Well to offer opinion c (or perhaps d) to all this infighting of Jews, Christians and Muslims. I think all three religions should be done away with. I can certainly feel able to tolerate all three (and I do, do so), but if it means letting the whole world kill itself, then I think not. Every now and then a forest needs a good forest fire.
-
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!
Muhammad's Sword !!!
- Thread starter TashaN
- Start date
kai
ragamuffin
tell that to the LDS members and the issues i raise are not attacks but issues i have with Islam and answers i am trying to get. if it is the most attacked then its because its the most missunderstood and if its the most missunderstood its because there are people calling for Jihad, there are peolple crying allah u akhbar as they kill, there are people strapping dynamyte to themselves and blowing up innocent people and yes there are people like you and the Truth telling me its nothing to do with IslamEzzedean said:
surely you can see not only the confusion but the worry and cause of such missunderstanding or do you think we are all bigots antislamics ,islamaphobics or any other label to explain away genuine concerns of what is actually going on in the world! I do not insult Islam or the Prophet i ask and state genuine concerns and issues and i am critical not aggressive
kai said:
This is the thing kai. Your issue shouldn't be with Islam because we have shown you verse after verse after verse to explain how these problems you have are not Islamic teachings... and it's constant. I myself am constantly showing verses... and even when someone throws a verse at me.. it's proven to be wayy out of context... this is proven by showing the verses which come before and after.I am not the only muslim on this forum who does this, all the muslims on this forum do. Your problem shouldn't be with Islam, instead it should be with people who claim to be muslims while doing these disgusting things. It's certain "muslims" who have issues.... not Islam. Those certain "muslims" I speak of don't even make up for a fraction of the muslims around the world... yet they are the face of Islam... this is what upsets me. You talk to muslims everyday kai. Do you truly believe I am like this? Have we not been good representatives of Islam?
I wont look at the actions of KKK members and then continue to have issues with Christianity... I will have issues with those members.. I'd learn that their actions are definately not what's part of the teachings of Christ, and that they are only blinded by the true teachings. I understand your approach, and I understand you are seeking knowledge.. but do you understand me?
I am in the process of making a short documentary of the muslim community where I live. I will send you a copy the day it's done and what you will see is the Islam I've grown up with and known... this will also be the Islam that the majority of muslims in the world have grown up with. You're gonna have to wait a bit but when it's done you'll get it and hopefully you'll understand how frustrating it is for us muslims to hear that people have such a big problem with the teachings of our religion. Just know that I am just as upset at the people strapping bombs to their chests, yelling Allah'u Akbar and killing innocent people.. it makes me sick, and it is a disgrace to God, Islam and all true muslims.
I'm going to bed... dead tired.
Peace and Blessings.
To some of the Muslim posters here, I think I've observed something that should be mentioned if any further dialogue is going to cross this brick way that has seemed to hit many.
When people on here are making complaints about Islam, they really are talking about what those who call themselves Muslim do. They are not complaining about what Muhammad said or did directly. They are complaining about what Muslims(not all) through the ages and even today have interpreted Muhammad's actions and sayings in violent ways. Admittedly Christians have done the same through their history, however the settings are a bit different currently. Thanks to another member here they've posted numerous accounts of almost every State (currently) run by Muslim leaders or that has a majority of Muslims has/is persecuting Jews, Christians and those of other faiths. Persecution often meaning everything from 2nd class citizenship (not from the community, but from the government) to all out imprisoning/killing. Western/Enlightenment/Christian rooted countries today have far fewer cases of any sort of religious persecution. Part of the fear, especially if Muslim immigration into Europe and else where is if these countries become a majority ruled by Muslims, will the culture of those nations still be preserved or will it be destroyed?
Of course I don't think all of this has to do with some showdown of the two religions. It has far much more to do with the now couple centuries old consequences of Imperial Europe's colonization of most of the rest of the world and the consequences of the Cold War between the USA and the USSR. Along with this there has been the rise in popularity of the tactic of gaining regional and world power through religious fanaticism. Much of this fanaticism in the West is probably most seen in America, but it's tempered down by a number of laws and regulations that stop America from becoming a Theocracy (although these are starting to tear down). In much of the Muslim States this law that separates religious leaders from becoming political tyrants is often not found, which really has to do with the fact that, because of reasons earlier stated, these States have hardly existed as long as they have under their own power.
