have never had separate entrances for women and only the very  largest had separate outdoor prayer areas. On warm days, men would pray on the right side, women on the left. On cold days, men would generally let women have all the inside space and they would pray outside on the right and left sides.

Sons are always taken to mosque from a very young age, always. Daughters - it's less strict. They can go, they can not go - whatever.

In the countryside, it was only within the last century that women really started going to mosque at all. You see footage from the largest massacres, like Srebrenica - and there are a lot of women at the funerals. But visit a Bosnian village for a regular funeral - the women will gather some distance away from the actual mosque and cemetery. You may notice Bosniak women tend to wail much more than you'd witness in Western cultures, this is why - they had to be loud simply to be heard.

The most common exception to the rule above was caring for and cleaning the mosque. Women would spend their days at the mosque as though it was their home - sweeping, planting flowers, dusting, polishing, sitting on the steps for coffee - and they'd just leave or stand nearby when the prayer services began.

You can witness this today even in major cities with a lot of refugees from rural areas. For example, Tuzla is the fourth largest city in the country and women rarely attend services at the main downtown mosque:


[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2006 at 10:18

Originally posted by gcle2003

It seems to me that you're the one who has the problem with the Gospels because they don't back you up.

What do you have to say about my second reply to you?

Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2006 at 13:37

An arrow shot form the bow of ignorance always misses its mark. In case you never took a class in religious studies, u may read at ur leisure.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

"The Old Testament

The collection of books that the majority of Christians (including members of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches) call the Old Testament includes not only the 24 books of the Jewish Tanakh, but also certain deuterocanonical books preserved in the Greek of the Septuagint. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes seven such books (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [Ecclesiasticus], and Baruch), as well as some passages in Esther and Daniel, that are not included in the Jewish Scriptures. Various Orthodox Churches include a few others, typically 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, Odes, Psalms of Solomon, and occasionally even 4 Maccabees. Protestants in general do not recognize these books as truly part of the Bible, though they may print them along with the books they do recognize.

The New Testament

The New Testament is a collection of 27 books with Jesus as its central figure, written primarily in Koine Greek in the early Christian period, that almost all Christians recognize as Scripture. These can be grouped into:

Those "jewish  scriptures" u referred to are a part of the bible. Jesus was a jew. He upheld the mosaic law(earlier jewish scripture).

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17 KJV)<--GOSPEL

here is another flavour

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. (Mat 5:17 NET)

 

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2006 at 20:37
Originally posted by Maju

Originally posted by azimuth

Originally posted by Maju

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


Originally posted by Osmanli

How can one call your self an 'Islamic Reformer', since any changhe to Islam is consdered a 'Bidda' which is totally 'Haram' unlawfull.
I totally agree


In that case you should abandon all your hadith and sunna based practices, which are often even against the Quran.

That is truly haram.

the sunna is not again the Quran. not even a littel.

the sunna explains the quran in sayings and practice of the Prophet.



Actually, most of the time when discussion some of the Islamic practices, wether controversial or not, they aren't in the Quran but in the Sunna/Hadiths. This means that the essence has been decorated with much stuff that is not what The Prophet preached but what other say about his preaching, life or whatever.

And the very Quran, if I'm not wrong, warns that it is enough in itself.

I think that Sunna has corrupted Quran, like St. Paul and the Church dogma corrupted Christ's message. Not that I have anything against that corruption... but each thing must be named by their proper name.

Long life to corruption and distortion of the messengers' messages...

I agree with the bulk of that. Muslims should remember that the Qu'ran is the definition of Islam, and the sunnah is an aid to help you practice or understand it. You shouldn't start basing beliefs on Hadises alone.
The Sunnah hasn't corrupted the Qu'ran. Because the Qu'ran is still the same unchanged. The Church never had a Qu'ran, the bible is more like a lot of hadises strung together. Its what people think that Jesus said, not what he actually said.
You should always think about what your doing, or what or believing in. Since the message is preserved in the Qu'ran any thinking person should be able to figure out whats idle tradition and what is important sunnah.  Men and Women praying seperately in mosques, make sense. The mosque I got to is always packed, your always bumping into people. If you add girls into the mix (the girls currently have a separate section upstairs), suddenly your going to want to bump into them. Your whole reason for going to the Mosque will change from Piety to girls.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Feb-2006 at 08:20

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

This is what my friend said:

Now this is Gospel: (and rather long, but although it is not specifically spelled out when Jesus says: 20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' " then sexual immorality could definitely include homosexual behaviour.

