[quote author=minagir link=topic=9966.msg121995#msg121995 date=1289437088] [quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg121994#msg121994 date=1289436804] Damn man, that’s an hour and a half video. :D I’ll try watching the full movie, however, judging from the title of the video, I am sure it is another “Anti-Islamic” video that will take one side and tarnish it. I think we have all learned that the media could be very biased at times, and is not viable source to base our opinions on.
Eitherway, thanks for the video, I’ll try watching it, as I said.
well that's the thing about this video....i believe they get MOST of both sides. ya3ny there are many converts in this video..also many who wrote general books about Islam. But please watch and understand. i gave this to someone before......instead of listening and thinking about what the people say, he just googled the interviewees names and goes like "They are all just conservative people." and i am like "REALLY! that's all you got from an hour an half video of people taking about the reality of Islam.
I am currently watching the documentary, but it will take me a while to prepare a reply for that. lol Its quite long. :D
[quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg121999#msg121999 date=1289438317] I am currently watching the documentary, but it will take me a while to prepare a reply for that. lol Its quite long. :D
hehe...take your time....i watched this 3 times and still watch again.
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=9966.msg121974#msg121974 date=1289410939], As the heroes of WWI and WWII stopped Nazi Germany from overpowering Europe and Arianizing it; the crusaders stopped Europe from being under muslim rule.
The Crusades were a direct response to the MASSIVE muslim invation and annihilation of countless of Christian lands.
Had they not been stopped BY THE CRUSADES, we'd have been growing up in Saudi Europe.
Please don't glorify the Crusades, they were a disgusting display of human greed and bigotry which we must pray the world never repeats. They may as well have been waged in the name of Winnie the Pooh for all they had to do with religion - they were about money, power and politics. The 'Christian' crusaders seemed to know very little about Christ, because they made a habit of raping and pillaging everywhere they went; they considered their opponents heretics and thus, unworthy of basic human dignity. The instigators of the Crusades told their soldiers to go and murder the hell-bound heretics because God decreed it; how is this different from the sheikh who tells his flock to go and bomb the Kaafir for the same reason?
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9966.msg121982#msg121982 date=1289423237] It is not true at all that Christianity was spread by violence, far from it. It was spread at the cost of many thousands of Christians offering themselves to be put to death without violence.
Egyptians were not killed as Christianity became established in Egypt, nor in Syria, nor in Greece.
Can you provide details of where this violence occurred?
Christianity may have survived through the sacrifice of martyrs, but how it was spread was often another thing entirely. Unfortunately even our own Church has a nasty history of pagan oppression which we often forget - Christianity did not become the dominant religion in Egypt without the use of 'compulsion' I'm afraid, regardless of how much we'd like to believe it happened otherwise. The priestess Hypatia was mobbed and murdered by Coptic Christians (possibly lead by Pope Kyrillos I's own personal assistant). Pope Theophilus I orchestrated the burning of many pagan temples (confirmed epigraphically and archaeologically), acts which we perhaps wrongly, glorify in much of our literature but which amounts to exactly the same kind of compulsion in religion we criticise so harshly in other faiths. In St. Mark's time, Christianity's spread came only through sincere and heartfelt discussion and preaching, but by the 4th century, when Christianity became a state-endorsed religion, it opened the door for these kinds of atrocities.
Constantine the Great was just as bloody an Emperor as any of his pagan predecessors and in his reign and those of his successive Christian Emperors, pagan temples were burnt and plundered by Christian lay people and pagans banned from public employment, again, this is exactly the kind of forceful compulsion which we condemn in other religions. Let's not even get into the Salem Witch trials and the heretic burnings in Tudor England.
It is a sad but undeniable fact that many violent evils have been committed 'In the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit', but as MASR says, this only occurred when religion was used as a cover for political agendas - we would all agree that these acts had no justification in REAL Christianity. Make of that what you will.
[quote author=minagir link=topic=9966.msg122001#msg122001 date=1289438444] [quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg121999#msg121999 date=1289438317] I am currently watching the documentary, but it will take me a while to prepare a reply for that. lol Its quite long. :D
hehe...take your time....i watched this 3 times and still watch again.
First of all, let me point out that I am NOT an Imam nor am I the most knowledgeable when it comes to Islam. I am basing my views on the Quran and certain Hadiths, however, I have yet to “master” every detail of Islam. Thus, there are certain parts in the movie which I will not comment on due to “my ignorance” (That is the best word to use, I guess?).
3:20 – The scene which I believe involves the beheading of a “Western” The Quran states the following:
"When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly."
No where does it state the any person should simply be “beheaded”, unless it is “on the battlefield” which happens only through war.
The “Western” in that video seems to be a captive…and in Islam we are taught that captives are to be treated well and either are released for free or through a paid ransom.
Verses from the Quran to support this:
“O Prophet! Say unto those captives who are in your hands: If Allah knows any good in your hearts He will give you better than that which has been taken from you, and will forgive you. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (Al-Anfal: 70).
“Lo! The righteous shall drink of a cup whereof the mixture is of water of Kafur. A spring wherefrom the slaves of Allah drink, making it gush forth abundantly. Because they perform the vow and fear a day whereof the evil is wide spreading. And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him. (Saying): We feed you, for the sake of Allah only. We wish for no reward nor thanks from you.” (Al-Insan: 5-9).
5:10 – The speaker seems to indicate that the Quran sanctions and approves violence. That I have went through before, but will once again with Quranic verses to coincide with my statements.
First let me take out a few verses out of context from the Torah/Old Testament: "You shall destroy all the peoples ... showing them no pity." (7: 16) "... All the people present there shall serve you as forced labour." (20:12) "... You shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town -- all its spoil -- and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy which the LORD your God gives you." (20:14-15) "... You shall not let a soul remain alive." (20:17)
The violence is evident as well…
--
As for the women at 5:56 “There is no obligation in the religion (Quran – Bull: 256).
--
Abdullah Al Araby at 6:17 2:190-193 "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you ... And slay them wherever ye catch them ... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God ..." It clearly states “Those who fight you”…it is defensive, not offensive.
2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth and ye know not." Here good states we as Muslims are obliged to fight. Going back to the previous verse, it is to be done in self-defence…
It does not prescribe suicide or the killing of innocent people; correct me if I am wrong…
--
At around 7:00 it is stated that we as Muslims look at Mohamed as a model for us to follow. He is, to us, the greatest human to ever live. Most Christians feel the same about Jesus as well.
--
Walid Shoebat – 7:16
Before the Prophet of Islam arrived in Medina there were primarily two groups in Medina, the Jews and Pagans. The Jews were subdivided into three clans, the Banu Qainuqa, Banu Nazir and Banu Quraiza.
In an effort to unite the city in peace, the Prophet Muhammad drafted the Covenant of Medina (mithaq-i-Medina) in 622 CE, whose general terms were - Muslims and Jews shall live as one people, each one of the parties shall keep to its own faith, and neither shall interfere with that of the other. In the event of a war with a third party, each was bound to come to the assistance of the other, provided the latter were the aggrieved and not the aggressors. In the event of an attack on Medina, both shall join hands to defend it and peace, when desirable, shall be made after consultation with each other.
627, the Quraish (the chief aggressors towards Muhammad) decided to go against the Prophet Muhammad once again, after failing at the battles of Badr and Uhud.
This act of treason was designed to encompass the Muslims in battles on all sides, one that would eventually fail them.
Banu Qurayza were left alone to face the Muslims they betrayed (going against virtually every principle outlined within the Covenant of Medina).
This all brings us back to this verse: 2:190-193 "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you ... And slay them wherever ye catch them ... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God ..." -- 14:09 There are certain Hadiths that we as Muslims are not to follow because they are not compatible with the Quran. Some, in short, were made up, and they have been pointed out by Muslim Scholars through the year. Which is true, and which is not, I’m not sure. Excuse my ignorance!
That’s all I can watch for tonight, the rest I’ll do tomorrow!
Despite all what you said, there is one thing that i can comment on: "At around 7:00 it is stated that we as Muslims look at Mohamed as a model for us to follow. He is, to us, the greatest human to ever live. [glow=red,2,300]Most Christians feel the same about Jesus as well[/glow]. "
We, as Christians, believe in the Holy Trinity as God; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. If a person doesn't believe in this and says he is a Christian, he is NOT. This is despite everything within Christianity and all the denominations. Any other belief against this basic one is considered a CULT......or simply not christian.
I am sorry to cut what you said, but this is very important. That's why the Qur'an cannot mix with the Bible because it simply doesn't accept this belief.....so since it, the Quran, cannot confirm this belief, there is NO REASON to bother arguing about anything else between the 2 religions/2 books.
I heard a couple of debates of Muslims and Christians (like organized respectful debates).....almost all the time, Muslims, to begin attacking Christianity, they must attack this belief first to enter into the door of the rest of the beliefs. They try to do that with bringing the status of Jesus Christ, the Son of God=God the Son, using the Bible which they do really well taking a verse or two without context.....not only that, but they also simply ignore the ones that CONFIRM that belief when Christ Himself says "I am the Son of God."
With all due respect Masr the verse of No compulsion in Religion is Abrogated!!! and is replaced with the Verse of the Sword in al Tawba.
"Qatelo alzeni la yemeno bellah wa rasulo 7ata ya3to al Jizya wahom sagheroon" ie "Fight those who dont believe in Allah and the Prophet till they pay the Jizzya while they are subdued"
Any Muslim scholar will till you that "No compulsion in Religion" is abrogated (Period). And If you came here trying to deceive us may God forgive you! but if you truly didn't know that it was abrogated then you better reconsider re-learning what Islam is before defending it.
What do you mean by "abrogated"...that is a verse from the Quran. I am not here to decieve anyone, I'm here to have healthy discussion with fellow Egyptians. We have our differences, but that does not mean I am decieving anyone.
Thank You.
Abrogation means VOID, or lifted, nullified, non used - Mansoo5a in arabic meaning you cannot use that verse. If you read the Quran allah tells muhammad that if 2 verses contradict each other go with the verse that is revealed to you last. For Example If I tell you apples are good in one verse and in another I say apples are haram (forbidden) which one you fallow?? The scholar will have to see which verse came first and which came last and the later verse wins.
If you also read Al Baqara or Chapter 2.106 ( from http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/) "Such of our revelation as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?" مَا نَنسَخۡ مِنۡ ءَايَةٍ أَوۡ نُنسِهَا نَأۡتِ بِخَيۡرٍ۬ مِّنۡہَآ أَوۡ مِثۡلِهَآۗ أَلَمۡ تَعۡلَمۡ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىۡءٍ۬ قَدِيرٌ
If you do some research or go on most Islamic sites it will tell you the Lists of the Abrogated Verses and what they were abrogated by which verse. And like I said like the verse of No compuslion in religion is abrogated by the verse of the Sword.
By the way is your name Tarek?
Great discussion by the way and Salam al Massiah - Peace of Christ to all.
[quote author=epchois_nai_nan link=topic=9966.msg122002#msg122002 date=1289439314] Please don't glorify the Crusades,
Hi Epchoice NaiNan,
Thanks for your comments. Many people feel the same you do concerning the Crusdaes. Two wrongs don't make a right. However, you completely missed the point I was making:
If it wasn't for the crusades, no matter how ugly it was, we'd have been living in Saudi Europe/Eurabia. Had there been NO resistance towards the Islamic Conquerors, then we'd be speaking Arabic in Europe.
Agreed, we cannot deny the greed that went on with the crusaders, but I appreciate the fact that if it wasn't for the crusades, we'd never have had our European civilization until today.
Also, please don't forget the WAY in which the Islamic conquerers came in with their force? The arabized and islamized everywhere they went. I think the series of videos that I posted clearly and correctly explains this.
I've been doing some research on the aboragted issue, but I have yet to reach a conclusion. However, the verse goes as follows:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?
With all due respect Masr the verse of No compulsion in Religion is Abrogated!!! and is replaced with the Verse of the Sword in al Tawba.
"Qatelo alzeni la yemeno bellah wa rasulo 7ata ya3to al Jizya wahom sagheroon" ie "Fight those who dont believe in Allah and the Prophet till they pay the Jizzya while they are subdued"
Any Muslim scholar will till you that "No compulsion in Religion" is abrogated (Period). And If you came here trying to deceive us may God forgive you! but if you truly didn't know that it was abrogated then you better reconsider re-learning what Islam is before defending it.
What do you mean by "abrogated"...that is a verse from the Quran. I am not here to decieve anyone, I'm here to have healthy discussion with fellow Egyptians. We have our differences, but that does not mean I am decieving anyone.
Thank You.