When people on here are making complaints about Islam, they really are talking about what those who call themselves Muslim do. They are not complaining about what Muhammad said or did directly. They are complaining about what Muslims(not all) through the ages and even today have interpreted Muhammad's actions and sayings in violent ways. Admittedly Christians have done the same through their history, however the settings are a bit different currently. Thanks to another member here they've posted numerous accounts of almost every State (currently) run by Muslim leaders or that has a majority of Muslims has/is persecuting Jews, Christians and those of other faiths. Persecution often meaning everything from 2nd class citizenship (not from the community, but from the government) to all out imprisoning/killing. Western/Enlightenment/Christian rooted countries today have far fewer cases of any sort of religious persecution. Part of the fear, especially if Muslim immigration into Europe and else where is if these countries become a majority ruled by Muslims, will the culture of those nations still be preserved or will it be destroyed?
Of course I don't think all of this has to do with some showdown of the two religions. It has far much more to do with the now couple centuries old consequences of Imperial Europe's colonization of most of the rest of the world and the consequences of the Cold War between the USA and the USSR. Along with this there has been the rise in popularity of the tactic of gaining regional and world power through religious fanaticism. Much of this fanaticism in the West is probably most seen in America, but it's tempered down by a number of laws and regulations that stop America from becoming a Theocracy (although these are starting to tear down). In much of the Muslim States this law that separates religious leaders from becoming political tyrants is often not found, which really has to do with the fact that, because of reasons earlier stated, these States have hardly existed as long as they have under their own power.
jewscout
Religious Zionist
The Truth said:
hmmm Mel Gibson would be proud
1. the jews had no power or authority during this time
2. Crucifiction is not a jewish practice
3. The people with the power and authority and who performed crucifictions as means of execution were Romans...so really we should be blaming Rome for this one, not continueing to blame the jews.
gnostic
The Lost One
I see Islam and Muslims as one, just as I see Christianity and Christians as one. Etc, etc, etc.
You can't have one without the other. Of course, there may be difference between sects, due to different interpretations, different customs, etc, etc.
How Islam can't exist without Muslims. And of course, and obviously, Muslims can't exist without Islam. Islam is more than just about Qur'an and Muhammad. It is about the people who follow the religion, and their history.
The same goes for Christianity or any other religion.
Why do Muslims today associate with the former empires (Arab, Persian and Ottoman) with Islam, but the Islamic terrorists of today has nothing to do with Islam, when even some of the Islamic clerics or spiritual leaders support these factions and offered justification in their so-called holy wars?
There are good Muslims and bad Muslims, but they are Muslims nevertheless.
It simply doesn't wash.
You can't have one without the other. Of course, there may be difference between sects, due to different interpretations, different customs, etc, etc.
How Islam can't exist without Muslims. And of course, and obviously, Muslims can't exist without Islam. Islam is more than just about Qur'an and Muhammad. It is about the people who follow the religion, and their history.
The same goes for Christianity or any other religion.
Why do Muslims today associate with the former empires (Arab, Persian and Ottoman) with Islam, but the Islamic terrorists of today has nothing to do with Islam, when even some of the Islamic clerics or spiritual leaders support these factions and offered justification in their so-called holy wars?
There are good Muslims and bad Muslims, but they are Muslims nevertheless.
It simply doesn't wash.
gnostic
The Lost One
But what if the Muslim government is corrupted, and non-Muslim citizens decided to remove them from office or seek independence, and not pay the Jizyah?
Do these people have the rights to remove Muslims, either by peacefully or by force, if corrupted Muslims are in power?
I would think the Muslims will crush them, even if the Muslims are unjust and non-Muslims are just.
It seemed that Muslims have rights to overthrow non-Muslim governments, but no non-Muslims may overthrow Muslim government. That's where I see double standard arise.
Do these people have the rights to remove Muslims, either by peacefully or by force, if corrupted Muslims are in power?
I would think the Muslims will crush them, even if the Muslims are unjust and non-Muslims are just.
It seemed that Muslims have rights to overthrow non-Muslim governments, but no non-Muslims may overthrow Muslim government. That's where I see double standard arise.
michel said:The Truth; it would seem like you have avoided responding to the point I made when I posted posts #66, 67, 68, 69, 70, and 71; would you mind looking at those posts and tell me what you think ???
I never ignore posts, i thought you know me better than that.
Please read Post # 92.
The Truth said:
kai said:
Don't be.
