Perceptions of Islam

[thinker_of_elves]

...and
“It is not disbelief that is dangerous to our society; it is belief”

 

[thinker_of_elves]

and of course...
“At present there is not a single credible established religion in the world”

 

[DakotaGypsy]

The modern number system was created by the Hindu's about 300 years before the Qur'an was written.

I agree that Arabs stole the modern system of integers from Hindus, but wasn't algebra pretty much an Arab invention?

 

[frg001]

I agree that Arabs stole the modern system of integers from Hindus, but wasn't algebra pretty much an Arab invention?

Quite possibly, but I just wanted to set that particular record straight. Oh what fun this thread appears to be

 

[YmirGF]

I am impressed with your reply, as well as your stamina. Well! i am posting in this thread continously, the point I am try to stress hard on is that, please don't judge Islam by looking at the Muslims, rather Judge it by looking at Muhammed.

I too admire your tackling of these perceptions. A novel approach and kudo's to you for doing so. However, if you read what I am saying, you would understand that that is exactly what I am doing. I am judging Muhammed... not Islam directly. The logic being that if you "take out" the cornerstone, the ediface crumbles.

Only than you are welcome to pose your questions. No one judges a car by looking at any other driver, we need a perfect driver to test drive the Car. Right? I know you agree with me.

Dare I point out that some cars are built from defective designs? Surely you have heard of large scale factory recalls. Sorry, your allusion does not travel on solid ground. I DO understand what you mean though, lol. To an extent, I agree, but only to an extent.

I appreciate your knowledge, but sorry, The message was there from Adam, but hey, why am I telling you all this, when you don't believe in it.

Yes that would be a bit silly to persue that angle with me. I am quite proud of our simian heritage. It is nothing to be ashamed of, unless of couse, people nowadays continue to behave like apes.

We should start from begining, why are you jumping between topics

If you noticed, my reply followed your post, section by section. I might also ask, why are you jumping around?
BTW: This post also addresses your previous post, section by section. It may pay to be a bit more observant.

you don't believe in God right? How can I explain the existance of Islam from the begining when you don't belive in it's sender. I think we should discuss that first, and then come to all this. To disbelieve in God, you need to define it first, because when you disbelieve in something, you at least need to have some image of it, in your mind. Then I will come back to this topic (promise, not to forget) and please be precise, don't practice double standards.

Well, you almost lost me there. I am not althogether sure YOU understand the subject all that well. You do have a penchant for making assumptions, I'll give you that. You assume I do not believe in God. Such is hardly the case. :hug:

Double standards? What on earth, are you talking about?

I do believe in a pychological energy geshtalt quite beyond our current, primitve modes, of understanding. To my strange perspective, one can learn to touch that incredible, undescribeable essence. Curiously, it is not all that hard a thing to do. You might want to read more on my humble view here. I particularly adore the first response from the beautiful Sammour. It fits my piece perfectly and I will always be in her debt. You will note that the document was originally released on Islam.com

http://www.islam.com/all-replies.asp?id=615171&ct=16&mn=615171

Here I see another question arising, Is Quran the word of God or not? and this is the third one i think, the first one was, is Muhammed a Prophet, the second, Does God Exists, and this is the last one,...I find your reply to be full of questions rather than ideas, as we have started from Muhammed, I will discuss that first.

And you say I am hop-scotching around, LOL. I had to read that 4 times just to get your thinking. I agree, clarity is paramount. {I DO understand that you are addressing several people here and that is to be commended. Heck, you might even squeeze a frubal or two out of my hands.)

You have taken the support of many words twisted, but I will assume your assumption about Muhammed to be this "Muhammed didn't recieve any revelation, but he was only too intelligent to dictate the Quran"? am I Right? No I am not going to go on with the discussion until you confirm this. I don't want any hassel bassel later on. I see you too are very intelligent, but I will appreciate if you stay in logical limits and be precise....Don't take me wrong, I am facing many such people who don't know what they are saying.....Thanks and heartly regards.

Hahaha. I know, you are trying very hard. Again, kudo's to you.
You really have to stop making assumptions. Root word: Assume = a.s.s+U+Me

If you THINK about what I am saying, your assumption IS NOT what I am, in fact, saying. I never said, nor would I say, that Muhammed was not inspired by Allah/God. I think it rather safe to assume he was. I also stated that I believe he was a bona fide genius. I stand by that. You need only read his words. In many ways, Muhammed was brilliant. However, when you examine his life and begin to unravel his revelations a darker side emerges. It is that darker side that first made me suspicious. I began to get an uneasy feeling about his long rants on the Hellfire as well as his reactions to his revelations.