Sexual immorality could include homosexual immorality. It doesn't follow that all homosexual behaviour is immoral, any more than all heterosexual behaviour is immoral.

It isnt however spelled out. Especially since sex out of marriage is a sexual immorality and marriage is specifically between a man and a woman.)

Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is 'immoral'. That's standard in most cultures. After all it amounts to breaking a promise if nothing else, and, as I've mentioned before elsewhere it endangers property inheritance rules.

The AV has

21:For from within, from the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

22: Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness;

23: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Which is reasonable enough, and in line with other passages that sin comes from within. But you notice 'homosexuality' per se is not mentioned. Adultery and fornication throughout the texts are frowned on, but in contexts that refer to illegitimate male-female relationships. 'Lasciviousness' means 'lust' of any kind.

Even if you do read into the text some condemnation of homosexuality per se (as opposed to homosexual lust or promiscuity) it still is only being classed with a whole string of other offences including pride and simple foolishness, not as something particularly to be condemned.

And the whole thing is subject to Jesus' overriding commandments to love your neighbour, and perhaps more than anything here, that no-one except those without sin should cast the first stone.

And who could consider himself to be able to do that without suffering himself from pride?

 



Edited by gcle2003
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Feb-2006 at 08:32
Originally posted by malizai_

An arrow shot form the bow of ignorance always misses its mark. In case you never took a class in religious studies, u may read at ur leisure.

As a matter of fact I even had a school textbook on comparative religion published (by McGraw-Hill) about 30 years ago. It was pretty widely used in UK schools.

I never actually taught a class in religious studies, but my collaborator on the book was a long-time professional RE teacher (and a Christian).



Edited by gcle2003
Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Feb-2006 at 09:33
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by malizai_

An arrow shot form the bow of ignorance always misses its mark. In case you never took a class in religious studies, u may read at ur leisure.

As a matter of fact I even had a school textbook on comparative religion published (by McGraw-Hill) about 30 years ago. It was pretty widely used in UK schools.

I never actually taught a class in religious studies, but my collaborator on the book was a long-time professional RE teacher (and a Christian).

U know what... reading back that comment of mine seems a bit arrogant and entirely unneccesary, sorry!! If anything that should have been a privately held view.

Back to Top
bg_turk View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2347
  Quote bg_turk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 20:14
Regarding Islamic calvinism, the BBC had an ineresting article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4788712.stm


A new form of Turkish Islam is emerging here, one which is pro-business and pro-free market, and it's being called Islamic Calvinism.


Back to Top
Scorpius View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 215
  Quote Scorpius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 00:07
Originally posted by Maju

 And the very Quran, if I'm not wrong, warns that it is enough in itself.
 
Clap
 
There is not an animal that crawls in the earth, nor a bird that flies on its two wings, but they are communities like you. WE have left out nothing in the Book. Then to their Lord shall they all be gathered together.
[6:38]
 
Shall I seek other than GOD as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.
[6:114]
 
Assuredly, in their narrative is a lesson for men of understanding. It is not a thing that has been forged, but a fulfillment of that which is before it and a detail exposition of all things, and a guidance and a mercy to people who believe.
[12:111]
 
These are revelations of God which we recite to you correctly: In what other lore but God and His manifestations would they then believe. Allas the woe for every dissembling sinner.
 
[45:6-7]
 
 
Back to Top
Scorpius View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 215
  Quote Scorpius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 00:30
Originally posted by OSMANLI

"So obey Allah and obey his Messenger..."
Qur'an 64:12
 
Where is the rest of the verse? The whole verse is:
 
You shall obey GOD and you shall obey the messenger. If you turn away, then the sole mission of our messenger is to deliver the message.
[64:12]
 
No doubt the message is Quran, and it is complete.
Back to Top
Scorpius View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 215
  Quote Scorpius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 00:46
Originally posted by Maju

Long life to corruption and distortion of the messengers' messages...
 
Quran is not corrupted. It is preserved.
What is corrupted is what Muslim world calls Hadiths.
 
Do you know what is Hadith?
After the death of prophet, like 200- 250 years after, some people began to collect claimed to be sayings of the prophet.
 
Imagine that you don't like Muslims.
Somebody comes to your door and asks:
 
Do you know any sayings from the prophet?
-- Yes of course! My grand grand father told my grand father. And my grand father told my father, and my father told me.
What is it?
..... Evil Smile In heaven men get 70 wifes!
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.