It's just that i was thinking what i can add to this thread instead of going on and on in circles. I said to myself, maybe i can't express well what i'm trying to say.
Therefore, inspired by the first Surah and the first verse ever which was revealed to prophet Mohammed "peace be upon him" ...
[1] Proclaim! (or Read!) In the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created,
[2] Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:
[3] Proclaim! and thy Lord is Most Bountiful,
[4] He Who taught (the use of) the Pen,
[5] Taught man that which he knew not.
[6] Nay, but man doth transgress all bounds,
[7] In that he looketh upon himself as self-sufficient.
[8] Verily, to thy Lord is the return (of all). (Surah 96:1)
I decided to READ before coming here again, to read the history, Muslims, non-Muslims and Western point of veiw.
I haven't finish reading my favorite book ever, Even Angels Ask. This morning, while reading it, i found some good stuff to share with all of you. It might be helpful.
Note that, the writer's opnions seems to be from a typical western point of veiw but not Islamic one even though he is a Muslim. He also have a lot of books criticizing Muslims and questioning alot of things in Islam which Muslims tend to accept by default. I bought all his books because the way he writes is fair enough, whether the reader was a Muslim or not.
I typed everything directly from my book this morning. I hope you will like it.
Even Angels Ask
Page 117-120 & page 134-136
The belief that Islam promotes violence is so deeply ingrained in the western experience that it can be called a cultural axiom. Almost no one in the West would challenge the notion that Islam encourages Muslims to use force in order to spread the religion. For many centuries this was the perception---or perhaps one should say the fear---of a civilization that was on the defensive, both military and culturally.
Shortly after prophet Mohammed died in 632 C.E., Arab armies surged forth from the Arabian Peninsula in one of the historys most rapid and startling conquests. By 637 C.E., Syria and Iraq have fallen to the new Muslim state, and then Egypt in 642 C.E. Muslims forces continued to push westward and eastward and, before the end of the first Islamic century, not only would the Islamic empire stretch from the Atlantic across North Africa through the former Persian empire and into India, but it would also include Spain and southern France. Thereafter, Muslims and Europeans would meat repeatedly in battle---with the Muslims having the better of it for several centuries.
Europe made a slow-but-sure comeback and eventually caught up to and surpassed Islamic civilization in science, technology, and military power. The expulsion of the Muslims from Spain in 1492 marked a decisive turning point and served as a notice of things to come. With the occupation of Egypt by Napoleon in 1798, the European colonialist ear began. Ultimately, most of the Muslim world fell under European control. After the Second World War and a bitter and sustained struggle, Muslims around the world began to wrestle political independence from their colonizers, which led to the creation of a large number of independent Muslim states. The experience of colonization by the West has left deep wounds of humiliation and resentment in the hearts of many of todays Muslims.
Originally, the western conception of Islam as a religion urging armed aggression might have been mostly an emotional reaction to the threat of a Muslim takeover of Europe. At times, the possibility of such occurrence must have seemed great (recall that Muslim armies threatened Vienna as late as the seventeenth century). However, during Europes colonialist ear, the portrayal of Islam as a violent faith and of Christianity as a gentle one became one of the Christian missionaries main tactics in their effort to win converts among the Muslim population of Africa and Asia. The incongruity of this claim must have been evident to even the most simple-minded Muslims, for it was like having someone hold you at gun point while he insists to you that he is opposed to all use of force.
Today, some western historians are questioning the notion that Islam encourages violence, because the history of Muslims has not been any more violent that of most other cultures. While most Christians probably would not describe Christianity as a violent faith, it would indeed be very difficult to argue that the history of the Christian West has been more peaceful than that of Muslim world. The number of atrocities committed by Christian governments and armies in the name of God are the same could be said for the number of forced conversions to Christianity. There were times in history when Muslims were also guilty of religious persecution, but western historians have shown that, on the whole, the record of Muslims compares very favorably with that of Christians in this regard. In particular, state-sponsored persecution or forced conversion of non-Muslims was quite rare in the Islamic world.
Many western writers, past and present, have pointed to the division in classical Islamic Law of the world into dar al harb (the abode of war) and dar al Islam (the abode of Islam or peace) as evidence of the essentially aggressive nature of Islam. This legal-political formulation separates the world into two mutually exclusive territories: dar al Islam, the land ruled by Muslims according to the Shariah (Islamic law), and dar al harb, the lands not under Muslim control which must be subjected, by conquest if necessary, to Islamic rule. According to this theory, a perpetual state of war exists between media claim that this demonstrates the warlike character of Islam.
