My first post

[stevecanuck]

@stevecanuck

Hello, and I hope you're well.

“Do you really think they deserved that fate?”

I don’t know. I wasn’t there nor could I state my opinion.

Speculate for us. Give us a scenario in which it would be justified to gather young non-combatants and lop their heads off.

The fact that this is even possible based on the teachings of Islam - again, for ANY reason - makes it an abhorrent creed. Muslim soldiers over the centuries have slaughtered untold numbers of people using the Qur'an, Mohamed, and the first Muslims as their template.

 

[stevecanuck]

@stevecanuck

They asked for someone within their own tribe to pass the judgment and they accepted Sa’d to be that person.

Mohamed approved of that judgement per the hadith I quoted earlier.

Either way, it is absolutely critical for us to establish if these people broke the treaty or not.

If they broke a treaty, surely a hadith would confirm that. You're up. Please provide one.

 

[icehorse]

I'm reading them under the linguistic microscope. Through morphology, semantics, and syntax. This is how I read it. If you aren't interested in doing the exegesis of the ayahs, then there's no point in boring you with mine.

Well it depends. Are you starting to see what I mean by the MIND / BRAIN tension? If so, we could look at these verses from both perspectives.

 

[stevecanuck]

@stevecanuck

I don’t understand your point about the fasaad. How did I leave it out?

Please try to follow.

YOU accused me of partially quoting a verse. I explained that it only looks worse for Islam by examining the whole verse. You ignored that explanation.

Then, YOU partially quoted 5:33. Do you really not see the hypocrisy in that?

 

[stevecanuck]

@stevecanuck

The first offense comes from those that wage war against God. The word min (whoever) in the Arabic text is conditional. The condition is those who wage war first.

You're ignoring the fact that 'fasad' was equated to making war in 5:32 and 5:33. The former excludes protecting those guilty of 'fasad', while the latter explicitly says they should be killed.

 

[stevecanuck]

@stevecanuck

Hello, and I hope you're well.

Forgive me for ignoring your kind introduction. I too hope you are well.

 

[stevecanuck]

@stevecanuck

And the Falun Gong directly spoke against the communist government and had their own political ideologies, this is a big reason why these persecutions occurred. While the same can’t be said for the minority Muslim population in China. There is actually no comparison in how these persecutions are being conducted.

The Chinese government will persecute any group that recognizes a power superior to theirs. All religions fall under that category.

 

[stevecanuck]

@stevecanuck

Concerning Asia, I don’t think she deserves to be killed and anyone that thinks otherwise is just insecure in their own faith and doesn’t understand the overall message of Islam. I thought I made my views clear on this.

Do you realize that you're telling the entire country of Pakistan that they're practising Islam incorrectly? Who are we to look to at for the truth - you, or millions of Pakistanis?

The real life (and death) examples in the world today make a mockery of claims that Islam is a peaceful religion. The entire Sahel is under siege by Islamists. Many dozens of Islamic jihad organizations around the world are currently making life miserable for untold millions in countries unfortunate enough to have them operating within their borders.

 

[stevecanuck]

@stevecanuck
Concerning the ayah, you posted 35:39. I don’t see the point you are trying to make honestly. And again, not once will you see Allah saying that He hates particular people. Such an emotion isn’t even befitting to Allah.

I am mystified as to how you can hold to a position when the words of your god directly contradict it. The "particular people" he hates are non-Muslims.

Sahih International: It is He who has made you successors upon the earth. And whoever disbelieves - upon him will be [the consequence of] his disbelief. And the disbelief of the disbelievers does not increase them in the sight of their Lord except in hatred; and the disbelief of the disbelievers does not increase them except in loss.

Pickthall: He it is Who hath made you regents in the earth; so he who disbelieveth, his disbelief be on his own head. Their disbelief increaseth for the disbelievers, in their Lord's sight, naught save abhorrence. Their disbelief increaseth for the disbelievers naught save loss.

Yusuf Ali: He it is That has made you inheritors in the earth: if, then, any do reject (Allah), their rejection (works) against themselves: their rejection but adds to the odium for the Unbelievers in the sight of their Lord: their rejection but adds to (their own) undoing.

Shakir: He it is Who made you rulers in the land; therefore whoever disbelieves, his unbelief is against himself; and their unbelief does not increase the disbelievers with their Lord in anything except hatred; and their unbelief does not increase the disbelievers in anything except loss.

Muhammad Sarwar: It is He who has made you each other's successors on earth. Whoever disbelieves, does so against his own self. The disbelief of the unbelievers will only increase the anger of their Lord and will only cause them greater loss.

Mohsin Khan: He it is Who has made you successors generations after generations in the earth, so whosoever disbelieves (in Islamic Monotheism) on him will be his disbelief. And the disbelief of the disbelievers adds nothing but hatred with their Lord. And the disbelief of the disbelievers adds nothing but loss.

Arberry: It is He who appointed you viceroys in the earth. So whosoever disbelieves, his unbelief shall be charged against him; their unbelief increases the disbelievers only in hate in God's sight; their unbelief increases the disbelievers only in loss.

 

[stevecanuck]

@stevecanuck

Concerning ayah 65:4. This doesn’t have to mean children. It could easily mean women that have amenorrhea. Not a single contemporary scholar will agree that this gives permission for men to marry children. They have to be mentally and physically mature. What people do is something else. There are those that are misguided.

This is nothing more than gratuitous denial of that which is clearly stated. Mohsin Khan clearly has no misconceptions about it.

Mohsin Khan: And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death] . And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him.