Abrogation means VOID, or lifted, nullified, non used - Mansoo5a in arabic meaning you cannot use that verse. If you read the Quran allah tells muhammad that if 2 verses contradict each other go with the verse that is revealed to you last. For Example If I tell you apples are good in one verse and in another I say apples are haram (forbidden) which one you fallow?? The scholar will have to see which verse came first and which came last and the later verse wins.
If you also read Al Baqara or Chapter 2.106 ( from http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/) "Such of our revelation as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?" مَا نَنسَخۡ مِنۡ ءَايَةٍ أَوۡ نُنسِهَا نَأۡتِ بِخَيۡرٍ۬ مِّنۡہَآ أَوۡ مِثۡلِهَآۗ أَلَمۡ تَعۡلَمۡ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىۡءٍ۬ قَدِيرٌ
If you do some research or go on most Islamic sites it will tell you the Lists of the Abrogated Verses and what they were abrogated by which verse. And like I said like the verse of No compuslion in religion is abrogated by the verse of the Sword.
By the way is your name Tarek?
Great discussion by the way and Salam al Massiah - Peace of Christ to all.
[quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg122078#msg122078 date=1289572664] I've been doing some research on the aboragted issue, but I have yet to reach a conclusion. However, the verse goes as follows:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?
hey..that's not the translation of the verse.... Arabic is here: 2 english that go with it (other than the english provided before): Sahih International "We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?" Muhsin Khan "Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?" http://quran.com/2
what's weird is that....the arabic is not that hard to translate: "whatever we write of verse(s) or make forget, we come with a better one or similar....don't you know that God is able to do all things.
I speak to many muslims, even outside of religious dialogue, and they tell me that they cannot deal with me because I am a kafir.
Look: Your god hates non believers (muslims). Therefore, it is the duty of each and every muslim to also hate what your god hates and love what your god loves. So, we are hated. This hatred is manifested in many situations.
I had a discussion with a muslim who said that, in Islam, a non believer is as guilty and as sinful as a rapist or a murderer. In our state, in not accepting your prophet, we are equal to murderers and rapists.
Do you see where terrorism comes from? You YOURSELF may not see us this way, but your Quran tells those of your religion to see us this way.
The reasoning of your fellow muslims and Imams is this:
--> Why should Allah love the non believers like he loves the believers (muslims). That would mean that Allah is unfair, and does not reward the believer. No! Allah is fair and therefore he loves the believer more than the non believer. So, as allah hates the non-believer, so they too also hate what he hates, and this hatred can be expressed in MANY different forms depending on the situation in which a muslim can get away with:
It could range from prejudice, killing, murder, anything. This is Allah-Endorsed hatred.
When the mujahedeen went to Serbia to help their bosnian "brothers" against Serb forces, those they captured were all slaughtered. The point is this: The Mujahedeen were "dying" and begging their leaders if they could kill their Kafir captives. This is abnormal. This is their God telling them "Go and kill and enjoy it".
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29 Jizya is the money that non-Muslims must pay to their Muslim overlords in a pure Islamic state.)
Here: Your Quran CLEARLY states that your god does not love the unbelievers.
He does not love the unbelievers (30:45)
This is the EXACT opposite of our Bible. Our God's love is unconditional. It is consistent also. He loves those who loves Him and even those who hate Him. He allows His Sun to shine on the WICKED and the Righteous. Notice how the word "wicked" comes before the word "righteous" - not after.
So, the dogmatic theological principles of your religion is causing a LOT of problems for many people.
We are OK that you are muslim. We don't have a problem with anyone believing in whatever they want - but your religion is killing and making our people suffer.
Here are some more verses:
Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger": But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith. (3:32)
Now, look at this, if this was not hypocrisy: When a Christian is in a position of power of the muslim, look at what your prophet says:
" God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers." (Quran, chapter 60/ verse 8)
So, because we have not driven you out of your home, then be kind to us, but you know VERY well that your god hates us. YOU KNOW THIS!
See the video of Sayed Al Qimini that I posted. Read content being taught in Saudi Schools - Do you think that Saudi Arabia, being the "custodians" of the islamic faith COULD have misunderstood the Quran????? NO!
It clearly tells the children that the love for God has signs, and can be manifested by showing the kafireen anger /harshness and subjugating them.
MASR: This is your religion habibi. Welcome to Islam
Unfortuantely, you continue to take verses out of context and a reply with no substance what so ever. You keep turning this into a "my religion" "your religion" debate, which I will not get into because whatever we do we will always stick to our own morals which are based primarily in our religion.
Eitherway...
[009:029] Fight those from among the people of the Book, who believe not in ALLAH, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what ALLAH and HIS Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax considering it a favour and acknowledge their subjection.
Here is the answer: The above verse was revealed after the conquest of Mecca by the Muslims (Muslims had won the war against the pagans at this point and were in the process of establishing the Islamic laws over the land).
The verse states that the non-believers among the people of the book (Jews & Christians) who do not uphold their true religion and refuse to follow the new laws (Islamic Laws) of the land have to pay a tax (Jizya) or else they will be fought against.
It is essential to mention that Muslims themselves used to pay a tax called zakat (A pillar of Islam), of which a significant amount went straight to Bait el-mal (the treasury). It would be unfair for Muslims to contribute to the treasury and not the non-Muslims, don’t you think?
That tax was also put in place as an acknowledgement of the new rule of Islam over the land; those people had to accept that they are living under the rule of Muslims in the nation of Islam. Poor non-Muslims never had to pay this tax; in fact they were recipients of it in the form of charity.
We have to put the verses in context again:
[005:051] O you who believe, do not take (certain) Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors.
[005:052] You will see those who harbor doubt in their hearts hasten to join them, saying, "We fear lest we may be defeated." May GOD bring victory, or a command from Him, that causes them to regret their secret thoughts.
[005:053] The believers will then say, "Are these the same people who swore by GOD solemnly that they were with you?" Their works have been nullified; they are the losers.
These verses talk about believers (Muslims) who were not sure whether the Muslims will prevail in their struggle against the unbelievers or not; this is obvious from verse [005:052].
And as a result they took Jews and Christians as guardians or as backup just in case the Muslims lost. The Quran describes them as people with doubt or hypocrites (literally: people with disease in their hearts). They did not have full confidence in what they believed in, and consequently felt the need to have an escape plan in case of defeat.
Verse [005:051] states that Muslims should not make the Jews and Christians their guardians (over other Muslims), and not to entrust them with their lives as allies in war. The verse primarily refers to protection in time of war or hostility. It says not to take Jews and Christians as allies against whomever else we maybe fighting thinking that they will offer us protection in case we lost.
Verses from the Quran on Christianity:
"Oh People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of God anything but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in God and His messengers. Say not, 'Trinity.' Desist! It will be better for you, for God is One God, Glory be to Him! (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs" (4:171).
"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).
“And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allāh and your Allāh is One, and to Him do we submit.” “Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allāh and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.”
V.2:97 "Say (O Muhammad محمّد): 'Whoever is an enemy to Jibrael (Gabriel)(let him die in his fury), for indeed he has brought it (this Qur'ān) down to your heart by Allāh's Permission, confirming what came before it [i.e. the Taurāt, or Torah), and the Injeel or the Gospel] and guidance and glad tidings for the believers.'"
V.2:105 "Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) nor Al-Mushrikūn (the idolaters, polytheists, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allāh, pagans, etc.) like that there should be sent down unto you any good from your Lord. But Allāh chooses for His Mercy whom He wills. And Allāh is the Owner of Great Bounty."
V.2:113 "The Jews said that the Christians follow nothing (i.e. are not on the right religion); and the Christians said that the Jews follow nothing(i.e. are not on the right religion); though they both recite the Scripture. Like unto their word, said (the pagans) who know not. Allāh will judge between them on the Day of the Resurrection about that wherein they have been differing."
Many more verses are also avaliabe…
As for the He does not love the unbelievers (30:45) verse…
Judging from the previous verses, Christians and Jews are considered “people of the book” and who believe in a monotheistic God. However, In Islam we do not believe in the Trinity, and God states that as the downturn of Christianity and the Bible, which has been “tampered” with according to Islam. It does not mention that Christians are non-believers. Non-believers here are the pagans who continually waged war and breached treaties against Muslims.
You also mention the “Jizya” part, however, you fail to mention that EVERY Muslim also had to pay a similar amount under the notion of Zakat.
These are also verses from the Bible (which I will clearly take out of context, as you did)
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:8)
Who is false but he who says that Jesus is not the Christ? He is the Antichrist who has no belief in the Father or the Son. (John 2:22)
As you see, it is quite easy for anyone to post Youtube videos or go on Wikipedia and search Islam Violence, but that is not sufficent to build a full point view of a religion.
[quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg122083#msg122083 date=1289582019] Judging from the previous verses, Christians and Jews are considered “people of the book” and who believe in a monotheistic God. However, In Islam we do not believe in the Trinity, and God states that as the downturn of Christianity and the Bible, which has been “tampered” with according to Islam. It does not mention that Christians are non-believers. Non-believers here are the pagans who continually waged war and breached treaties against Muslims.
a couple of things here: You have not commented on what i said. yes you said "Islam doesn't believe in the Trinity"....yes, I KNOW THAT!! what i am asking is that why bother with speaking about the Gospels and the Bible if the belief of God, Him who brought down the Bible, is not the same?!
Also the idea of "waging" war is just crazy.......why does it always have to be about "physical" war....and for what?! Well you gonna say that Jews fought wars.....ok. but most of those wars were for land and other physical things rather than "FAITH" or a belief of a religion.
You also mention the “Jizya” part, however, you fail to mention that EVERY Muslim also had to pay a similar amount under the notion of Zakat.
But zakat is just "alms" which Christians and Jews do in their religions (10% goes to God). Did they force other unbelievers to pay something similar?! NO....on the contrary their money was sometimes considered a curse and a disgrace to be mixed with the true alms of the believers. So saying that unbelievers must pay Gizya because the believers have to pay zakat is just nonsense......it's truly "unfair" from the general universal understanding of fairness and not within the realm of Islam.
oh wait, i forgot...... in a verse above you said that 'Esa ebn Mariam "was (no more than) a messenger of God".....that's a heresy....because even in the verse that you just took out of context: "Who is false but he who says that Jesus is not the Christ? He is the Antichrist who has no belief in the Father or the Son. (John 2:22)"
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9966.msg121982#msg121982 date=1289423237] It is not true at all that Christianity was spread by violence, far from it. It was spread at the cost of many thousands of Christians offering themselves to be put to death without violence.
Egyptians were not killed as Christianity became established in Egypt, nor in Syria, nor in Greece.
Can you provide details of where this violence occurred?
When the Spanish liberated themselves from Islamic domination in Spain they were acting in a political/social manner. Why were the Muslims there? Because they have captured the land by violence? Why were the Muslims in Egypt? Because they captured the land by violence. Why did Muslims sweep across North Africa destroying ancient Christian civilizations wherever they went? Who asked them to? I don't know what the Spanish did in Spain, but they were freeing themselves as a political act, and if there were local excesses then this was not because of Christianity. Just as the bombs of the IRA were not Christian even if some of the terrorists thought they were Christians (there were not).
There were no Christian Armies which conquered Egypt, Greece, France, Britain etc etc. The Arab people's became Christian by their own desire and were given bishop George to minister to them.
When the Christian missionaries came to England they convinced the King to become a Christian by their manner of life. He refused to force anyone to become a Christian and allowed his people to respond to the Christian message as they chose. Indeed it is a Christian principle that belief cannot be forced.
Yet we know that throughout the history of Islamic oppression of Christian people's there has been a regular recourse to violence. The Armenian Genocide is just one of the more recent examples, in which 1,500,000 Armenian Christians were murdered, and the Islamic Imams of the Ottoman Empire had taught the ordinary people that killing Christians would be rewarded by Allah.
There is no general pattern of violence associated with Christianity (the use of violence by those claiming to be Christians does not count against the faith), yet throughout history Muslims have killed and enslaved Christians and others directly as a result of their Islamic faith. This does not mean all Muslims are at fault, but it does mean that it is reasonable to ask why the religion of Islam produces so much violence and continues to do so in a way that Christianity as a system of belief has never done.
This is so true Fr. Peter, I was reading 1Samuel:15 and it tells of how God told Saul to totally destroy a nation for going against Gods Laws. In the Old Testament there are many storys of wars and conflicts, but the New Testament teaches the 'new' way to love and pray for our enemies...turn the other cheek, do not answer reviling with reviling, be meek, gentle and longsuffering. This is the New Covenant which gave birth to Christianity as we Orthodox Christians know it. The teachings Christ gave to His Disciples to preach to a world lost in sin. Muslims do not believe in Christ though do they? So they are stuck on a way that has been made dead and void by the Blood of Christ. Very sad. We are at war, but not with flesh and blood but with 'spiritual' wickedness; which as mentioned is fought by fasting and praying, not bombing and slaying. Vengance belongs to God!!!
[quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg122083#msg122083 date=1289582019] Unfortuantely, you continue to take verses out of context and a reply with no substance what so ever. You keep turning this into a "my religion" "your religion" debate, which I will not get into because whatever we do we will always stick to our own morals which are based primarily in our religion.
MASR,
Seriously, with all due respect, it is only you that does not believe that your god hates infidels.
I'm not trying NOR interested in debating you. This is not a matter of debate. We are here talking about DISTURBING NEWS for the COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH (and all Christians in the Middle East - in General).
Maybe you, MASR, do not hate infidels, but then again, you just learnt what the word Abrogate means - and Abrogation is a concept in Islam you were not aware of. What else then are you unaware of?
This is clear that muslims who are moderate are SIMPLY moderate because of their LACK of understanding of their own religion.
You know who is more dangerous than the fanatical muslims screaming to kill the Christians?? PEOPLE LIKE YOU MASR!! You scare me more! You hide the real face of Islam, and you have your head in the sand.
If you think, in your logic, that a muslim who hates or kills in the name of his god, is only for political gains, then Islam is Political - this is the conclusion that you have not come to. It is the LOGICAL CONCLUSION that you are not only accepting, but are denying. This denial is causing the death of innocent people MASR!!!!
I COULDNT respectfually care less if you are a muslim , Copt, Jew, Buddhist. Be whatever you want, but your religion is causing a lot of dammage to the lives of many many people.
i think some debate is needed though. it's good to see both sides discussing this because you can only explain something if you can listen to the person you're talking to. i know many people like masr, and, while they need to understand the political nature of their religion, they also have very valuable contributions to make to the debate.
[quote author=mabsoota link=topic=9966.msg122091#msg122091 date=1289589634] i think some debate is needed though. it's good to see both sides discussing this because you can only explain something if you can listen to the person you're talking to. i know many people like masr, and, while they need to understand the political nature of their religion, they also have very valuable contributions to make to the debate.
exactly....so i think we need to come down and LISTEN to each other.
On a different note, could someone please posts links to the Islamic websites that are supporting such acts against Copitcs in Egypt, and Chrisitans in the Middle East?
Thanks alot.
And I agree that debating these issues are extremely important, because the Muslim-Coptic issue will only continue to detriorate as Muslims and Coptics in Egypt continue to become more conservative. I believe that political change in Egypt would also play a huge role in the issue. Eitherway, that was my main intent on signing up here, I wanted to discuss with fellow Egyptians how they view Islam and the current state of Egypt overall. Its a healthy debate in the end!
[quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg122099#msg122099 date=1289596871] On a different note, could someone please posts links to the Islamic websites that are supporting such acts against Copitcs in Egypt, and Chrisitans in the Middle East?
there are many random things that come up online.
And I agree that debating these issues are extremely important, because the Muslim-Coptic issue will only continue to detriorate as Muslims and Coptics in Egypt continue to become more conservative. I believe that political change in Egypt would also play a huge role in the issue. Eitherway, that was my main intent on signing up here, I wanted to discuss with fellow Egyptians how they view Islam and the current state of Egypt overall. Its a healthy debate in the end!
i doubt that "political" change will do much. actually with out thse at office right now, we as Christians and mostly coptic orthodox, would be living in fear all the time. Sheikh El-azhar himself and our pope are great people who worry about national unity rather than religious difference. But the mind set of the people is what you can't control.
[quote author=minagir link=topic=9966.msg122101#msg122101 date=1289598696] [quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg122099#msg122099 date=1289596871] On a different note, could someone please posts links to the Islamic websites that are supporting such acts against Copitcs in Egypt, and Chrisitans in the Middle East?
there are many random things that come up online.
And I agree that debating these issues are extremely important, because the Muslim-Coptic issue will only continue to detriorate as Muslims and Coptics in Egypt continue to become more conservative. I believe that political change in Egypt would also play a huge role in the issue. Eitherway, that was my main intent on signing up here, I wanted to discuss with fellow Egyptians how they view Islam and the current state of Egypt overall. Its a healthy debate in the end!
i doubt that "political" change will do much. actually with out thse at office right now, we as Christians and mostly coptic orthodox, would be living in fear all the time. Sheikh El-azhar himself and our pope are great people who worry about national unity rather than religious difference. But the mind set of the people is what you can't control.
Political change is absolutely necessary. I understand that most Coptics fear that the Brotherhood would come into power and deprive them of all their basic rights. However, had Egypt been a democracy, which respects ALL ethnic and religious groups, would we be in the current condition? Would we have the Brotherhood rise to power? Would we find Coptics in North America calling to “return Egypt to its original inhabitants”? Would we have Bedouins in Sinai who plot against the government? Would we have the Noubians in the South living with practically no rights whatsoever? I really doubt it. It is 60 years of a military dictatorship that has led to the current state of Egypt, and a more conservative Muslim and Coptic population.
I do not want to turn this political. We do not need the Egyptian authorities to issue search and arrest warrants against us. :D
[quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg122112#msg122112 date=1289609907] Political change is absolutely necessary. I understand that most Coptics fear that the Brotherhood would come into power and deprive them of all their basic rights. However, had Egypt been a democracy, which respects ALL ethnic and religious groups, would we be in the current condition? Would we have the Brotherhood rise to power? Would we find Coptics in North America calling to “return Egypt to its original inhabitants”? Would we have Bedouins in Sinai who plot against the government? Would we have the Noubians in the South living with practically no rights whatsoever? I really doubt it. It is 60 years of a military dictatorship that has led to the current state of Egypt, and a more conservative Muslim and Coptic population. I do not want to turn this political. We do not need the Egyptian authorities to issue search and arrest warrants against us. :D
hahaha....your mind went there to.....wow.
El-Ekhwan will never take over....the current government is corrupt enough that they will never let that happen. forget what the Copts outside say....personally speaking, they make no difference. They just keep talking...America will not do anything extra; we here have our own problems. Why would be eave that and go help anyone else. it was funny when Obama took office, they asked his grandma back in Kenya i think or some African country. THey said "what do you expect from him?" will she said, "He is an america who became and president for america to lead america..doing what's good for America."
Bedouins....they don't care much about the government. They care more about themselves. there ppl in the government who HATE the government....why worry about this who live in the sahara that far and leave those who live in your own backyard?!
Noubia.....that was a problem long time ago and if i am not mistaken, they were just separated around the time the English were in egypt.....to make Egypt weaker, they kind of set/limited its borders from the 2 sides.
What you are dealing with now is the corrupt generation of Sadat.
[quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg122099#msg122099 date=1289596871] On a different note, could someone please posts links to the Islamic websites that are supporting such acts against Copitcs in Egypt, and Chrisitans in the Middle East?
I'll provide you the Islamic websites, but you only need to answer one simple question rather than look at websites:
Does your god, Allah, love those that do not accept him nor his prophet? Yes or No?
Here is a link to the Islamic forums that support acts against copts and all Christians in the Middle East:
MASR, like I'm saying, if we were talking about a handful of people of use the Quran for political gains then there would be no need for this thread or discussion. But we are talking about systematic hatred of kafirs in EVERY aspect of muslim life.
My best friend was muslim. When he got married, his wife told me that she agreed with 9/11. Then I met these other muslims who ALSO agreed with 9/11. They only told me they agreed because they thought i was muslim also.
MASR, please, respectfully, answer us the context in which these verses in the quran talking about hatred towards the kafireen (non muslims) are meant to be taken in??
Also, do you realize that your problem is not with us, TELLING US what these verses are meant to mean. Your problem is with the Saudi Ministry of Education who publish the most offensive material against non muslims in their manahig (curriculums). You need to convince them.
What did you make out of Sayed Al Qimini's video!???
Oh! And by the way: The Jizya was for us to pay to be PROTECTED. We are talking about a humiliation tax:
Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and his messenger have forbidden - such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the book - until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled (humiliated). Surah al-Baqara 9:29
And I agree that debating these issues are extremely important,
I don't like this term "debate" ya MASR. I feel as if we have two sides in a debate:
Does Islam promote Violence and hatred against non muslims or does it not.
I've given you proofs from the Quran and quotes from Imams that your god does not love the Kafireen. Does he? You keep on answering and saying "You have quoted this out of context".
This is exactly the same response that the head of the King Fahad Academy in West London said to Jeremy Paxman when he asked her "Do you repudiate the fact that your school teaches that Jews are monkeys and CHristians are Pigs?"
She said "These quotes have been taken out of context"
He said :"OK.. you explain to me the context. Explain to us what they are meant to mean?" She couldnt answer. All she could say was use the magical words: "These have been taken out of context".
MASR, if I think my best friend is a nice guy, that's nice. If ONE person comes to me and says: "Look zoxsasi, he is extremely offensive and violent", I may brush this person off. I may even punish him for insulting my friend. But if 10 or more people tell me the SAME about this person, EVEN his parents tell me that their son is violent and has a problem, then I would be foolish to ignore that he has a problem.
You are ignoring this problem. You are ignoring that we are not talking about a "handful" of criminals.
We are talking about entire muslim nations.
because the Muslim-Coptic issue will only continue to detriorate as Muslims and Coptics in Egypt continue to become more conservative. I believe that political change in Egypt would also play a huge role in the issue. Eitherway, that was my main intent on signing up here, I wanted to discuss with fellow Egyptians how they view Islam and the current state of Egypt overall. Its a healthy debate in the end!
MASR, I disagree with you. The Ikhwan Al Muslemeen (Muslim Brotherhood), although outlawed in Egypt, have now 20 seats in Parliment because their members ran as independents. TWENTY members of the muslim brotherhood are in office!!! Support for them is even growing. Even El Baradei has tried to make an alliance with them to form a new government.
There is a clear support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This implies that there is an Islamic populous who believe that God hates the infidel and it is UNFAIR to treat who God hates the SAME way as treating those whom their god loves.
This is the Sharia Law in a nutshell. This is Islam in a nutshell!!
So, if the verses that I've posted have been taken OUT OF context, then what is the correct context? Explain to me PLEASE (PLEASE!!) the Quranic verse that says:
He does not love the unbelievers (30:45)
Explain this??
I'm not turning this into a MY RELIGION vs YOUR Religion debate. This is the : HERE IS WHAT IS CAUSING TERRORISM DEBATE AGAINST THE COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH: ISLAM!
You keep on telling me that these verses were taken out of context, but you don't explain the context they are meant to be taken in.
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=9966.msg122119#msg122119 date=1289637845] [quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg122099#msg122099 date=1289596871] On a different note, could someone please posts links to the Islamic websites that are supporting such acts against Copitcs in Egypt, and Chrisitans in the Middle East?
I'll provide you the Islamic websites, but you only need to answer one simple question rather than look at websites:
Does your god, Allah, love those that do not accept him nor his prophet? Yes or No?
Here is a link to the Islamic forums that support acts against copts and all Christians in the Middle East:
MASR, like I'm saying, if we were talking about a handful of people of use the Quran for political gains then there would be no need for this thread or discussion. But we are talking about systematic hatred of kafirs in EVERY aspect of muslim life.
My best friend was muslim. When he got married, his wife told me that she agreed with 9/11. Then I met these other muslims who ALSO agreed with 9/11. They only told me they agreed because they thought i was muslim also.
MASR, please, respectfully, answer us the context in which these verses in the quran talking about hatred towards the kafireen (non muslims) are meant to be taken in??
Also, do you realize that your problem is not with us, TELLING US what these verses are meant to mean. Your problem is with the Saudi Ministry of Education who publish the most offensive material against non muslims in their manahig (curriculums). You need to convince them.
What did you make out of Sayed Al Qimini's video!???
Oh! And by the way: The Jizya was for us to pay to be PROTECTED. We are talking about a humiliation tax:
Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and his messenger have forbidden - such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the book - until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled (humiliated). Surah al-Baqara 9:29
And I agree that debating these issues are extremely important,
I don't like this term "debate" ya MASR. I feel as if we have two sides in a debate:
Does Islam promote Violence and hatred against non muslims or does it not.
I've given you proofs from the Quran and quotes from Imams that your god does not love the Kafireen. Does he? You keep on answering and saying "You have quoted this out of context".
This is exactly the same response that the head of the King Fahad Academy in West London said to Jeremy Paxman when he asked her "Do you repudiate the fact that your school teaches that Jews are monkeys and CHristians are Pigs?"
She said "These quotes have been taken out of context"
He said :"OK.. you explain to me the context. Explain to us what they are meant to mean?" She couldnt answer. All she could say was use the magical words: "These have been taken out of context".