This argument is not so easy to dismiss. Muslims can remind Westerners that past church officials often defended aggressive and brutal government policies on religious grounds. But one can counter that those policies were not essentially Christian, since church leaders would not endorse them today. Almost all Muslim religious leaders, however, still uphold the classical dar al Islam/dar al harb concept (hereafter abbreviated DIH), which makes it appear to be fundamental to Islam. This poses a very difficult personal dilemma for many converts, because it seems to them to become a Muslim, they are required to become enemies of their own countries. We will now explore this issue more carefully.
The taking of another persons life has always been, for almost all people, an extremely grave and terrible act. The Quran compares an unjustifiable homicide to the murder of all mankind (5:32). Therefore, people of virtually every time and place found it necessary---and still do---to find or create moral or religious arguments for their military actions.
As Muslim legal scholars began to elaborate a religious-political theory of warfare, they had to address two great facts: the great Muslim conquests of the past and the persistent threat of hostilities along the boundaries of the Islamic empire. I think it can be said that until perhaps quite recently, every great political power perceived itself to be in a conquer-or-be- conquered situation; that is, if your territory is not expanding, then it is in grave danger of shrinking. Muslim legal scholars pointed to the Prophets military campaigns and the conquests of Umar as support for the DIH theory. They also detailed a comprehensive code of wartime ethics that forbade killing or harassing noncombatants, greatly restricted the destruction of enemy land and property, prescribed humane treatment of captives, and prohibited the use of excessive force and forced conversion. One of the guiding objectives of the Muslim jurists was to bring non-Muslim lands under the authority of the Shariah while minimizing destruction and the loss of life. They were also fully convinced that the Shariah offered a system of government far superior to any other and that it provided the conquered people a better and more just of life, not to mention that it allowed them to be exposed to, and hence to consider, the truth of Islam. H. G. Wells, in The Outline of History, makes almost the same case:
And if the reader entertains any delusions about a fine civilization, either Roman or Persian, Hellenic or Egyptian, being submerged by this flood, the sooner he dismisses such idea the better. Islam prevailed because it was the best social and political order the times could offer. It prevailed because everywhere it found politically apathetic people, robbed, oppressed, bullied, uneducated and unorganized, and it found selfish and unsound governments out of touch with any people at all. It was the broadest, freshest and cleanest political idea that had yet come into actual activity in the world, and it offered better terms than any other to the mass of mankind. H. G. Wells, in The Outline of History, 613-14.
The writer after that goes further in details about the first battle of the Muslims, DIH concept until our current time plus criticizing some view point of Muslim scholars in about more than 17 pages. Then he concludes...
Continue ...
When leaders of Muslim movement around the world invoke the DIH concept today, it is almost always in response to what are perceived as very immediate and real threats to Muslims. That is, the governments that Muslim activities actually apply the dar al harb concept to in their political propaganda are ones that they view as real enemies, not only because these governments will not submit to some form of Islamic rule, but also because they are seen to inflict injustice and suffering on Muslim people. Thus, regardless of the theoretical or ethical dilemma posed by the theory today, the conclusion of the religious leaders who invoke it are, for almost all Muslims, patently correct: These enemies of Muslims should be brought down.
First on the Muslims activities lists of malevolent anti-Islamic governments are the brutal and totalitarian political systems under which most of the worlds Muslims currently live. Next are those governments of non-Muslim countries that are now either attacking or actively oppressing Muslims, such as Serbia with respect to Bosnia, the Russian Republic with respect to Chechnia, Israel with respect to the Palestinians, and India with respect to Kashmir. Finally, there are those governments that are believed to be supporting the above political systems in their persecution and suppression of Muslims. Chief among the countries, in the opinion of many Muslims, are the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany and once again, the Russian Republic.
Militant Muslim leaders who plead for the overthrow of these political systems very frequently tie their appeals to the DIH concept; however, they would have a stronger case if they focused their arguments solely on the injustice and suffering being inflicted upon the Muslims masses, for, without a doubt, all Islamic textual sources, especially the Quran, exhort Muslims to unite in the fight against aggression and tyranny whenever possible.
