The Hadith, source of Islamic atrocities.

[Wasp]

And I believe that billions of Muslims are sincere in their religion, however, they are easily over ruled by their Islamic court to adhere to fundamentalist Islam.

How do you define 'fundamentist islam'?

 

[danieldemol]

Rape is prohibited by the Qur'an.

Where?

 

[Wasp]

Where?

24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them suc h a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)"

 

[danieldemol]

24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them suc h a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)"

I think you are interpreting chastity as abstaining from rape, however the word rape is not mentioned there.

 

[Wasp]

I think you are interpreting chastity as abstaining from rape, however the word rape is not mentioned there.

It is included in chastity. There are other verses. Such as "protect your private parts..." to make it short. Any kind of sexual act with a person you aren't married to or who isn't a captive is not allowed.

I don't know why you want it to be different.

 

[danieldemol]

It is included in chastity. There are other verses. Such as "protect your private parts..." to make it short. Any kind of sexual act with a person you aren't married to or who isn't a captive is not allowed.

I don't know why you want it to be different.

Exactly, what about rape within marriage or rape of a captive? It is open to interpretation and not clear unlike a simple “You shall not rape.”

 

[Wasp]

Exactly, what about rape within marriage or rape of a captive? It is open to interpretation and not clear unlike a simple “You shall not rape.”

It's not the bible. Not from people, but from God. You think it should list all the things you "shall not do". It doesn't. Instead it teaches how to live, how to serve Allah and other people. There is no confusion in it for anyone except those who want to find something evil in it.

4:19 "O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good."

4:36 "Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful."

 

[Aupmanyav]

Lets see. So you state this, yet your tag says "I am an advaitist Hindu............and a strong atheist." The latter contradicts the former. You are a Monotheist if you follow Vedanta, that's pure fact. One cannot follow Vedanta and be an 'atheist' in any true sense, if you've actually read any of Adi Shankara's works and that of the rest of his tradition.

The Jewish and Islamic concepts of Monotheism are generally synonymous with your Hindu concepts of Ultimate Reality, Islam itself even calls it the term "Ultimate Reality" but in arabic and obviously not sanskrit. Both Judaism and Islam emphasize that "God" cannot be separate from everything, else it would be a second "God" contradicting it's premise. Monotheism = Monism.The only thing separating these things are your biases brought upon by language.

Don't get me on this. No one in the forum has ever defeated me in this debate. Sankara is not the end of 'Advaita' and people may differ with him. If it is 'advaita' (non-duality), then it has no space for God. An 'advatist' necessarily has to be an atheist, otherwise he/she has strayed from 'Advaita'. Even Sankara said: "Brahma-satyam, jagan-mithya, jeevo Brahmaiva na parah" (Brahman is truth, the world is an illusion, a living being is no different from Brahman).

'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman). You, me, Appu the baby elephant, the drum-stick tree outside my house, stones, water, air. No exception. Brahman does not denote a God for me, it is the stuff that exists, or sometimes does not exist (as perhaps before the Big Bang, very much 'Quantum-like', 'anatta', anicca'). It will be a mistake to consider Brahman is a God. It is something like Buddha-dhatu, Tathagatagarbha or Dhamma-kaya (Apart from Sankara, Buddha too is my guru ).

You better check with Christians and Muslims who pray to their Gods, I don't.

 

[stvdv]

He's probably not even studied it ten minutes. This thread is

 

[stvdv]

Islam is not a pacifist religion (much like Judaism), but nowhere does it condone killing civilians or suicide attacks (suicide is a major sin in Islam).

Good one. I hope the Pakistani Muslim reads this, who threatened to "Nuke the Netherlands" a few month ago, over a simple drawing contest" (and the maybe 100.000 Muslims who applauded this)

 

[stvdv]

As a Buddhist, I really find the Qur'an to be far more inspiring and challenging than the Bible (which is pathetic) or other scriptures.