The other thing for you to bear in mind is that I have researched the life of Muhammed from pro and con Islamic sites and from the Noble Qur'an, to my own satisfaction. I do my own thinking and do not rely on others to form my conclusions.

I read some pretty wild things on both side of the coin and spent many months putting together my vision of Muhammed. So, please, do not tell me I have settled for the lies of the likes of Craig Winn and his Prophet of Doom. Ibn Warrick is also a fascinating read, but again, I don't buy into what either is saying completely, although Mr. Winn is a most amusing writer. Prophet of Doom is perhaps one of the funniest works I have read on the entire matter, however I reject his conclusions.

Sane people do not hear rocks calling their name, nor do they see trees out for a stroll. Psychotics on the other hand... could very well report similar things. Go visit a mental instituation and ask to speak with Jesus Christ. No doubt they will ask you, "Oh, which one? We have a few."

BTW: Did Muhammed ever learn to read and write?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree that Arabs stole the modern system of integers from Hindus, but wasn't algebra pretty much an Arab invention?

Pretty much ... no.

The origins of algebra can be traced to the ancient Babylonians, who used an early type of algebra to solve linear, quadratic, and Diophantine equations (first-order indeterminate equations) in the second millenium BC. By contrast, most Egyptians of this era, and most Indian, Greek and Chinese mathematicians in the first millennium BC usually solved such equations by geometric methods, such as those described in the Moscow and Rhind Mathematical Papyri, Sulba Sutras, Euclid's Elements, and The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art.

Indian and Hellenistic mathematicians proceeded to write treatises on algebraic means of solving equations from the first millennium AD. The most well-known works on algebra from this general era include that of Hero of Alexandria, the Arithmetica of Diophantus, the writings of the Indian mathematicians Aryabhata and Brahmagupta, and the work of Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi.

The word "algebra" is named after Kitab al-Jabr wa-l-Muqabala, meaning The book of Summary Concerning Calculating by Transposition and Reduction, a book written by Al-Khwarizmi in 820. The word al-jabr means "reunion". Al-Khwarizmi is often considered the "father of modern algebra" (though that title is also given to Diophantus), as much of his works on reduction are still in use today. Another Persian mathematician Omar Khayyam developed algebraic geometry and found the geometric solution of cubic equations.

- see Wikipedia

 

[thinker_of_elves]

Muhammed was not a dirty Old Man, but the Last Messenger Of God, WHEN YOU SAY SOMETING, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVE IT

How can I prove it. He died a very long time ago. The only 'proof' is in your sacred texts. The fact remains that a 52 year old bloke had sex with a 9 year old girl, and now you revere him, and for some reason so do 100's of millions of other people.
And as to semantics... I wonder what the consensus would be if I asked 1000 random people if they thought a 50+ year old sleeping with a pre-pubescant 9 year old was NOT paedophilia. I wonder!

 

[Nehustan]

Ur is on the Arab Peninsula. Or would you deny the 'Iraqis' (Mesopotamia) their heritage too?

 

[Nehustan]

How can I prove it. He died a very long time ago. The only 'proof' is in your sacred texts. The fact remains that a 52 year old bloke had sex with a 9 year old girl, and now you revere him, and for some reason so do 100's of millions of other people.
And as to semantics... I wonder what the consensus would be if I asked 1000 random people if they thought a 50+ year old sleeping with a pre-pubescant 9 year old was NOT paedophilia. I wonder!

Oh I missed this one...the old paedophilia accusation raises its head. Its true that Muhammad married Aisha when she was young, whereupon she joined the Prophet's household. Upon reaching maturity (i.e. puberty) as instructed in Islam, the marriage was consumated. Exactly the same happened with every culture at the time. Childhood is a very recent creation (go back and ask chimney sweeps in London).

I think (and this may offend some) the general axiom that applied concerning sexual relations on the Arab Peninsula and everywhere else at the time is this...

'If she can bleed she can breed'​

Nature has a very definite way to differentiate the girl from the woman.​

 

[Judgement Day]

How can I prove it. He died a very long time ago. The only 'proof' is in your sacred texts. The fact remains that a 52 year old bloke had sex with a 9 year old girl, and now you revere him, and for some reason so do 100's of millions of other people.
And as to semantics... I wonder what the consensus would be if I asked 1000 random people if they thought a 50+ year old sleeping with a pre-pubescant 9 year old was NOT paedophilia. I wonder!