Of course, it is the third category of anti-Muslim governments that presents the biggest problem for Muslims living in the West. Many Muslims are convinced that the secular West is leagued against them, as evidenced by the fact that secular democracies appear to lower their standards of human rights and justice when dealing with Muslims. For example, the U.N. resolutions against Israel are ignored routinely by western governments, while resolutions against Iraq led quickly to the Gulf War and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties. During the Gulf War, a middle-eastern reporter asked a White Houses cabinet member during a press briefing if the United States was not guilty of having a double standard for dealing with Muslim and non-Muslim countries. The reply was a candid, although probably unintentional, admission that the American government has no set standards and has, in fact, a different policy for dealing with each country. To Muslims, this was a frank admission that in international relations the American governments---and the same is felt about her western allies--- has no moral standards whatsoever when it comes to them.
That the secular governments of the West are united in an effort to destroy Islam or Muslims is probably an exaggeration, but it is true that these governments fear and are opposed to the many Islamic movements that they feel threaten their economic and military interests in the Middle East. It is also a fact that, all too frequently, their political policies have brought great suffering to Muslims. On these grounds alone, are not Muslim citizens of these countries obliged to consider themselves enemies of their government?
A small minority of Muslims living in the west definitely would say so, while the great majority would prefer not to think about it. But a third alternative is available: Muslim citizens of secular democracies have the ability, and perhaps the obligation, to communicate their communitys positions on religious and political issues. Muslims living in the West are often the first to admit that they enjoy greater religious and political freedom than do citizens of Muslim countries. This provides them, as compared to other Muslims around the world, with a unique and important opportunity to influence the societies in which they live. If they unite socially and organize politically---two things that right now they seem reluctant to do---they can greatly affect their societys viewpoints and the future of Muslims everywhere. And this is by far the most practical and effective way they can help their fellow Muslims in distress. To squander this opportunity would be a terrible loss.
The current situation of Muslims living in the west is not, in all respects, similar to that of the Muslims living in either the Makkan or Madinan phase of the Prophets mission. It is true that, at times, Muslim citizens encounter prejudice in western countries, but it is nothing like the persecution that the first Muslims suffered in Makkah. It is also true that western Muslims have many political rights and religious freedom, but they are not politically autonomous, as was the early community in Madinah. Yet as long as this freedom remains, I believe that they should---as every other citizen should---strive to influence their societies according to their conscience. It should not be forgotten that before the Quran permitted believers to emigrate to Madinah and retaliate against their oppressors, Muhammad and his companions exhausted all possible peaceful means of persuading the Quraysh to grant Muslims the freedom to practice and preach Islam in Makkah and that they endured terrible persecution for many years. It seems that a few of the Muslims residing in the West advocate or dream of bypassing the lesson set by Muhammad and his followers in Makkah in order to move immediately to what should be a last resort.
Peace and blessing,
The Truth
Continue ...
When leaders of Muslim movement around the world invoke the DIH concept today, it is almost always in response to what are perceived as very immediate and real threats to Muslims. That is, the governments that Muslim activities actually apply the dar al harb concept to in their political propaganda are ones that they view as real enemies, not only because these governments will not submit to some form of Islamic rule, but also because they are seen to inflict injustice and suffering on Muslim people. Thus, regardless of the theoretical or ethical dilemma posed by the theory today, the conclusion of the religious leaders who invoke it are, for almost all Muslims, patently correct: These enemies of Muslims should be brought down.
First on the Muslims activities lists of malevolent anti-Islamic governments are the brutal and totalitarian political systems under which most of the worlds Muslims currently live. Next are those governments of non-Muslim countries that are now either attacking or actively oppressing Muslims, such as Serbia with respect to Bosnia, the Russian Republic with respect to Chechnia, Israel with respect to the Palestinians, and India with respect to Kashmir. Finally, there are those governments that are believed to be supporting the above political systems in their persecution and suppression of Muslims. Chief among the countries, in the opinion of many Muslims, are the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany and once again, the Russian Republic.
Militant Muslim leaders who plead for the overthrow of these political systems very frequently tie their appeals to the DIH concept; however, they would have a stronger case if they focused their arguments solely on the injustice and suffering being inflicted upon the Muslims masses, for, without a doubt, all Islamic textual sources, especially the Quran, exhort Muslims to unite in the fight against aggression and tyranny whenever possible.