Muhammad Muhsin Khan - Wikipedia.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I see you're still pretending that 9:111 is referring exclusively to defensive actions. Please tell us the defensive imperative that took a Muslim army to France in 732. And later to India where they killed millions of Hindus in 'self defense'.

I don't pretend.
Citing atrocities of mankind prove nothing, regardless of their religious persuasion.

I don't claim that believers are perfect and don't get angry and seek revenge etc.
However, we are taught not to.
G-d forgives whomsoever He wills, and punishes whomsoever He wills.

..and no. That doesn't mean "a bearded tyrant" called G-d literally throws people into physical flames.

 

[ppp]

Hello, and I hope you're well.

Hello. I am well! I just moved into my new house today, and I love it. So sore though.

The dominant theory out there is that the universe came from a singularity. Do you hold this position?

Not quite. The dominant theory is that the universe was a singularity that underwent an expansion event. Where that singularity came from, or if it came from anywhere is out of scope of that theory.

And yes of course you don’t believe in a soul. But does that make it true?

Yes. It is true that I do not believe in a soul. Nor do I believe that my non belief has any bearing on whether one exists. Though I think there are some excellent arguments against the possibility. But to the point, I see no reason to think that you or anyone else who has made such a claim knows, or is capable of knowing that a soul exists. IOW, you have no rational justification for your claim

. So why don’t you believe in a soul? It’s not something tangible, nor detectable, but considered the spark that gives you life. So why do you think you don’t have this spark?

I have no reason to think that we need a spark. Or that chemistry isn't enough.

But I don't even need to accept that to understand that no one has demonstrated that they are capable of knowing what they claim to know.

 

[stevecanuck]

I don't pretend.
Citing atrocities of mankind prove nothing, regardless of their religious persuasion.

I don't claim that believers are perfect and don't get angry and seek revenge etc.
However, we are taught not to.
G-d forgives whomsoever He wills, and punishes whomsoever He wills.

..and no. That doesn't mean "a bearded tyrant" called G-d literally throws people into physical flames.

The denial is strong in this one.

I don't see any point in answering you if all you can post is variations of, "IS NOT!!!!".

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hello, and I hope you’re well. I find it quite interesting that you’re willing to accept any of these theories over the most simple and obvious one. (ie Creator) Is it because you don’t like what the reality of that possibility would entail?

And if there is no fitrah, then why do studies show that the belief in the supernatural is already programmed in us? Neurologists and even evolutionary biologists can attest to this. Here’s an interesting video, ..

The most simple and obvious was that the sun and moon revolved around the earth. And people believed that for millenniums. Later we found that it was not so. The same holds for belief in any God. It does not stand scrutiny, it has no evidence. That is why many people today reject that. What we observe is not reality. Prick your finger and blood oozes out. But surprisingly, no atoms have touched another. That is why in Hinduism and Buddhism, they say that the observed is an illusion (maya, anatta).

Even if it is fitrah or something programmed in us, it is falsehood and we should reject it because of want of evidence. As for the video, I am sorry that my hearing problem does not allow me to enjoy that.

 

[joelr]

They claim to have had revelations.
So have countless others.
No two ever get coinciding mrssages

Or messages that tell us anything new or any way to verify the experience. And the stories are always extremely similar to being re-writes of older stories.

 

[joelr]

@joelr

Hello, and I hope you're well.

Can you please show me in the bible where Paul sees Jesus more than once?

And I don’t think they were epileptic seizures. This is what the orientalists say.

The reason I believe Muhammad is due to many reasons, and we can go through them all. My first reason would be the simplicity of the message. (Serve the Creator by serving life).

The Acts road to Damascus is just one story (definitely fiction). In the Epistles Paul is often saying things like this - "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Jesus was apparently appearing to Paul from Heaven and this is how Paul knew so many stories and details. Paul did not have seizures, he was lying for a cause. He heard some stories about a savior (the idea was becoming very popular) and decided to "enhance" his evangelism by claiming the savior actually appeared to him. Same with Joe Smith and Mormonism. It's not real.

I have no idea what simplicity has to do with a myth being true? The entire opening is basically, you better believe or doom, Jews and Christians are false and definite belief in apoctalyism which is a Persian myth adopted by Christians. Moses and the OT are myths. The writers of this do not realize that. Then on and on about disbelievers? Every chapter I open to?

 

[Audie]

Or messages that tell us anything new or any way to verify the experience. And the stories are always extremely similar to being re-writes of older stories.

...not much of a god if thats all he can come
up with for a Message to pass on.

 

[Audie]

The Chinese government will persecute any group that recognizes a power superior to theirs. All religions fall under that category.

Christianity was the issue for thr civil war mid 19th century,
and is otherwise much associated with such as imperialism and
disruption.
Observing the atrocious behaviour of Islamists elsewhere gives
good enough reasonto oppose its spread in China.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Christianity was the issue for the civil war mid 19th century,

Not Christianity per se.
There was a serious division that arose due to Protestantism.

England and the Netherlands made up their own idea of what was moral, and usury was no longer under church control.

 

[Audie]

Not Christianity per se.
There was a serious division that arose due to Protestantism.

England and the Netherlands made up their own idea of what was moral, and usury was no longer under church control.

Of course it was "per se".

Christianists and islamists both try to pull
the same sleight of hand.
When some particularly odious passage in their books is quoted , well, it is " out of context" or
the people who took the passage at face value
are "not true" believers.

Christianity and Islam are tools of imperialism,
they are alien to China, have nothing to offer but
disruption and grief.
"Persecution" of invasive antisocial ideologies.
What a ( not very funny) laugh.