People from this present time or people from the past time? It's awfully wrong to for you to see it and judge it based on modern culture. For your information, in England in the 1700's it was legal for a girl to enter into marriage at around the age of 7, when it was deemed she was old enough to understand the implications of her actions, but the marriage couldn't legally be consumated until she reached the age of consent, which is the end of first menstruation. Now, females at that past time matured earlier than females from this present time. Just because Muhammad pbuh married a 9 year old in the past does not make him a paedophilia, but rather it is used as a weapon for someone to attack a religion which they really dont know anything about.

 

[Judgement Day]

How can I prove it. He died a very long time ago. The only 'proof' is in your sacred texts.

Well, if you cant prove it, then dont make statements which you cant prove yourself! Arguments with no proofs is like a house without foundations.

 

[nutshell]

Oh I missed this one...the old paedophilia accusation raises its head. Its true that Muhammad married Aisha when she was young, whereupon she joined the Prophet's household. Upon reaching maturity (i.e. puberty) as instructed in Islam, the marriage was consumated. Exactly the same happened with every culture at the time. Childhood is a very recent creation (go back and ask chimney sweeps in London).

I think (and this may offend some) the general axiom that applied concerning sexual relations on the Arab Peninsula and everywhere else at the time is this...

'If she can bleed she can breed'​

Nature has a very definite way to differentiate the girl from the woman.​

That's true. In many cultures marriages took place, but were not consumated until after the girl/woman started menstrating.

 

[TashaN]

I'm so surprised in how people forgot that the first who would attack his marriage would be his enemies at that time.

They claimed that he was crazy, poet or even magican but no one ever blamed him for marrying Aisha because it was common at that time to marry the girl when her mom notice that she is prepared for it.

Everybody was practicing this in that time whether they were arabs or not.

I think this is a success until now that no one could attack the message "Islam" itself but they are trying hardly to attack a normal common "LEGAL" marriage at that time.

Therefore, we know now that Islam is perfect and Mohammed the one who hold the message was indeed, perfect too.


Peace ...

 

[thinker_of_elves]

I'm so surprised in how people forgot that the first who would attack his marriage would be his enemies at that time.

They claimed that he was crazy, poet or even magican but no one ever blamed him for marrying Aisha because it was common at that time to marry the girl when her mom notice that she is prepared for it.

Everybody was practicing this in that time whether they were arabs or not.

Just because 'everyone' was practising paedophilia, does not make it right. A great number of things that went on in the past, we now know to be wrong, such as slavery and discrimination.

I think this is a success until now that no one could attack the message "Islam" itself but they are trying hardly to attack a normal common "LEGAL" marriage at that time.

Therefore, we know now that Islam is perfect and Mohammed the one who hold the message was indeed, perfect too.

Peace ...

Hardly perfect. We know now, that what he did at the time was wrong. Even if we accept that he knew no better and that in those times paedophilia was accepted, as was slavery and bigotry, he participated. Not exactly perfect - Surely a 'perfect' person would have shunned these norms, and realised how wrong it was?

Ok for one moment let's excuse him as 1400 years ago, this is how life was... Why on earth should we take his book as a way to live in a modern society?

I have been reading the Qur'an recently, and it seems to me quite violent in it's words, very 'blood and thunder' if you know what I mean. It does not seem to me particularly apt in the modern age, of freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and just basically freedom. It seems to me that Muslims are slaves to the ramblings of a man who we can see was not perfect (No less perfect than those around him I admit), who was possibly quite insane in fact.

Peace...

 

[mehrosh]

Quite possibly, but I just wanted to set that particular record straight. Oh what fun this thread appears to be

Hi, and welcome back Sir, how are you and how's your son, hope you enjoyed your beer the other day. Thats nice to know that you are finding this thread to be fun, well, it is really fun now, no one remains on the topic, people don't have anything to say and they are bringing unwanted stuff in. What numbers have to do with this thread I don't understand, and I even don't understand that why does enemity takes people to such extreams that they don't want to except FACTS.

 

[Mike182]

I have been reading the Qur'an recently, and it seems to me quite violent in it's words, very 'blood and thunder' if you know what I mean. It does not seem to me particularly apt in the modern age, of freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and just basically freedom. It seems to me that Muslims are slaves to the ramblings of a man who we can see was not perfect (No less perfect than those around him I admit), who was possibly quite insane in fact.

you talk of freedom of speach, freedom of expression, freedom in general........ freedom of religion mean anything to ya?

you are applying a 21st century ethic to an older culture, is there any wonder you are blind to the arguments you have seen here? people have already explained the custom of taking a young bride, and then the marriage was consumated when she reached her first period. you are trying to look at this custom with 21st century morality, and that is the wrong way to look at it.

do you not realise that today, the age of "coming" into adulthood is higher than before? yes he married Aisha, but she was an adult when they consumated their marriage.