MASR, if I think my best friend is a nice guy, that's nice. If ONE person comes to me and says: "Look zoxsasi, he is extremely offensive and violent", I may brush this person off. I may even punish him for insulting my friend. But if 10 or more people tell me the SAME about this person, EVEN his parents tell me that their son is violent and has a problem, then I would be foolish to ignore that he has a problem.
You are ignoring this problem. You are ignoring that we are not talking about a "handful" of criminals.
We are talking about entire muslim nations.
because the Muslim-Coptic issue will only continue to detriorate as Muslims and Coptics in Egypt continue to become more conservative. I believe that political change in Egypt would also play a huge role in the issue. Eitherway, that was my main intent on signing up here, I wanted to discuss with fellow Egyptians how they view Islam and the current state of Egypt overall. Its a healthy debate in the end!
MASR, I disagree with you. The Ikhwan Al Muslemeen (Muslim Brotherhood), although outlawed in Egypt, have now 20 seats in Parliment because their members ran as independents. TWENTY members of the muslim brotherhood are in office!!! Support for them is even growing. Even El Baradei has tried to make an alliance with them to form a new government.
There is a clear support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This implies that there is an Islamic populous who believe that God hates the infidel and it is UNFAIR to treat who God hates the SAME way as treating those whom their god loves.
This is the Sharia Law in a nutshell. This is Islam in a nutshell!!
So, if the verses that I've posted have been taken OUT OF context, then what is the correct context? Explain to me PLEASE (PLEASE!!) the Quranic verse that says:
He does not love the unbelievers (30:45)
Explain this??
I'm not turning this into a MY RELIGION vs YOUR Religion debate. This is the : HERE IS WHAT IS CAUSING TERRORISM DEBATE AGAINST THE COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH: ISLAM!
You keep on telling me that these verses were taken out of context, but you don't explain the context they are meant to be taken in.
You’re asking me the same questions I answered before and posted verses to prove it.
I’ll do it all over again…
Verses from the Quran on Christianity:
"Oh People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of God anything but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in God and His messengers. Say not, 'Trinity.' Desist! It will be better for you, for God is One God, Glory be to Him! (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs" (4:171).
"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).
“And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allāh and your Allāh is One, and to Him do we submit.” “Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allāh and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.”
V.2:97 "Say (O Muhammad محمّد): 'Whoever is an enemy to Jibrael (Gabriel)(let him die in his fury), for indeed he has brought it (this Qur'ān) down to your heart by Allāh's Permission, confirming what came before it [i.e. the Taurāt, or Torah), and the Injeel or the Gospel] and guidance and glad tidings for the believers.'"
V.2:105 "Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) nor Al-Mushrikūn (the idolaters, polytheists, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allāh, pagans, etc.) like that there should be sent down unto you any good from your Lord. But Allāh chooses for His Mercy whom He wills. And Allāh is the Owner of Great Bounty."
V.2:113 "The Jews said that the Christians follow nothing (i.e. are not on the right religion); and the Christians said that the Jews follow nothing(i.e. are not on the right religion); though they both recite the Scripture. Like unto their word, said (the pagans) who know not. Allāh will judge between them on the Day of the Resurrection about that wherein they have been differing."
Many more verses are also avaliabe…
As for the He does not love the unbelievers (30:45) verse…
Judging from the previous verses, Christians and Jews are considered “people of the book” and who believe in a monotheistic God. However, In Islam we do not believe in the Trinity, and God states that as the downturn of Christianity and the Bible, which has been “tampered” with according to Islam. It does not mention that Christians are non-believers. Non-believers here are the pagans who continually waged war and breached treaties against Muslims.
Furthermore: In particular, Sabians (probably the followers of John the Baptist), Jews and Christians “shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve” if they have faith in the one true God, believe in the hereafter, and do good (2:62, 5:69). Christians who worship Jesus as God will not enter paradise unless they turn to the forgiving and merciful God in repentance (2:72-74), but the Qur`anic judgment will be exactly the same if some Muslims deified Muhammad and started to worship him.
Other religions are viewed as a mixture of divine light brought by the true messengers of God and errors introduced by some of their followers. Therefore the functions of the Qur`an include being a confirmer (musaddiq) (2:97, 3:3) and guard (muhaymin) (5:48) of the divine light in earlier religions, identifying serious errors introduced by some of their adherents (5:116, 57:27) and resolving some of their differences (27:76-79). Thus the Qur`an maintains an attitude of constructive criticism towards other religious traditions. The same is true of the followers of those traditions. They are not painted with the same brush (3:69 etc); rather the Qur`an expressly states that “they are not all alike” (3:113). It praises some of their good qualities while criticizes some of their weaknesses (57:27, 5:13-14, 9:31, 34). In this regard it is important to note that such a critical attitude is not reserved for only non-believers. Believers and even the Prophet himself can be criticized for some of their failings (62:11, 66:1, 80:1-12).
All these outline how God views people who worship “humans”. However, he does not command us to “slay them” not “kill them”. Those other verses appear at the time of warfare, and deceit by the non-believers, most of them pagans.
However you are over generalizing this who issue. I would recommend you to have more knowledge prior to building a full viewpoint on Islam as a religion and the Quran as a divine Holy Book. I’m not here to discuss Muslims, nor their acts or your best friend and his wife; I’m here to attempt (at least) to prove that such people from Al Qaeda in Yemen and Baghdad are contradicting the very basic principles of Islam itself.
Saudi Arabia is the homeland of Wahabism and Salafism, a “sect” of Islam whose goal is to dominate the world…pretty much. Why don’t you look at Al Azhar? They represent all Sunni Muslims, look at their university, they teach Islam as well…
However, I agree 100% with the educational aspect, and what children are fed at such a young age. But again, our whole damn educational system is in need of an overhaul…
Now to the Brotherhood… You would have to be naïve and not knowledgeable about Egyptian politics to truly believe that the Brotherhood garnered those seats in a “transparent” election. It is known that the ruling party sits down and plans out who wins what. Furthermore, at the time Egypt was under great pressure by the US to overhaul the political system into a more democratic one. Our beloved Hosni Mubarak thus, in order to freak out the Americans (who would never want the MB) gave them 20 seats…which in theory is far from a large number. The Brotherhood ONLY have support in places with high poverty because they feed them, provide better healthcare, etc. Other than that, there is very little support. You should read a book called “Inside Egypt” it will give you better perspective into the 2005 Brotherhood fraud.
As for El Baradei, he was NOT looking to form a new government with them and you know that! All they did was assist him in gaining more signatures for his petition against the government calling for 7 specific constitutional changes. El Baradei stated more than once that all opposition groups must form an alliance to gain enough power to enforce those seven changes, and later each would take their own path, and also stated that he had fundamental disagreements with the ideology of the MB. However, what is true is that the MB is the most organized and efficient opposition group…unfortunately. By the way, El Baradei can not even nominate himself for the presidency, let alone “Form a government” with the MB. Please…
You need to be more open-minded to this issue.
Muslims, Coptics and Jews all lived together with equal rights prior to the Nasser’s revolution…I continue to believe that this minimal violence is alien to our society.
There is not one Islamic State which is not at war. If you go from the Moroccan shores to the South China Sea, it is all war.
This is not conservatism. It is reality.
Theoretically, Saudi Arabia, is the custodian of the Peaceful intents of Islam. Why are there no churches in Saudi Arabia, if there was such a high acceptance of us as a 'People of the Book'?
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9966.msg122136#msg122136 date=1289662257] There is not one Islamic State which is not at war. If you go from the Moroccan shores to the South China Sea, it is all war.
This is not conservatism. It is reality.
Theoretically, Saudi Arabia, is the custodian of the Peaceful intents of Islam. Why are there no churches in Saudi Arabia, if there was such a high acceptance of us as a 'People of the Book'?
"Islamic" States are mostly run by dictators, thus we have everlasting issues, that even Coptics in Egypt suffer from. Saudi Arabia is a corrupt, failed state, and personally I believe there should be more tolerance towards other religions. Why not build a church in a city close to Mecca for example? Would it not be sign of gesture, peace and tolerance? I see nothing in the Quran that commands us not to do so. There is so much one could say about Saudi Arabia...but I'll leave it there.
We do not disagree on your point however the reasons for such wars differ. Islam is not always the reason for wars. The Middle East is home to resources that other parts of the world are in great need of...
There is not even that tolerance to allow a church to be built anywhere in Saudi Arabia.
Is Iran a dictatorship? Is Turkey a dictatorship? Iran is a theocracy. It is supposedly the embodiment of Islamic principles in all aspects of government and society. Turkey is a democracy. Yet it is carrying things out and with the same end results. What is the common thread between the two?
There is not even that tolerance to allow a church to be built anywhere in Saudi Arabia.
Is Iran a dictatorship? Is Turkey a dictatorship? Iran is a theocracy. It is supposedly the embodiment of Islamic principles in all aspects of government and society. Turkey is a democracy. Yet it is carrying things out and with the same end results. What is the common thread between the two?
Iran is very much a dictatorship. No free media, torture, human rights, etc. Turkey is rising, attempting to put "their past behind them". I think their secular state is a positive example for all Middle Easterns. Islamic doctorine states the principle of "Shura", which in its essence is compatable with democracy. Yet Iran, which prides itself for being "A Muslim state" ignores the concept of Shura. Pure contradiction.
The world is full of wars and voilence, Islam is not rooted in every country that is in war and instablity...
I think that most factual political scientist would put Iran as a Theocracy, an extension of the ayatullahs and mullahs, as guardians of proper teaching. The Prime Minister or any governmental body are a physical reach of these clerics and an extension of enforcement of the dictates of Islam.
In regard to Turkey, they are by no means secular, they have changed course to a more "islamic society", as pronounced by the people's plebicide. Even if you go to Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, you will see the same detraction from a secular portion of government to the "islamic society". These were all carried out, theoretically, by free elections, and reflect the will of the people. Are the voting blocks in these noted nations just one sector? Are they only Islamists? If they are then it identifies what has been stated previously by other posts in this thread that it is a general trend within the movement of Islam. If the majority was so empowered with a proper voice then a proper truth would emerge--eventually.
If you look of the fall of Communism in the USSR, Eastern Europe, it happened because the people willed it so. The reason why it exists, still, in China, Cuba, North Korea, is because the people will it so.
The reason why Islam conducts itself through the different nations by autocracy, democracy, or theocracy is because of the majority will of the people. The governmental heads, even dictators, are a reflection of the people's will. If the majority of Islam was for peace and love, there would be the will, eventually, to carry forward with that evolution, declaration, and implementation.
1400 years have passed since the founding of Islam. Yet, I have yet to see any witness in the annals of this historical period for a utopian regard as you mention. I hope you realize that my comments are relative to stated interpretations by westerners and easterners, christian and muslim. I do not think that one can contradict the above. One may try to move in the verbal manuevers but lets look at the reality of the situation.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9966.msg122141#msg122141 date=1289666139] I think that most factual political scientist would put Iran as a Theocracy, an extension of the ayatullahs and mullahs, as guardians of proper teaching. The Prime Minister or any governmental body are a physical reach of these clerics and an extension of enforcement of the dictates of Islam.
In regard to Turkey, they are by no means secular, they have changed course to a more "islamic society", as pronounced by the people's plebicide. Even if you go to Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, you will see the same detraction from a secular portion of government to the "islamic society". These were all carried out, theoretically, by free elections, and reflect the will of the people. Are the voting blocks in these noted nations just one sector? Are they only Islamists? If they are then it identifies what has been stated previously by other posts in this thread that it is a general trend within the movement of Islam. If the majority was so empowered with a proper voice then a proper truth would emerge--eventually.
If you look of the fall of Communism in the USSR, Eastern Europe, it happened because the people willed it so. The reason why it exists, still, in China, Cuba, North Korea, is because the people will it so.
The reason why Islam conducts itself through the different nations by autocracy, democracy, or theocracy is because of the majority will of the people. The governmental heads, even dictators, are a reflection of the people's will. If the majority of Islam was for peace and love, there would be the will, eventually, to carry forward with that evolution, declaration, and implementation.
1400 years have passed since the founding of Islam. Yet, I have yet to see any witness in the annals of this historical period for a utopian regard as you mention. I hope you realize that my comments are relative to stated interpretations by westerners and easterners, christian and muslim. I do not think that one can contradict the above. One may try to move in the verbal manuevers but lets look at the reality of the situation.
Turkey has a majority of Muslims, thus it will always remain “Islamic” in its nature, customs, values, etc. But they have successfully separated “Mosque” from the “state”. For a period in time, Turkey had practically abandoned Arab and Middle Eastern politics. Today, and with Erodgan as prime minister, Turkish policies have formed a more “united Muslim” ideology in Turkey.
