oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
No.
If you can ignore the writings you don't like, yet cling to the writings that you do like, why, you'd be a cherry picker, for sure.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Islam is unable to relate to the diverse contemporary cultures
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
If you can ignore the writings you don't like, yet cling to the writings that you do like, why, you'd be a cherry picker, for sure.
sooda
Veteran Member
Why would you doubt it? The pilgrimage to Mecca brought people from east Africa and elsewhere. It wasn't strictly for Jews or Christians. It was a huge source of revenue.
Again not a meaningful response like your previous posts. Simply a hand wave gets you nowhere.
Your cherry picking is par excellence with an agenda.No.
If you can ignore the writings you don't like, yet cling to the writings that you do like, why, you'd be a cherry picker, for sure.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
shunyadragon said: ↑
I did cite the quotations in the Quran the state and religion are one according to the Quran,
I understand one has copied and pasted them from somewhere and has neither studied Quran from cover to cover nor read the quoted verses from the context verses for correct understanding.
Regards
I did cite the quotations in the Quran the state and religion are one according to the Quran,
None of the verses of Quran quoted by one mentions that state and religion has to be one according to the Quran.
I understand one has copied and pasted them from somewhere and has neither studied Quran from cover to cover nor read the quoted verses from the context verses for correct understanding.
Regards
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
No it is not...... it just seems that you quote Bahai writings as important, one minute, and reject others the next, as suits your agenda.
It's double think, just like in Orwell's 1984.
The citations describe the primacy Quranic jurisprudence the reason why Theocracy dominated Islam through much of its history, and today theocracy is dominant in many Islamic countries, which obviously interpret the Quran different than you, which is part of the problem.
Part of the problem with your argument is the scripture of all the Abrahamic religions support versions of theocracy. This is reflected in the history of Judaism and Christianity also. Israel is a government dominated theocracy, despite claims of having a secular government. In the USA and other countries in the western world most evangelical Christians support a theocracy where the laws they propose are based on their religious beliefs, morals and values marginalizing other religious beliefs including Islam.
The Baha'i Faith also, by the way, propose a form of future theocracy government, but with key exceptions not in the scripture of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. First, the foundation is democratic. Second, the primacy of the secular government laws. The primary goal is to support a legal system that supports Baha'i principles and laws such as: (1) Equal legal and social equal rights of women, (2) The mandatory education of children, both boys and girls, which lack a scriptural basis in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
I divide theocracy into two categories; (1) Rule by a priestly caste, and religious law interpreted by the priests. Iran is an example. (2) Dominantly ruled by a set of religious laws, or the interpretation of scripture, and/or scripture with a semi-secular government, which may be dictatorship, ruling class or a form of limited democracy. The second is increasingly more common today in Islam. Non-believers are usually not allowed in the government, or representation is limited. Pakistan is an example.
The facts of scripture and history go against your argument.
Last edited:
Your cherry picking is par excellence with an agenda, and wandering off topic.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Nope not at all, As there is no where in Christianity that permits killings of anyone.
But then you have people who takes things in the bible out of it's context.
But upon reading, studying the new testament/scriptures, there is no where that either Christ Jesus or his 12 disciples ever made mentioning of killing people.
Therefore your wrong to say ( You could replace the words Islam and "Shiria Law" for Christianity, and it would be just as correct.[/QUOTE]
That speaks for one thing that you haven't a clue or idea about anything, As far as Christianity goes.
Both posts here are off topic. Another thread would be warranted concerning what the NT scripture says about violence and killing.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe Christianity has no greed. Nominal Christians can be greedy but born again Christians will not be.
Muffled
Jesus in me
In Saudi Arabia it is Islam. A person can't even bring a personal Bible into the country.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe if it were merit it would be Christianity.
Kind of off topic we need to go to a different thread to deal with this. I will most definitely respond to such a thread.
Last edited:
Off topic
Remté
Active Member
This is not true. You can bring a bible for personal use.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Islam is unable to relate to the diverse contemporary cultures
I will like to mention a point here a post #126 colored in magenta from loverofhumanity a Bahais friend earlier posted in another thread in the forum:
Religions are usually divided into two parts. There are the spiritual virtues such as goodness, love, patience, tolerance and so on and then there are the social laws such as laws for marriage and punishments for murder, theft etc.
The social laws are only meant for that time. For instance in the desert where there are no jails, police, courts, judges or correction facilities punishments had to be harsh as they also had to address deter offenders without prisons. So the laws in the times of Moses and Muhammad were harsh.
However, as civilization advance and developed now we are able to rehabilitate prisoners so in this age a new Messenger, Baha’u’llah, has appeared with laws suited to these times.
The problem is in trying to apply ancient laws to a modern age but for these times they were needed.
OOOOOOOOOOOO
"The social laws are only meant for that time. For instance in the desert where there are no jails, police, courts, judges or correction facilities punishments had to be harsh as they also had to address deter offenders without prisons. So the laws in the times of Moses and Muhammad were harsh."
One may like to read my comments on the above point by accessing my posts #135 and #136 .
Regards
I will like to mention a point here a post #126 colored in magenta from loverofhumanity a Bahais friend earlier posted in another thread in the forum:
Religions are usually divided into two parts. There are the spiritual virtues such as goodness, love, patience, tolerance and so on and then there are the social laws such as laws for marriage and punishments for murder, theft etc.
The social laws are only meant for that time. For instance in the desert where there are no jails, police, courts, judges or correction facilities punishments had to be harsh as they also had to address deter offenders without prisons. So the laws in the times of Moses and Muhammad were harsh.
However, as civilization advance and developed now we are able to rehabilitate prisoners so in this age a new Messenger, Baha’u’llah, has appeared with laws suited to these times.
The problem is in trying to apply ancient laws to a modern age but for these times they were needed.
OOOOOOOOOOOO
"The social laws are only meant for that time. For instance in the desert where there are no jails, police, courts, judges or correction facilities punishments had to be harsh as they also had to address deter offenders without prisons. So the laws in the times of Moses and Muhammad were harsh."
One may like to read my comments on the above point by accessing my posts #135 and #136 .
Regards
Last edited:
These comments highlighted in color and others represent commentary by a 'believer' @loverofhumanity, and not meaningful. They do not represent Baha'i scripture. Nothing here is meaningful to the discussion.