I happen to like the Vedic Scriptures quite a bit

 

[stvdv]

Well, yes. Your opinion there is as irrelevant as mine, I'm not a Muslim

I am just curious what your opinion is. A simple yes/no question.
Is Islam the only "True Religion in the world"?

 

[Mudramoksha]

If it is 'advaita' (non-duality), then it has no space for God.

You've got it inside out buddy. Nonduality, in comparison to atheism, leaves no room for anything to not be God.
You're all giddy about the word "Brahman", good for you.

'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman). You, me, Appu the baby elephant, the drum-stick tree outside my house, stones, water, air. No exception. Brahman does not denote a God for me

Well, yeah, it goes with the name. God = All.

it is the stuff that exists, or sometimes does not exist (as perhaps before the Big Bang, very much 'Quantum-like', 'anatta', anicca').

Why do you say "stuff that exists"? what do you mean by this.

It will be a mistake to consider Brahman is a God.

"a God"?
You know that I'm speaking in Singular, not Plural. "a god/gods" is a different concept to capital G "GOD".

In that case, I'm sure you would see the nonsense of your statement if we reversed it "it would be a mistake to consider God is a Brahman"
or go further "it would be a mistake to consider Brahman, a Brahman" or "it would be a mistake to consider God, a God".

It is something like Buddha-dhatu, Tathagatagarbha or Dhamma-kaya

Actually, the way Dharmakaya is not echoed anywhere in Vedanta but you'll find heaps of related concepts in the Abrahamic religions.

As I'll say again from my original post: Both Judaism and Islam emphasize that "God" cannot be separate from everything, else it would be a second "God" contradicting it's premise. Monotheism = Monism. The only thing separating these things are your biases brought upon by language.

 

[Mudramoksha]

I happen to like the Vedic Scriptures quite a bit

Well you're a Hindu so should I be surprised?

 

[stvdv]

Well you're a Hindu so should I be surprised?

Yes. I am not a Hindu

 

[Mudramoksha]

I am just curious what your opinion is. A simple yes/no question.
Is Islam the only "True Religion in the world"?

Could you ask an irrelevant question to the wrong person?

 

[SA Huguenot]

I think it's more that you, Mr Protestant, think you have the answer and that you with your fundamentalism and terrorist-apologetics know better than the average Muslim about their theology. Even though orthodox Islamic theology and hermeneutics is far superior and nuanced than your own.

You take Bukhari as valid and entirely without question, that's enough of a sign that you're not a reliable commenter on Islam.

Just remember that Jesus gave you Genesis 38.

Yes, and what is wrong with Genesis 38?
Here we have Atheists and Muslims who tries to imply that Judah and Tamar were joining incestious behaviour.
Then they follow the argument up with Judah went in to a whore, and Tamar played a harlot.

Realy?
This is so far from the truth, it is actually rediculous to see to what extreme measures the Atheist and Muslim will go to attempt to disprove the Bible.
Now lets see what the reality is.

Judah's son was married to Tamar.
He died without leaving a heir.
The Moseanic law dictates that the second son should then marry this woman to ensure that his fathers' estate remains intact and that child will be the new heir.
Well, the second son also died, because he disliked Tamar and prevented her to conceive.
The 3rd son was yet too young to marry and Judah promised this law to be sanctioned in future.
Well, Judah broke his promise, and Tamar decided to get Judah to fullfill his promise, and dressed up like a Temple prostitute as the Egyptian momen did, and tricked Judah into conceiving a heir for her deceased husband.
Judah fell for the trick, and he was caught out being dishonest and not of high moral standard.
He had to marry Tamar.

Now let us conclude.
The Atheist likes to say that this was an incestious affair, but looking at the fact that the laws of incest was only made by YHWH to Moses 400 years later, this is ridicilous!
It is as good as a law being made against smoking in 2005, and I go to jail becasue I smoked in 1995 before I stopped.
Furthermore, There was no error in marrying your own sister, or brother during this time, and we see a lot of such examples in the patriarch period such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Current archaeology shows us that the Egyptians intermarried as well.
Think about this.
Adam and Eve had children, and they married their Brothers and Sisters. No problem, the Human gene pool was still new and it would not have been something to be conserned about.
Juda and Tamar lived in Egypt before the mass enslavement of Israel, and this was 400 years before Moses.
YHWH then gave incestious laws to prevent such marrages, because by this time our genepool was in danger of children being born with syndromes in relation to incest.