You have “Christian” parties in various political landscapes in Europe, as long as they abide to the constitution, and respect the secular nature of the state, they are able to rule.
Free elections are evident in Turkey, and human right violations are in continued cycle of reduction.
Do you think the majority in Egypt support the current government? I think we can safely say no. Do you think most Iranian support their government? The protest following Ahamdinejads re-election proved otherwise.
Islam civilizations such as Al Andalus were (early on at least) ruled under the notion of Shura, people had rights and the population prospered in science and other fields.
I think the problem once again remains with power-hungry rulers; it has nothing to do with religion. Mubarak is not ruling Egypt under Sharia Law, yet we still have no rights. Castro was not inspired by Islam when he led Cuba to their current state…
I do not think that a partial example that you cite of Al Andalus (early on, as you write) is a strong basis to make a distinction that Islam has open arms and tolerance for all peoples.
I beg to differ on the aspects of Turkey's Government. Because of its recent extremist trends, allowance of church bombings, etc., this has been the main basis for its discounted application for the European Union.
European Christian parties abide within their constitutions.
Islamic parties abide within their constitutions. The only difference between European Constitutions and Islamic Constitutions is that the Islamic Codes as derived from Sharia Law have no tolerance for anyone other than in Islam. Egypt's Constitution states that the Koran is the source of the Laws of the State. Well, one may be benevolent to try to take that at heart for some sort of gesture to the entire population, but the Koran does not show tolerance.
If the Constitutions of the Islamic states, regardless of country, do not accept one citizenship, one people, then how would one come to this utopic deduction.
You speak of Nasser's coup. Prior to Nasser, under the Khedives and Caliphs, the same laws existed. As a matter of fact, these same laws were carried forward until these present times with which we still feel their steel boot effect on our throats. This is not dictatorship codification, this is an outreach of Islam.
Thanks for your post. We have made some progress between us at least.
I see that for you, you agree that there are problems with the Saudi Curriculum. That's true. But what you are not realizing is that this curriculum is taught in ALL schools in the Middle East - including in Egypt.
However, you have not answered my SIMPLE question:
Does your God love the non muslim? YES or NO!???
That's all you have to answer. Its a simple question.
Comments
[quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg121994#msg121994 date=1289436804]
Damn man, that’s an hour and a half video. :D I’ll try watching the full movie, however, judging from the title of the video, I am sure it is another “Anti-Islamic” video that will take one side and tarnish it. I think we have all learned that the media could be very biased at times, and is not viable source to base our opinions on.
Eitherway, thanks for the video, I’ll try watching it, as I said.
well that's the thing about this video....i believe they get MOST of both sides. ya3ny there are many converts in this video..also many who wrote general books about Islam. But please watch and understand. i gave this to someone before......instead of listening and thinking about what the people say, he just googled the interviewees names and goes like "They are all just conservative people." and i am like "REALLY! that's all you got from an hour an half video of people taking about the reality of Islam.
I am currently watching the documentary, but it will take me a while to prepare a reply for that. lol Its quite long. :D
I am currently watching the documentary, but it will take me a while to prepare a reply for that. lol Its quite long. :D
hehe...take your time....i watched this 3 times and still watch again.
As the heroes of WWI and WWII stopped Nazi Germany from overpowering Europe and Arianizing it; the crusaders stopped Europe from being under muslim rule.
The Crusades were a direct response to the MASSIVE muslim invation and annihilation of countless of Christian lands.
Had they not been stopped BY THE CRUSADES, we'd have been growing up in Saudi Europe.
Please don't glorify the Crusades, they were a disgusting display of human greed and bigotry which we must pray the world never repeats. They may as well have been waged in the name of Winnie the Pooh for all they had to do with religion - they were about money, power and politics. The 'Christian' crusaders seemed to know very little about Christ, because they made a habit of raping and pillaging everywhere they went; they considered their opponents heretics and thus, unworthy of basic human dignity. The instigators of the Crusades told their soldiers to go and murder the hell-bound heretics because God decreed it; how is this different from the sheikh who tells his flock to go and bomb the Kaafir for the same reason?
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9966.msg121982#msg121982 date=1289423237]
It is not true at all that Christianity was spread by violence, far from it. It was spread at the cost of many thousands of Christians offering themselves to be put to death without violence.
Egyptians were not killed as Christianity became established in Egypt, nor in Syria, nor in Greece.
Can you provide details of where this violence occurred?
Christianity may have survived through the sacrifice of martyrs, but how it was spread was often another thing entirely. Unfortunately even our own Church has a nasty history of pagan oppression which we often forget - Christianity did not become the dominant religion in Egypt without the use of 'compulsion' I'm afraid, regardless of how much we'd like to believe it happened otherwise. The priestess Hypatia was mobbed and murdered by Coptic Christians (possibly lead by Pope Kyrillos I's own personal assistant). Pope Theophilus I orchestrated the burning of many pagan temples (confirmed epigraphically and archaeologically), acts which we perhaps wrongly, glorify in much of our literature but which amounts to exactly the same kind of compulsion in religion we criticise so harshly in other faiths. In St. Mark's time, Christianity's spread came only through sincere and heartfelt discussion and preaching, but by the 4th century, when Christianity became a state-endorsed religion, it opened the door for these kinds of atrocities.
Constantine the Great was just as bloody an Emperor as any of his pagan predecessors and in his reign and those of his successive Christian Emperors, pagan temples were burnt and plundered by Christian lay people and pagans banned from public employment, again, this is exactly the kind of forceful compulsion which we condemn in other religions. Let's not even get into the Salem Witch trials and the heretic burnings in Tudor England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism#Christians_and_Pagans_in_the_Roman_Empire
It is a sad but undeniable fact that many violent evils have been committed 'In the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit', but as MASR says, this only occurred when religion was used as a cover for political agendas - we would all agree that these acts had no justification in REAL Christianity. Make of that what you will.
PFM
[quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg121999#msg121999 date=1289438317]
I am currently watching the documentary, but it will take me a while to prepare a reply for that. lol Its quite long. :D
hehe...take your time....i watched this 3 times and still watch again.
First of all, let me point out that I am NOT an Imam nor am I the most knowledgeable when it comes to Islam. I am basing my views on the Quran and certain Hadiths, however, I have yet to “master” every detail of Islam. Thus, there are certain parts in the movie which I will not comment on due to “my ignorance” (That is the best word to use, I guess?).
3:20 – The scene which I believe involves the beheading of a “Western”
The Quran states the following:
"When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly."
No where does it state the any person should simply be “beheaded”, unless it is “on the battlefield” which happens only through war.
The “Western” in that video seems to be a captive…and in Islam we are taught that captives are to be treated well and either are released for free or through a paid ransom.
Verses from the Quran to support this:
“O Prophet! Say unto those captives who are in your hands: If Allah knows any good in your hearts He will give you better than that which has been taken from you, and will forgive you. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (Al-Anfal: 70).
“Lo! The righteous shall drink of a cup whereof the mixture is of water of Kafur. A spring wherefrom the slaves of Allah drink, making it gush forth abundantly. Because they perform the vow and fear a day whereof the evil is wide spreading. And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him. (Saying): We feed you, for the sake of Allah only. We wish for no reward nor thanks from you.” (Al-Insan: 5-9).
5:10 – The speaker seems to indicate that the Quran sanctions and approves violence. That I have went through before, but will once again with Quranic verses to coincide with my statements.
First let me take out a few verses out of context from the Torah/Old Testament:
"You shall destroy all the peoples ... showing them no pity." (7: 16)
"... All the people present there shall serve you as forced labour." (20:12)
"... You shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town -- all its spoil -- and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy which the LORD your God gives you." (20:14-15)
"... You shall not let a soul remain alive." (20:17)
The violence is evident as well…
--
As for the women at 5:56
“There is no obligation in the religion (Quran – Bull: 256).
--
Abdullah Al Araby at 6:17
2:190-193 "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you ... And slay them wherever ye catch them ... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God ..."
It clearly states “Those who fight you”…it is defensive, not offensive.
2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth and ye know not."
Here good states we as Muslims are obliged to fight. Going back to the previous verse, it is to be done in self-defence…
It does not prescribe suicide or the killing of innocent people; correct me if I am wrong…
--
At around 7:00 it is stated that we as Muslims look at Mohamed as a model for us to follow. He is, to us, the greatest human to ever live. Most Christians feel the same about Jesus as well.
--
Walid Shoebat – 7:16
Before the Prophet of Islam arrived in Medina there were primarily two groups in Medina, the Jews and Pagans. The Jews were subdivided into three clans, the Banu Qainuqa, Banu Nazir and Banu Quraiza.
In an effort to unite the city in peace, the Prophet Muhammad drafted the Covenant of Medina (mithaq-i-Medina) in 622 CE, whose general terms were - Muslims and Jews shall live as one people, each one of the parties shall keep to its own faith, and neither shall interfere with that of the other. In the event of a war with a third party, each was bound to come to the assistance of the other, provided the latter were the aggrieved and not the aggressors. In the event of an attack on Medina, both shall join hands to defend it and peace, when desirable, shall be made after consultation with each other.
627, the Quraish (the chief aggressors towards Muhammad) decided to go against the Prophet Muhammad once again, after failing at the battles of Badr and Uhud.
This act of treason was designed to encompass the Muslims in battles on all sides, one that would eventually fail them.
Banu Qurayza were left alone to face the Muslims they betrayed (going against virtually every principle outlined within the Covenant of Medina).
This all brings us back to this verse:
2:190-193 "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you ... And slay them wherever ye catch them ... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God ..."
--
14:09
There are certain Hadiths that we as Muslims are not to follow because they are not compatible with the Quran. Some, in short, were made up, and they have been pointed out by Muslim Scholars through the year. Which is true, and which is not, I’m not sure. Excuse my ignorance!
That’s all I can watch for tonight, the rest I’ll do tomorrow!
Despite all what you said, there is one thing that i can comment on:
"At around 7:00 it is stated that we as Muslims look at Mohamed as a model for us to follow. He is, to us, the greatest human to ever live. [glow=red,2,300]Most Christians feel the same about Jesus as well[/glow]. "
We, as Christians, believe in the Holy Trinity as God; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. If a person doesn't believe in this and says he is a Christian, he is NOT. This is despite everything within Christianity and all the denominations. Any other belief against this basic one is considered a CULT......or simply not christian.
I am sorry to cut what you said, but this is very important. That's why the Qur'an cannot mix with the Bible because it simply doesn't accept this belief.....so since it, the Quran, cannot confirm this belief, there is NO REASON to bother arguing about anything else between the 2 religions/2 books.
I heard a couple of debates of Muslims and Christians (like organized respectful debates).....almost all the time, Muslims, to begin attacking Christianity, they must attack this belief first to enter into the door of the rest of the beliefs. They try to do that with bringing the status of Jesus Christ, the Son of God=God the Son, using the Bible which they do really well taking a verse or two without context.....not only that, but they also simply ignore the ones that CONFIRM that belief when Christ Himself says "I am the Son of God."
[quote author=Pharaoh714 link=topic=9966.msg121988#msg121988 date=1289431876]
With all due respect Masr the verse of No compulsion in Religion is Abrogated!!! and is replaced with the Verse of the Sword in al Tawba.
"Qatelo alzeni la yemeno bellah wa rasulo 7ata ya3to al Jizya wahom sagheroon"
ie "Fight those who dont believe in Allah and the Prophet till they pay the Jizzya while they are subdued"
Any Muslim scholar will till you that "No compulsion in Religion" is abrogated (Period). And If you came here trying to deceive us may God forgive you! but if you truly didn't know that it was abrogated then you better reconsider re-learning what Islam is before defending it.
What do you mean by "abrogated"...that is a verse from the Quran. I am not here to decieve anyone, I'm here to have healthy discussion with fellow Egyptians. We have our differences, but that does not mean I am decieving anyone.
Thank You.
Abrogation means VOID, or lifted, nullified, non used - Mansoo5a in arabic meaning you cannot use that verse. If you read the Quran allah tells muhammad that if 2 verses contradict each other go with the verse that is revealed to you last. For Example If I tell you apples are good in one verse and in another I say apples are haram (forbidden) which one you fallow?? The scholar will have to see which verse came first and which came last and the later verse wins.
If you also read Al Baqara or Chapter 2.106 ( from http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/)
"Such of our revelation as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?" مَا نَنسَخۡ مِنۡ ءَايَةٍ أَوۡ نُنسِهَا نَأۡتِ بِخَيۡرٍ۬ مِّنۡہَآ أَوۡ مِثۡلِهَآۗ أَلَمۡ تَعۡلَمۡ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىۡءٍ۬ قَدِيرٌ
If you do some research or go on most Islamic sites it will tell you the Lists of the Abrogated Verses and what they were abrogated by which verse. And like I said like the verse of No compuslion in religion is abrogated by the verse of the Sword.