 

[mehrosh]

How can I prove it. He died a very long time ago. The only 'proof' is in your sacred texts. The fact remains that a 52 year old bloke had sex with a 9 year old girl, and now you revere him, and for some reason so do 100's of millions of other people.
And as to semantics... I wonder what the consensus would be if I asked 1000 random people if they thought a 50+ year old sleeping with a pre-pubescant 9 year old was NOT paedophilia. I wonder!

Well!as we have already explained to you, that was a norm of that culture, you talk to me about norm of your culture, google the rape rate in the west, you will come up with as little as 11 year old girls being raped by 60 year old men. And this is normal for them, it is like eating and drinking, not a big deal, but this topic will never be raised, it will never be highlighted. People like you will abuse a person who married a 9 year old, you will not abuse someone who rapes a 9 year old (GOOGLE IT dont ask me). And if that is all you have to offer, kindly keep your ideas to your self. What can't you proof? If you know Muhammed only by the the sacred texts and you don't even know whether he existed or not, then I will call you insane for trying to abuse him. Even I know Darwin by his books, I didn't meet him, niether did you, so prove the existence of Darwin now........

 

[Mike182]

one thing that is worth noting is that Islam as a religion, stands fast, in that they do not alter their text in translations.

 

[mehrosh]

Ok for one moment let's excuse him as 1400 years ago, this is how life was... Why on earth should we take his book as a way to live in a modern society?

I have been reading the Qur'an recently, and it seems to me quite violent in it's words, very 'blood and thunder' if you know what I mean. It does not seem to me particularly apt in the modern age, of freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and just basically freedom. It seems to me that Muslims are slaves to the ramblings of a man who we can see was not perfect (No less perfect than those around him I admit), who was possibly quite insane in fact.

Peace...

It is after a very long time that you have come to the point...COME TO THE POINT MAN, WHY DO YOU WANT TO HIDE BEHIND MUHAMMED'S MARRIAGE.....I Bet YOU DON'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO DEBATE ON THE QURAN, and you are using the weapon many enemies of ISLAM use. WHEN THEY HAVE NOTHING LEFT, AND THEY CAN'T SWALLOW THE TRUTH, they bring such undecent topics on light. It is better you remain on topic now, you have recieved your answers.

Ok for one moment let's excuse him as 1400 years ago, this is how life was... Why on earth should we take his book as a way to live in a modern society?

Because his book is the only book in this world that holds the truth, the only book which is unchanged, the only book which has no contradictions in it. NO ONE IS TELLING YOU TO BLINDLY ACCEPT HIS BOOK IN THE MODERN ERA. Lucky 80% of the Book belongs to the Present Slot, It is Unique, there is nothing like unto it, It is the Only Book in the world that calls you to take out mistakes in it. It is not only a book, but lives in the breasts of 10 million people, 18% only of which are Arabs. ITS TRUTH IS IRREFUTABLE. IF YOU BRING ME "A" MISTAKE IN HIS BOOK, I WILL ACCEPT IT AS UNVALID FOR THE MODERN ERA.

I have been reading the Qur'an recently

I know from where you are reading this Quran, the websites you offered in your first post, and that is the biggest problem, you are nothing but the bite of the Media, who fear Islam and try to Maline it. IF ISLAM IS A BLOODY RELIGION HOW IS THAT EVERY SINGLE DAY 400-500 PEOPLE ARE ACCEPTING ISLAM EVERYDAY ONLY IN AMERICA. You need to bring up the verses you thing are bloody. I hope you stay on the topic this time.

 

[thinker_of_elves]

you talk of freedom of speach, freedom of expression, freedom in general........ freedom of religion mean anything to ya?

you are applying a 21st century ethic to an older culture, is there any wonder you are blind to the arguments you have seen here? people have already explained the custom of taking a young bride, and then the marriage was consumated when she reached her first period. you are trying to look at this custom with 21st century morality, and that is the wrong way to look at it.

do you not realise that today, the age of "coming" into adulthood is higher than before? yes he married Aisha, but she was an adult when they consumated their marriage.

Of course I understand freedom of religion. And I would fight for the principle. But Islam is far far away from being perfect. The fact remains that Muhammed did what he did. If he had been perfect he would have realised how vile the 'custom' was and shunned it. He didn't, he was human, not in anyway elevated above anyone around him.