Of course, it is the third category of anti-Muslim governments that presents the biggest problem for Muslims living in the West. Many Muslims are convinced that the secular West is leagued against them, as evidenced by the fact that secular democracies appear to lower their standards of human rights and justice when dealing with Muslims. For example, the U.N. resolutions against Israel are ignored routinely by western governments, while resolutions against Iraq led quickly to the Gulf War and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties. During the Gulf War, a middle-eastern reporter asked a White Houses cabinet member during a press briefing if the United States was not guilty of having a double standard for dealing with Muslim and non-Muslim countries. The reply was a candid, although probably unintentional, admission that the American government has no set standards and has, in fact, a different policy for dealing with each country. To Muslims, this was a frank admission that in international relations the American governments---and the same is felt about her western allies--- has no moral standards whatsoever when it comes to them.
That the secular governments of the West are united in an effort to destroy Islam or Muslims is probably an exaggeration, but it is true that these governments fear and are opposed to the many Islamic movements that they feel threaten their economic and military interests in the Middle East. It is also a fact that, all too frequently, their political policies have brought great suffering to Muslims. On these grounds alone, are not Muslim citizens of these countries obliged to consider themselves enemies of their government?
A small minority of Muslims living in the west definitely would say so, while the great majority would prefer not to think about it. But a third alternative is available: Muslim citizens of secular democracies have the ability, and perhaps the obligation, to communicate their communitys positions on religious and political issues. Muslims living in the West are often the first to admit that they enjoy greater religious and political freedom than do citizens of Muslim countries. This provides them, as compared to other Muslims around the world, with a unique and important opportunity to influence the societies in which they live. If they unite socially and organize politically---two things that right now they seem reluctant to do---they can greatly affect their societys viewpoints and the future of Muslims everywhere. And this is by far the most practical and effective way they can help their fellow Muslims in distress. To squander this opportunity would be a terrible loss.
The current situation of Muslims living in the west is not, in all respects, similar to that of the Muslims living in either the Makkan or Madinan phase of the Prophets mission. It is true that, at times, Muslim citizens encounter prejudice in western countries, but it is nothing like the persecution that the first Muslims suffered in Makkah. It is also true that western Muslims have many political rights and religious freedom, but they are not politically autonomous, as was the early community in Madinah. Yet as long as this freedom remains, I believe that they should---as every other citizen should---strive to influence their societies according to their conscience. It should not be forgotten that before the Quran permitted believers to emigrate to Madinah and retaliate against their oppressors, Muhammad and his companions exhausted all possible peaceful means of persuading the Quraysh to grant Muslims the freedom to practice and preach Islam in Makkah and that they endured terrible persecution for many years. It seems that a few of the Muslims residing in the West advocate or dream of bypassing the lesson set by Muhammad and his followers in Makkah in order to move immediately to what should be a last resort.
Peace and blessing,
The Truth
jewscout
Religious Zionist
The Truth said:
yes that's exactly what i'm telling you.
again, the authority at the time rested soley w/ the Roman government in Judea, not with any jewish legal authority. Hence, why he was crucified, not stoned to death.
but perhaps from the same source we should consider:
The story of the crucifixion of Jesus raises a lot of questions. There are no Roman sources on the trial of the rebel Jesus, where the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate acted as judge. There are Jewish and Roman sources on executions on other wannabe-Messiahs at this time, but no one seems to know of Jesu case. There is actually little archaeological evidence for crucifixion from this period **,[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]but the Jewish and Roman written sources indicate that it was a fairly common practice of execution.[/FONT]
<snip>
The crucifixion of Jesus is neither especially original. Of suffering executed and resurrected god men in Antiquity we can list for example Herakles, Tammuz, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Baal (Bel-Marduk), Mithra, Zarathustra, Odin (Wodan), Dionysos and Buddha.
<snip>
The godman Dionysos was, according to some versions of his passion, was executed on a cross or a pole. The god man Attis was often depicted tied to a tree, and Marsyas met his end tied to a tree and skinned alive. Depictions of a crucified Dionysos/Orpheus are also known.
http://www.bandoli.no/crucifiction.htm
your source really only provides for the arguement that Jesus never even existed, and doesn't support your case at all.
The Truth said:I never ignore posts, i thought you know me better than that.
Please read Post # 92.
I apologise, thank you for your response. As you will see from a thread I have started today, I have realised that I have become A bit "Tunnel-visioned" about Islam; I need to take a step back and re think what I believe.
michel said:
No need to apologize dear Michel, you just missed my post, that's all.
Regarding Islam, i think you are just expressing yourself and i know that you are not trying to put down my religion or somthing.
Keep Cool as usual for the sake of RF and RFrs.