By the way is your name Tarek?
Great discussion by the way and
Salam al Massiah - Peace of Christ to all.
Please don't glorify the Crusades,
Hi Epchoice NaiNan,
Thanks for your comments. Many people feel the same you do concerning the Crusdaes. Two wrongs don't make a right.
However, you completely missed the point I was making:
If it wasn't for the crusades, no matter how ugly it was, we'd have been living in Saudi Europe/Eurabia. Had there been NO resistance towards the Islamic Conquerors, then we'd be speaking Arabic in Europe.
Please see the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WZYZ5CqT1Q&feature=related
Agreed, we cannot deny the greed that went on with the crusaders, but I appreciate the fact that if it wasn't for the crusades, we'd never have had our European civilization until today.
Also, please don't forget the WAY in which the Islamic conquerers came in with their force? The arabized and islamized everywhere they went. I think the series of videos that I posted clearly and correctly explains this.
However, the verse goes as follows:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?
And no, my name is not Tarek. ;D
Great discussion indeed! :)
[quote author=Pharaoh714 link=topic=9966.msg122018#msg122018 date=1289446906]
[quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg121991#msg121991 date=1289434547]
[quote author=Pharaoh714 link=topic=9966.msg121988#msg121988 date=1289431876]
With all due respect Masr the verse of No compulsion in Religion is Abrogated!!! and is replaced with the Verse of the Sword in al Tawba.
"Qatelo alzeni la yemeno bellah wa rasulo 7ata ya3to al Jizya wahom sagheroon"
ie "Fight those who dont believe in Allah and the Prophet till they pay the Jizzya while they are subdued"
Any Muslim scholar will till you that "No compulsion in Religion" is abrogated (Period). And If you came here trying to deceive us may God forgive you! but if you truly didn't know that it was abrogated then you better reconsider re-learning what Islam is before defending it.
What do you mean by "abrogated"...that is a verse from the Quran. I am not here to decieve anyone, I'm here to have healthy discussion with fellow Egyptians. We have our differences, but that does not mean I am decieving anyone.
Thank You.
Abrogation means VOID, or lifted, nullified, non used - Mansoo5a in arabic meaning you cannot use that verse. If you read the Quran allah tells muhammad that if 2 verses contradict each other go with the verse that is revealed to you last. For Example If I tell you apples are good in one verse and in another I say apples are haram (forbidden) which one you fallow?? The scholar will have to see which verse came first and which came last and the later verse wins.
If you also read Al Baqara or Chapter 2.106 ( from http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/)
"Such of our revelation as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?" مَا نَنسَخۡ مِنۡ ءَايَةٍ أَوۡ نُنسِهَا نَأۡتِ بِخَيۡرٍ۬ مِّنۡہَآ أَوۡ مِثۡلِهَآۗ أَلَمۡ تَعۡلَمۡ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىۡءٍ۬ قَدِيرٌ
If you do some research or go on most Islamic sites it will tell you the Lists of the Abrogated Verses and what they were abrogated by which verse. And like I said like the verse of No compuslion in religion is abrogated by the verse of the Sword.
By the way is your name Tarek?
Great discussion by the way and
Salam al Massiah - Peace of Christ to all.
I've been doing some research on the aboragted issue, but I have yet to reach a conclusion.
However, the verse goes as follows:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?
hey..that's not the translation of the verse....
Arabic is here:
2 english that go with it (other than the english provided before):
Sahih International
"We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?"
Muhsin Khan
"Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?"
http://quran.com/2
what's weird is that....the arabic is not that hard to translate:
"whatever we write of verse(s) or make forget, we come with a better one or similar....don't you know that God is able to do all things.
I speak to many muslims, even outside of religious dialogue, and they tell me that they cannot deal with me because I am a kafir.
Look: Your god hates non believers (muslims). Therefore, it is the duty of each and every muslim to also hate what your god hates and love what your god loves. So, we are hated. This hatred is manifested in many situations.
I had a discussion with a muslim who said that, in Islam, a non believer is as guilty and as sinful as a rapist or a murderer. In our state, in not accepting your prophet, we are equal to murderers and rapists.
Do you see where terrorism comes from? You YOURSELF may not see us this way, but your Quran tells those of your religion to see us this way.
The reasoning of your fellow muslims and Imams is this:
--> Why should Allah love the non believers like he loves the believers (muslims). That would mean that Allah is unfair, and does not reward the believer. No! Allah is fair and therefore he loves the believer more than the non believer. So, as allah hates the non-believer, so they too also hate what he hates, and this hatred can be expressed in MANY different forms depending on the situation in which a muslim can get away with:
It could range from prejudice, killing, murder, anything. This is Allah-Endorsed hatred.
When the mujahedeen went to Serbia to help their bosnian "brothers" against Serb forces, those they captured were all slaughtered. The point is this: The Mujahedeen were "dying" and begging their leaders if they could kill their Kafir captives. This is abnormal. This is their God telling them "Go and kill and enjoy it". Here: Your Quran CLEARLY states that your god does not love the unbelievers. This is the EXACT opposite of our Bible. Our God's love is unconditional. It is consistent also. He loves those who loves Him and even those who hate Him. He allows His Sun to shine on the WICKED and the Righteous.
Notice how the word "wicked" comes before the word "righteous" - not after.
So, the dogmatic theological principles of your religion is causing a LOT of problems for many people.
We are OK that you are muslim. We don't have a problem with anyone believing in whatever they want - but your religion is killing and making our people suffer.
Here are some more verses:
Now, look at this, if this was not hypocrisy: When a Christian is in a position of power of the muslim, look at what your prophet says: So, because we have not driven you out of your home, then be kind to us, but you know VERY well that your god hates us. YOU KNOW THIS!
See the video of Sayed Al Qimini that I posted. Read content being taught in Saudi Schools - Do you think that Saudi Arabia, being the "custodians" of the islamic faith COULD have misunderstood the Quran?????
NO!
It clearly tells the children that the love for God has signs, and can be manifested by showing the kafireen anger /harshness and subjugating them.
MASR: This is your religion habibi.
Welcome to Islam
Eitherway... Verses from the Quran on Christianity:
"Oh People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of God anything but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in God and His messengers. Say not, 'Trinity.' Desist! It will be better for you, for God is One God, Glory be to Him! (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs" (4:171).
"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).
“And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allāh and your Allāh is One, and to Him do we submit.”
“Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allāh and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.”
V.2:97 "Say (O Muhammad محمّد): 'Whoever is an enemy to Jibrael (Gabriel)(let him die in his fury), for indeed he has brought it (this Qur'ān) down to your heart by Allāh's Permission, confirming what came before it [i.e. the Taurāt, or Torah), and the Injeel or the Gospel] and guidance and glad tidings for the believers.'"
V.2:105 "Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) nor Al-Mushrikūn (the idolaters, polytheists, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allāh, pagans, etc.) like that there should be sent down unto you any good from your Lord. But Allāh chooses for His Mercy whom He wills. And Allāh is the Owner of Great Bounty."
V.2:113 "The Jews said that the Christians follow nothing (i.e. are not on the right religion); and the Christians said that the Jews follow nothing(i.e. are not on the right religion); though they both recite the Scripture. Like unto their word, said (the pagans) who know not. Allāh will judge between them on the Day of the Resurrection about that wherein they have been differing."
Many more verses are also avaliabe…
As for the He does not love the unbelievers (30:45) verse…
Judging from the previous verses, Christians and Jews are considered “people of the book” and who believe in a monotheistic God. However, In Islam we do not believe in the Trinity, and God states that as the downturn of Christianity and the Bible, which has been “tampered” with according to Islam. It does not mention that Christians are non-believers. Non-believers here are the pagans who continually waged war and breached treaties against Muslims.
You also mention the “Jizya” part, however, you fail to mention that EVERY Muslim also had to pay a similar amount under the notion of Zakat.
These are also verses from the Bible (which I will clearly take out of context, as you did)
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:8)
Who is false but he who says that Jesus is not the Christ? He is the Antichrist who has no belief in the Father or the Son. (John 2:22)
As you see, it is quite easy for anyone to post Youtube videos or go on Wikipedia and search Islam Violence, but that is not sufficent to build a full point view of a religion.
Judging from the previous verses, Christians and Jews are considered “people of the book” and who believe in a monotheistic God. However, In Islam we do not believe in the Trinity, and God states that as the downturn of Christianity and the Bible, which has been “tampered” with according to Islam. It does not mention that Christians are non-believers. Non-believers here are the pagans who continually waged war and breached treaties against Muslims.
a couple of things here:
You have not commented on what i said. yes you said "Islam doesn't believe in the Trinity"....yes, I KNOW THAT!! what i am asking is that why bother with speaking about the Gospels and the Bible if the belief of God, Him who brought down the Bible, is not the same?!
Also the idea of "waging" war is just crazy.......why does it always have to be about "physical" war....and for what?!
Well you gonna say that Jews fought wars.....ok. but most of those wars were for land and other physical things rather than "FAITH" or a belief of a religion.
But zakat is just "alms" which Christians and Jews do in their religions (10% goes to God). Did they force other unbelievers to pay something similar?! NO....on the contrary their money was sometimes considered a curse and a disgrace to be mixed with the true alms of the believers. So saying that unbelievers must pay Gizya because the believers have to pay zakat is just nonsense......it's truly "unfair" from the general universal understanding of fairness and not within the realm of Islam.
oh wait, i forgot......
in a verse above you said that 'Esa ebn Mariam "was (no more than) a messenger of God".....that's a heresy....because even in the verse that you just took out of context:
"Who is false but he who says that Jesus is not the Christ? He is the Antichrist who has no belief in the Father or the Son. (John 2:22)"
says that He is the Son.
It is not true at all that Christianity was spread by violence, far from it. It was spread at the cost of many thousands of Christians offering themselves to be put to death without violence.
Egyptians were not killed as Christianity became established in Egypt, nor in Syria, nor in Greece.
Can you provide details of where this violence occurred?
When the Spanish liberated themselves from Islamic domination in Spain they were acting in a political/social manner. Why were the Muslims there? Because they have captured the land by violence? Why were the Muslims in Egypt? Because they captured the land by violence. Why did Muslims sweep across North Africa destroying ancient Christian civilizations wherever they went? Who asked them to? I don't know what the Spanish did in Spain, but they were freeing themselves as a political act, and if there were local excesses then this was not because of Christianity. Just as the bombs of the IRA were not Christian even if some of the terrorists thought they were Christians (there were not).
There were no Christian Armies which conquered Egypt, Greece, France, Britain etc etc. The Arab people's became Christian by their own desire and were given bishop George to minister to them.
When the Christian missionaries came to England they convinced the King to become a Christian by their manner of life. He refused to force anyone to become a Christian and allowed his people to respond to the Christian message as they chose. Indeed it is a Christian principle that belief cannot be forced.
Yet we know that throughout the history of Islamic oppression of Christian people's there has been a regular recourse to violence. The Armenian Genocide is just one of the more recent examples, in which 1,500,000 Armenian Christians were murdered, and the Islamic Imams of the Ottoman Empire had taught the ordinary people that killing Christians would be rewarded by Allah.
There is no general pattern of violence associated with Christianity (the use of violence by those claiming to be Christians does not count against the faith), yet throughout history Muslims have killed and enslaved Christians and others directly as a result of their Islamic faith. This does not mean all Muslims are at fault, but it does mean that it is reasonable to ask why the religion of Islam produces so much violence and continues to do so in a way that Christianity as a system of belief has never done.
This is so true Fr. Peter,
I was reading 1Samuel:15 and it tells of how God told Saul to totally destroy a nation for going against Gods Laws. In the Old Testament there are many storys of wars and conflicts, but the New Testament teaches the 'new' way to love and pray for our enemies...turn the other cheek, do not answer reviling with reviling, be meek, gentle and longsuffering. This is the New Covenant which gave birth to Christianity as we Orthodox Christians know it. The teachings Christ gave to His Disciples to preach to a world lost in sin.
Muslims do not believe in Christ though do they? So they are stuck on a way that has been made dead and void by the Blood of Christ.
Very sad.
We are at war, but not with flesh and blood but with 'spiritual' wickedness; which as mentioned is fought by fasting and praying, not bombing and slaying. Vengance belongs to God!!!
Unfortuantely, you continue to take verses out of context and a reply with no substance what so ever. You keep turning this into a "my religion" "your religion" debate, which I will not get into because whatever we do we will always stick to our own morals which are based primarily in our religion.
MASR,
Seriously, with all due respect, it is only you that does not believe that your god hates infidels.