Think about this one for a while, Is it not incredible that in the Judean religion such a law was delivered?
How did YHWH know to put the brakes on incestious marrages.
In Islam it is still practiced.

Now to claim that this is a filthy story, reflects only the person who thinks dirty.
It is a story of praise and glory in the Bible, and you should actually see in in that context.
Rth 4:12 And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman.
Is this law of Redemption not a wonderfull invention to prevent a widdow from loosing all her estate?

 

[SA Huguenot]

I think it is a bit disingenuous to act like the majority of Muslims are Quran alone Muslims, the majority of Muslims place great emphasis on those Hadith considered authentic by their scholars and are not Quran alone Muslims

If you see any Muslim wearing islamic clothing and praying 5 times a day, be sure he adheres 100% to the Hadith.
There is not a single prescription of 5 prayers in the Quran, nor anything about their clothing, beards etc.
I am never mislead by words, but always seek the actions to find if someone is lying to me.

 

[stvdv]

I am just curious what your opinion is. A simple yes/no question.
Is Islam the only "True Religion in the world"?

Could you ask an irrelevant question to the wrong person?

I did not know my question was so hard to answer

 

[Mudramoksha]

Yes, and what is wrong with Genesis 38?
Here we have Atheists and Muslims who tries to imply that Judah and Tamar were joining incestious behaviour.
Then they follow the argument up with Judah went in to a whore, and Tamar played a harlot.

Realy?
This is so far from the truth, it is actually rediculous to see to what extreme measures the Atheist and Muslim will go to attempt to disprove the Bible.
Now lets see what the reality is.

Judah's son was married to Tamar.
He died without leaving a heir.
The Moseanic law dictates that the second son should then marry this woman to ensure that his fathers' estate remains intact and that child will be the new heir.
Well, the second son also died, because he disliked Tamar and prevented her to conceive.
The 3rd son was yet too young to marry and Judah promised this law to be sanctioned in future.
Well, Judah broke his promise, and Tamar decided to get Judah to fullfill his promise, and dressed up like a Temple prostitute as the Egyptian momen did, and tricked Judah into conceiving a heir for her deceased husband.
Judah fell for the trick, and he was caught out being dishonest and not of high moral standard.
He had to marry Tamar.

Now let us conclude.
The Atheist likes to say that this was an incestious affair, but looking at the fact that the laws of incest was only made by YHWH to Moses 400 years later, this is ridicilous!
It is as good as a law being made against smoking in 2005, and I go to jail becasue I smoked in 1995 before I stopped.
Furthermore, There was no error in marrying your own sister, or brother during this time, and we see a lot of such examples in the patriarch period such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Current archaeology shows us that the Egyptians intermarried as well.
Think about this.
Adam and Eve had children, and they married their Brothers and Sisters. No problem, the Human gene pool was still new and it would not have been something to be conserned about.
Juda and Tamar lived in Egypt before the mass enslavement of Israel, and this was 400 years before Moses.
YHWH then gave incestious laws to prevent such marrages, because by this time our genepool was in danger of children being born with syndromes in relation to incest.

Think about this one for a while, Is it not incredible that in the Judean religion such a law was delivered?
How did YHWH know to put the brakes on incestious marrages.
In Islam it is still practiced.

Now to claim that this is a filthy story, reflects only the person who thinks dirty.
It is a story of praise and glory in the Bible, and you should actually see in in that context.
Rth 4:12 And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman.
Is this law of Redemption not a wonderfull invention to prevent a widdow from loosing all her estate?

The extent you go in your apologetics to defend it, goes to show your favoritism. Only if it's not something you like then you glorify it, that's the way you are. Protestants