I'm not trying NOR interested in debating you. This is not a matter of debate. We are here talking about DISTURBING NEWS for the COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH (and all Christians in the Middle East - in General).
Maybe you, MASR, do not hate infidels, but then again, you just learnt what the word Abrogate means - and Abrogation is a concept in Islam you were not aware of. What else then are you unaware of?
This is clear that muslims who are moderate are SIMPLY moderate because of their LACK of understanding of their own religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=670qHZBM5Is&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=670qHZBM5Is&feature=related
You know who is more dangerous than the fanatical muslims screaming to kill the Christians?? PEOPLE LIKE YOU MASR!!
You scare me more! You hide the real face of Islam, and you have your head in the sand.
If you think, in your logic, that a muslim who hates or kills in the name of his god, is only for political gains, then Islam is Political - this is the conclusion that you have not come to. It is the LOGICAL CONCLUSION that you are not only accepting, but are denying. This denial is causing the death of innocent people MASR!!!!
I COULDNT respectfually care less if you are a muslim , Copt, Jew, Buddhist. Be whatever you want, but your religion is causing a lot of dammage to the lives of many many people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=670qHZBM5Is&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=670qHZBM5Is&feature=related
"As far as muslims are concerned, you are GUILTY if you are NOT a muslim".
Wake up ya MASR!! Please. I'm not asking you to become a Christian.. I'm asking you to live in the reality of what your religion is asking.
it's good to see both sides discussing this because you can only explain something if you can listen to the person you're talking to.
i know many people like masr, and, while they need to understand the political nature of their religion, they also have very valuable contributions to make to the debate.
i think some debate is needed though.
it's good to see both sides discussing this because you can only explain something if you can listen to the person you're talking to.
i know many people like masr, and, while they need to understand the political nature of their religion, they also have very valuable contributions to make to the debate.
exactly....so i think we need to come down and LISTEN to each other.
Thanks alot.
And I agree that debating these issues are extremely important, because the Muslim-Coptic issue will only continue to detriorate as Muslims and Coptics in Egypt continue to become more conservative. I believe that political change in Egypt would also play a huge role in the issue. Eitherway, that was my main intent on signing up here, I wanted to discuss with fellow Egyptians how they view Islam and the current state of Egypt overall. Its a healthy debate in the end!
On a different note, could someone please posts links to the Islamic websites that are supporting such acts against Copitcs in Egypt, and Chrisitans in the Middle East?
there are many random things that come up online. i doubt that "political" change will do much. actually with out thse at office right now, we as Christians and mostly coptic orthodox, would be living in fear all the time. Sheikh El-azhar himself and our pope are great people who worry about national unity rather than religious difference. But the mind set of the people is what you can't control.
[quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg122099#msg122099 date=1289596871]
On a different note, could someone please posts links to the Islamic websites that are supporting such acts against Copitcs in Egypt, and Chrisitans in the Middle East?
there are many random things that come up online. i doubt that "political" change will do much. actually with out thse at office right now, we as Christians and mostly coptic orthodox, would be living in fear all the time. Sheikh El-azhar himself and our pope are great people who worry about national unity rather than religious difference. But the mind set of the people is what you can't control.
Political change is absolutely necessary. I understand that most Coptics fear that the Brotherhood would come into power and deprive them of all their basic rights. However, had Egypt been a democracy, which respects ALL ethnic and religious groups, would we be in the current condition? Would we have the Brotherhood rise to power? Would we find Coptics in North America calling to “return Egypt to its original inhabitants”? Would we have Bedouins in Sinai who plot against the government? Would we have the Noubians in the South living with practically no rights whatsoever? I really doubt it. It is 60 years of a military dictatorship that has led to the current state of Egypt, and a more conservative Muslim and Coptic population.
I do not want to turn this political. We do not need the Egyptian authorities to issue search and arrest warrants against us. :D
Political change is absolutely necessary. I understand that most Coptics fear that the Brotherhood would come into power and deprive them of all their basic rights. However, had Egypt been a democracy, which respects ALL ethnic and religious groups, would we be in the current condition? Would we have the Brotherhood rise to power? Would we find Coptics in North America calling to “return Egypt to its original inhabitants”? Would we have Bedouins in Sinai who plot against the government? Would we have the Noubians in the South living with practically no rights whatsoever? I really doubt it. It is 60 years of a military dictatorship that has led to the current state of Egypt, and a more conservative Muslim and Coptic population.
I do not want to turn this political. We do not need the Egyptian authorities to issue search and arrest warrants against us. :D
hahaha....your mind went there to.....wow.
El-Ekhwan will never take over....the current government is corrupt enough that they will never let that happen.
forget what the Copts outside say....personally speaking, they make no difference. They just keep talking...America will not do anything extra; we here have our own problems. Why would be eave that and go help anyone else. it was funny when Obama took office, they asked his grandma back in Kenya i think or some African country. THey said "what do you expect from him?" will she said, "He is an america who became and president for america to lead america..doing what's good for America."
Bedouins....they don't care much about the government. They care more about themselves. there ppl in the government who HATE the government....why worry about this who live in the sahara that far and leave those who live in your own backyard?!
Noubia.....that was a problem long time ago and if i am not mistaken, they were just separated around the time the English were in egypt.....to make Egypt weaker, they kind of set/limited its borders from the 2 sides.
What you are dealing with now is the corrupt generation of Sadat.
On a different note, could someone please posts links to the Islamic websites that are supporting such acts against Copitcs in Egypt, and Chrisitans in the Middle East?
I'll provide you the Islamic websites, but you only need to answer one simple question rather than look at websites:
Does your god, Allah, love those that do not accept him nor his prophet? Yes or No?
Here is a link to the Islamic forums that support acts against copts and all Christians in the Middle East:
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f18/al-qaeda-iraq-claims-massacre-christian-church-baghdad-read-more-http-www-longwarjourna-39435/
Look: Millions of muslims here support terrorism. They say it clearly, openly:
http://www.englishbaby.com/forum/LifeTalk/thread/373489
MASR, like I'm saying, if we were talking about a handful of people of use the Quran for political gains then there would be no need for this thread or discussion. But we are talking about systematic hatred of kafirs in EVERY aspect of muslim life.
My best friend was muslim. When he got married, his wife told me that she agreed with 9/11.
Then I met these other muslims who ALSO agreed with 9/11. They only told me they agreed because they thought i was muslim also.
MASR, please, respectfully, answer us the context in which these verses in the quran talking about hatred towards the kafireen (non muslims) are meant to be taken in??
Also, do you realize that your problem is not with us, TELLING US what these verses are meant to mean. Your problem is with the Saudi Ministry of Education who publish the most offensive material against non muslims in their manahig (curriculums). You need to convince them.
What did you make out of Sayed Al Qimini's video!???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSlq2WljYf8&playnext=1&list=PLE7F3972B6CDDF6A6&index=8
Oh! And by the way: The Jizya was for us to pay to be PROTECTED. We are talking about a humiliation tax: I don't like this term "debate" ya MASR. I feel as if we have two sides in a debate:
Does Islam promote Violence and hatred against non muslims
or does it not.
I've given you proofs from the Quran and quotes from Imams that your god does not love the Kafireen. Does he?
You keep on answering and saying "You have quoted this out of context".
This is exactly the same response that the head of the King Fahad Academy in West London said to Jeremy Paxman when he asked her "Do you repudiate the fact that your school teaches that Jews are monkeys and CHristians are Pigs?"
She said "These quotes have been taken out of context"
He said :"OK.. you explain to me the context. Explain to us what they are meant to mean?"
She couldnt answer. All she could say was use the magical words: "These have been taken out of context".
MASR, if I think my best friend is a nice guy, that's nice. If ONE person comes to me and says: "Look zoxsasi, he is extremely offensive and violent", I may brush this person off. I may even punish him for insulting my friend. But if 10 or more people tell me the SAME about this person, EVEN his parents tell me that their son is violent and has a problem, then I would be foolish to ignore that he has a problem.
You are ignoring this problem. You are ignoring that we are not talking about a "handful" of criminals.
We are talking about entire muslim nations. MASR, I disagree with you. The Ikhwan Al Muslemeen (Muslim Brotherhood), although outlawed in Egypt, have now 20 seats in Parliment because their members ran as independents. TWENTY members of the muslim brotherhood are in office!!! Support for them is even growing. Even El Baradei has tried to make an alliance with them to form a new government.
There is a clear support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This implies that there is an Islamic populous who believe that God hates the infidel and it is UNFAIR to treat who God hates the SAME way as treating those whom their god loves.
This is the Sharia Law in a nutshell. This is Islam in a nutshell!!
So, if the verses that I've posted have been taken OUT OF context, then what is the correct context?
Explain to me PLEASE (PLEASE!!) the Quranic verse that says:
He does not love the unbelievers (30:45)
Explain this??
I'm not turning this into a MY RELIGION vs YOUR Religion debate. This is the : HERE IS WHAT IS CAUSING TERRORISM DEBATE AGAINST THE COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH: ISLAM!
You keep on telling me that these verses were taken out of context, but you don't explain the context they are meant to be taken in.
[quote author=MASR link=topic=9966.msg122099#msg122099 date=1289596871]
On a different note, could someone please posts links to the Islamic websites that are supporting such acts against Copitcs in Egypt, and Chrisitans in the Middle East?
I'll provide you the Islamic websites, but you only need to answer one simple question rather than look at websites:
Does your god, Allah, love those that do not accept him nor his prophet? Yes or No?
Here is a link to the Islamic forums that support acts against copts and all Christians in the Middle East:
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f18/al-qaeda-iraq-claims-massacre-christian-church-baghdad-read-more-http-www-longwarjourna-39435/
Look: Millions of muslims here support terrorism. They say it clearly, openly:
http://www.englishbaby.com/forum/LifeTalk/thread/373489
MASR, like I'm saying, if we were talking about a handful of people of use the Quran for political gains then there would be no need for this thread or discussion. But we are talking about systematic hatred of kafirs in EVERY aspect of muslim life.
My best friend was muslim. When he got married, his wife told me that she agreed with 9/11.
Then I met these other muslims who ALSO agreed with 9/11. They only told me they agreed because they thought i was muslim also.
MASR, please, respectfully, answer us the context in which these verses in the quran talking about hatred towards the kafireen (non muslims) are meant to be taken in??
Also, do you realize that your problem is not with us, TELLING US what these verses are meant to mean. Your problem is with the Saudi Ministry of Education who publish the most offensive material against non muslims in their manahig (curriculums). You need to convince them.
What did you make out of Sayed Al Qimini's video!???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSlq2WljYf8&playnext=1&list=PLE7F3972B6CDDF6A6&index=8
Oh! And by the way: The Jizya was for us to pay to be PROTECTED. We are talking about a humiliation tax: I don't like this term "debate" ya MASR. I feel as if we have two sides in a debate:
Does Islam promote Violence and hatred against non muslims
or does it not.
I've given you proofs from the Quran and quotes from Imams that your god does not love the Kafireen. Does he?
You keep on answering and saying "You have quoted this out of context".
This is exactly the same response that the head of the King Fahad Academy in West London said to Jeremy Paxman when he asked her "Do you repudiate the fact that your school teaches that Jews are monkeys and CHristians are Pigs?"
She said "These quotes have been taken out of context"
He said :"OK.. you explain to me the context. Explain to us what they are meant to mean?"
She couldnt answer. All she could say was use the magical words: "These have been taken out of context".
MASR, if I think my best friend is a nice guy, that's nice. If ONE person comes to me and says: "Look zoxsasi, he is extremely offensive and violent", I may brush this person off. I may even punish him for insulting my friend. But if 10 or more people tell me the SAME about this person, EVEN his parents tell me that their son is violent and has a problem, then I would be foolish to ignore that he has a problem.
You are ignoring this problem. You are ignoring that we are not talking about a "handful" of criminals.
We are talking about entire muslim nations. MASR, I disagree with you. The Ikhwan Al Muslemeen (Muslim Brotherhood), although outlawed in Egypt, have now 20 seats in Parliment because their members ran as independents. TWENTY members of the muslim brotherhood are in office!!! Support for them is even growing. Even El Baradei has tried to make an alliance with them to form a new government.
There is a clear support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This implies that there is an Islamic populous who believe that God hates the infidel and it is UNFAIR to treat who God hates the SAME way as treating those whom their god loves.
This is the Sharia Law in a nutshell. This is Islam in a nutshell!!
So, if the verses that I've posted have been taken OUT OF context, then what is the correct context?
Explain to me PLEASE (PLEASE!!) the Quranic verse that says:
He does not love the unbelievers (30:45)
Explain this??
I'm not turning this into a MY RELIGION vs YOUR Religion debate. This is the : HERE IS WHAT IS CAUSING TERRORISM DEBATE AGAINST THE COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH: ISLAM!
You keep on telling me that these verses were taken out of context, but you don't explain the context they are meant to be taken in.
You’re asking me the same questions I answered before and posted verses to prove it.
I’ll do it all over again…
Verses from the Quran on Christianity:
"Oh People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of God anything but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in God and His messengers. Say not, 'Trinity.' Desist! It will be better for you, for God is One God, Glory be to Him! (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs" (4:171).
"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).
“And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allāh and your Allāh is One, and to Him do we submit.”
“Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allāh and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.”
V.2:97 "Say (O Muhammad محمّد): 'Whoever is an enemy to Jibrael (Gabriel)(let him die in his fury), for indeed he has brought it (this Qur'ān) down to your heart by Allāh's Permission, confirming what came before it [i.e. the Taurāt, or Torah), and the Injeel or the Gospel] and guidance and glad tidings for the believers.'"
V.2:105 "Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) nor Al-Mushrikūn (the idolaters, polytheists, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allāh, pagans, etc.) like that there should be sent down unto you any good from your Lord. But Allāh chooses for His Mercy whom He wills. And Allāh is the Owner of Great Bounty."
V.2:113 "The Jews said that the Christians follow nothing (i.e. are not on the right religion); and the Christians said that the Jews follow nothing(i.e. are not on the right religion); though they both recite the Scripture. Like unto their word, said (the pagans) who know not. Allāh will judge between them on the Day of the Resurrection about that wherein they have been differing."
Many more verses are also avaliabe…
As for the He does not love the unbelievers (30:45) verse…
Judging from the previous verses, Christians and Jews are considered “people of the book” and who believe in a monotheistic God. However, In Islam we do not believe in the Trinity, and God states that as the downturn of Christianity and the Bible, which has been “tampered” with according to Islam. It does not mention that Christians are non-believers. Non-believers here are the pagans who continually waged war and breached treaties against Muslims.
Furthermore: In particular, Sabians (probably the followers of John the Baptist), Jews and Christians “shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve” if they have faith in the one true God, believe in the hereafter, and do good (2:62, 5:69). Christians who worship Jesus as God will not enter paradise unless they turn to the forgiving and merciful God in repentance (2:72-74), but the Qur`anic judgment will be exactly the same if some Muslims deified Muhammad and started to worship him.
Other religions are viewed as a mixture of divine light brought by the true messengers of God and errors introduced by some of their followers. Therefore the functions of the Qur`an include being a confirmer (musaddiq) (2:97, 3:3) and guard (muhaymin) (5:48) of the divine light in earlier religions, identifying serious errors introduced by some of their adherents (5:116, 57:27) and resolving some of their differences (27:76-79). Thus the Qur`an maintains an attitude of constructive criticism towards other religious traditions. The same is true of the followers of those traditions. They are not painted with the same brush (3:69 etc); rather the Qur`an expressly states that “they are not all alike” (3:113). It praises some of their good qualities while criticizes some of their weaknesses (57:27, 5:13-14, 9:31, 34). In this regard it is important to note that such a critical attitude is not reserved for only non-believers. Believers and even the Prophet himself can be criticized for some of their failings (62:11, 66:1, 80:1-12).
All these outline how God views people who worship “humans”. However, he does not command us to “slay them” not “kill them”. Those other verses appear at the time of warfare, and deceit by the non-believers, most of them pagans.
However you are over generalizing this who issue. I would recommend you to have more knowledge prior to building a full viewpoint on Islam as a religion and the Quran as a divine Holy Book. I’m not here to discuss Muslims, nor their acts or your best friend and his wife; I’m here to attempt (at least) to prove that such people from Al Qaeda in Yemen and Baghdad are contradicting the very basic principles of Islam itself.
Saudi Arabia is the homeland of Wahabism and Salafism, a “sect” of Islam whose goal is to dominate the world…pretty much. Why don’t you look at Al Azhar? They represent all Sunni Muslims, look at their university, they teach Islam as well…
However, I agree 100% with the educational aspect, and what children are fed at such a young age. But again, our whole damn educational system is in need of an overhaul…
Now to the Brotherhood…
You would have to be naïve and not knowledgeable about Egyptian politics to truly believe that the Brotherhood garnered those seats in a “transparent” election. It is known that the ruling party sits down and plans out who wins what. Furthermore, at the time Egypt was under great pressure by the US to overhaul the political system into a more democratic one. Our beloved Hosni Mubarak thus, in order to freak out the Americans (who would never want the MB) gave them 20 seats…which in theory is far from a large number. The Brotherhood ONLY have support in places with high poverty because they feed them, provide better healthcare, etc. Other than that, there is very little support. You should read a book called “Inside Egypt” it will give you better perspective into the 2005 Brotherhood fraud.
As for El Baradei, he was NOT looking to form a new government with them and you know that! All they did was assist him in gaining more signatures for his petition against the government calling for 7 specific constitutional changes. El Baradei stated more than once that all opposition groups must form an alliance to gain enough power to enforce those seven changes, and later each would take their own path, and also stated that he had fundamental disagreements with the ideology of the MB. However, what is true is that the MB is the most organized and efficient opposition group…unfortunately. By the way, El Baradei can not even nominate himself for the presidency, let alone “Form a government” with the MB. Please…
You need to be more open-minded to this issue.
Muslims, Coptics and Jews all lived together with equal rights prior to the Nasser’s revolution…I continue to believe that this minimal violence is alien to our society.
This is not conservatism. It is reality.
Theoretically, Saudi Arabia, is the custodian of the Peaceful intents of Islam. Why are there no churches in Saudi Arabia, if there was such a high acceptance of us as a 'People of the Book'?
There is not one Islamic State which is not at war. If you go from the Moroccan shores to the South China Sea, it is all war.
This is not conservatism. It is reality.
Theoretically, Saudi Arabia, is the custodian of the Peaceful intents of Islam. Why are there no churches in Saudi Arabia, if there was such a high acceptance of us as a 'People of the Book'?
"Islamic" States are mostly run by dictators, thus we have everlasting issues, that even Coptics in Egypt suffer from. Saudi Arabia is a corrupt, failed state, and personally I believe there should be more tolerance towards other religions. Why not build a church in a city close to Mecca for example? Would it not be sign of gesture, peace and tolerance? I see nothing in the Quran that commands us not to do so. There is so much one could say about Saudi Arabia...but I'll leave it there.
We do not disagree on your point however the reasons for such wars differ. Islam is not always the reason for wars. The Middle East is home to resources that other parts of the world are in great need of...
There is not even that tolerance to allow a church to be built anywhere in Saudi Arabia.
Is Iran a dictatorship? Is Turkey a dictatorship? Iran is a theocracy. It is supposedly the embodiment of Islamic principles in all aspects of government and society. Turkey is a democracy. Yet it is carrying things out and with the same end results. What is the common thread between the two?
Masr,
There is not even that tolerance to allow a church to be built anywhere in Saudi Arabia.
Is Iran a dictatorship? Is Turkey a dictatorship? Iran is a theocracy. It is supposedly the embodiment of Islamic principles in all aspects of government and society. Turkey is a democracy. Yet it is carrying things out and with the same end results. What is the common thread between the two?
Iran is very much a dictatorship. No free media, torture, human rights, etc. Turkey is rising, attempting to put "their past behind them". I think their secular state is a positive example for all Middle Easterns. Islamic doctorine states the principle of "Shura", which in its essence is compatable with democracy. Yet Iran, which prides itself for being "A Muslim state" ignores the concept of Shura. Pure contradiction.
The world is full of wars and voilence, Islam is not rooted in every country that is in war and instablity...
In regard to Turkey, they are by no means secular, they have changed course to a more "islamic society", as pronounced by the people's plebicide. Even if you go to Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, you will see the same detraction from a secular portion of government to the "islamic society". These were all carried out, theoretically, by free elections, and reflect the will of the people. Are the voting blocks in these noted nations just one sector? Are they only Islamists? If they are then it identifies what has been stated previously by other posts in this thread that it is a general trend within the movement of Islam. If the majority was so empowered with a proper voice then a proper truth would emerge--eventually.
If you look of the fall of Communism in the USSR, Eastern Europe, it happened because the people willed it so. The reason why it exists, still, in China, Cuba, North Korea, is because the people will it so.
The reason why Islam conducts itself through the different nations by autocracy, democracy, or theocracy is because of the majority will of the people. The governmental heads, even dictators, are a reflection of the people's will. If the majority of Islam was for peace and love, there would be the will, eventually, to carry forward with that evolution, declaration, and implementation.
1400 years have passed since the founding of Islam. Yet, I have yet to see any witness in the annals of this historical period for a utopian regard as you mention. I hope you realize that my comments are relative to stated interpretations by westerners and easterners, christian and muslim. I do not think that one can contradict the above. One may try to move in the verbal manuevers but lets look at the reality of the situation.
I think that most factual political scientist would put Iran as a Theocracy, an extension of the ayatullahs and mullahs, as guardians of proper teaching. The Prime Minister or any governmental body are a physical reach of these clerics and an extension of enforcement of the dictates of Islam.
In regard to Turkey, they are by no means secular, they have changed course to a more "islamic society", as pronounced by the people's plebicide. Even if you go to Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, you will see the same detraction from a secular portion of government to the "islamic society". These were all carried out, theoretically, by free elections, and reflect the will of the people. Are the voting blocks in these noted nations just one sector? Are they only Islamists? If they are then it identifies what has been stated previously by other posts in this thread that it is a general trend within the movement of Islam. If the majority was so empowered with a proper voice then a proper truth would emerge--eventually.
If you look of the fall of Communism in the USSR, Eastern Europe, it happened because the people willed it so. The reason why it exists, still, in China, Cuba, North Korea, is because the people will it so.
The reason why Islam conducts itself through the different nations by autocracy, democracy, or theocracy is because of the majority will of the people. The governmental heads, even dictators, are a reflection of the people's will. If the majority of Islam was for peace and love, there would be the will, eventually, to carry forward with that evolution, declaration, and implementation.
1400 years have passed since the founding of Islam. Yet, I have yet to see any witness in the annals of this historical period for a utopian regard as you mention. I hope you realize that my comments are relative to stated interpretations by westerners and easterners, christian and muslim. I do not think that one can contradict the above. One may try to move in the verbal manuevers but lets look at the reality of the situation.
Turkey has a majority of Muslims, thus it will always remain “Islamic” in its nature, customs, values, etc. But they have successfully separated “Mosque” from the “state”. For a period in time, Turkey had practically abandoned Arab and Middle Eastern politics. Today, and with Erodgan as prime minister, Turkish policies have formed a more “united Muslim” ideology in Turkey.
You have “Christian” parties in various political landscapes in Europe, as long as they abide to the constitution, and respect the secular nature of the state, they are able to rule.
Free elections are evident in Turkey, and human right violations are in continued cycle of reduction.
Do you think the majority in Egypt support the current government? I think we can safely say no. Do you think most Iranian support their government? The protest following Ahamdinejads re-election proved otherwise.
Islam civilizations such as Al Andalus were (early on at least) ruled under the notion of Shura, people had rights and the population prospered in science and other fields.
I think the problem once again remains with power-hungry rulers; it has nothing to do with religion. Mubarak is not ruling Egypt under Sharia Law, yet we still have no rights. Castro was not inspired by Islam when he led Cuba to their current state…
And the list goes on…
I beg to differ on the aspects of Turkey's Government. Because of its recent extremist trends, allowance of church bombings, etc., this has been the main basis for its discounted application for the European Union.
European Christian parties abide within their constitutions.
Islamic parties abide within their constitutions. The only difference between European Constitutions and Islamic Constitutions is that the Islamic Codes as derived from Sharia Law have no tolerance for anyone other than in Islam. Egypt's Constitution states that the Koran is the source of the Laws of the State. Well, one may be benevolent to try to take that at heart for some sort of gesture to the entire population, but the Koran does not show tolerance.
If the Constitutions of the Islamic states, regardless of country, do not accept one citizenship, one people, then how would one come to this utopic deduction.
You speak of Nasser's coup. Prior to Nasser, under the Khedives and Caliphs, the same laws existed. As a matter of fact, these same laws were carried forward until these present times with which we still feel their steel boot effect on our throats. This is not dictatorship codification, this is an outreach of Islam.
Thanks for your post. We have made some progress between us at least.
I see that for you, you agree that there are problems with the Saudi Curriculum. That's true. But what you are not realizing is that this curriculum is taught in ALL schools in the Middle East - including in Egypt.
However, you have not answered my SIMPLE question:
Does your God love the non muslim? YES or NO!???
That's all you have to answer. Its a simple question.
So, why are you avoiding answering this question?