What do you feel is wrong with Islam?

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Yes i know he did'nt write it as he was illiterate but my point is that it is a leap of faith to believe the Angel Gabriel revealed to him the contents of the qur'an.
For example say my neighbour told me he had a revelation and he was visited by an Angel would i believe him,i doubt it neither would many people.

that is why like all the Messengers of Allah before him he came with miracles to prove to the people. the most significant of which is the Quran itself, but there were countless others.

This is the biggest hurdle for all revealed religions is that they cannot be validated and especially for the qur'an as it cannot be questioned by muslims at all.

that's not true. We scrutinize it to the letter, but it constantly proves itself. the Quran tells us to verify all things, lest you may may harm the people.

When you look at everything together. The Life of the Messenger, who he was before islam and then when it came, how the wahi or revelation came, his noble and prophetic character, the character of his companions, the testimony of his enemies about him, how the religion brought changed what many considered to be the most savage and barbaric people of that age, and turned them into the best of people. The miraclous events like splitting moon, feeding 800 people, knowing secret conversations and plots, making it rain, planting a crop with 300 seedlings and they all lived etc, etc. there are many more.

the miracles of prophecy, scientific truths, and unmatched eloquence of the words of Allah in Quran itself. The justice, tolerance and peace Allah commands muslims to spread. Teaching people to worship the one true Creator alone, and to give them the glad tidings of paradise if they believe and warn them of the severe punishment in hellfire if they disbelieve. Sadly, many muslims today do not follow their example. Our leaders, and those that are given the most voice are the ones being looked at as the examples or adherants to the religion the Messenger of Allah and the companions brought.

I promise you if they were alive today, they would probably ask Allah to remove their souls. they would be disgusted, shamed, and heartbroken to see the state of what we have become. But then again they would not be suprised for the state we are in is something the Messenger of Allah said would happen. It is what has always happened. Allah sends a Messenger, some believe most disbelieve. Allah punishes the disbelievers in some way, either by His Hand, from those that believe or by their own hand from within possibly. Whatever way is fitting with His decree. But the believer will inherit the earth, leaving a legacy of belief to spread on the earth. But as time goes on, people forget, they get distracted, they deviate from the path of Allah so he sends another Messenger and it happens again.

so when the Messenger of Allah the last of all prophets came he said we would fall into the same pitfalls and traps as the nations before us, but there will be some who maintain the correct believe and they are the ones whom will inherit the victory of Allah's religion.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

I've got to say i am dissapointed in islam and the reason for that is it is too restrictive,cannot be questioned

that not true. it is human nature to question everything. who said we cannot question it? And how is it to restrictive. Allah only tells you to not do things that are harmful for you. Whether mentally, physically, socially or spritually.

and the arguements that come from its followers somewhat rhetorical.

Are we arguing? I thought we was discussing it.

This is much like other religions it is arguably about control.
In politics you can control people up to a point whereas followers of islam seem controlled from birth till death beyond this point.I will use suicide bombers as an example(i am obviously not implying that all muslims are terrorists)

suicide bombing and islam are not together. you cannot use it as an example for followers of Islam. true followers of islam do not commit suicide. they know it is forbidden. so you cannot use suicide bombers as an example. Just like I will not use Hitler or the Church during the inquisitions as examples of followers of Christ.

they are led to believe that they will go to paradise once the bomb has gone off. Islam is the only religion that produces suicide bombers,

I didn't know timothy mcvey was a muslim, Or any of the Japanese kamikaze

even satanists don't have suicide bombers which leads me to think back to the beauty of it,you cannot change it,question it, which is perfect for the control of these hapless fools.
I think islam is blinkered and cannot see what is around it and only looks inwards,it is restrictive especially in islamic countrys where i would be hard pressed to find somewhere to air my thoughts on the qur'an without being killed and women have few rights.

I think the alarm bells started to go when the fatuah was put on salmond rushdie for the satanic verses and religious leaders calling for holy jihad against the UK and USA .
The other problems are human rights,homosexual and lesbian acts are forbidden although there are muslims who are gay,women in some islamic countrys do not have the same rights as, for example, the women of the west.

for whatever reason you cannot separate the religion of Islam from what some people you see on the news do. You must understand that the truth of islam is one thing and what the people are doing is something else. I do not know, why don't you go and look and study what is really going on over there. is it always the muslims doing it? Weren't british intelligence caught dressed up as muslims with a car full of explosives? Why are these people doing this if it is them? Why are people becoming so desperate if it is them doing it that they have to commit suicide? Is something being done to them? why do they feel it is the only alternative? If it is such an issue how come nobody in my whole city teaches this ideology? why is it not in our communities but yet the media says it is widespread over there?

Answer some of these questions and it may help. Peace.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

I understand what you are saying and agree with you. But as a non-Muslim, unless I am given to scholarly studies of Islam, I would naturally see Islam through the actions of its practitioners

How do you look at the Nazi's as Christians or the Branch Davidians. What about the IRA do you look at them as christians. or do you look at the people living in the time of Jesus who walked with him and believed in him as the true christians and examples.

If you want the scholarly studies. Here you go Arees Institute This is my teacher, my sheihk.

If you are serious contact them, purchase the course and learn our religion. This is what muslims are taught. This is what our scholars teach from our sources, which by the way is common knowledge. For the sources are easily accessible and their are no secrets or hidden meanings or codes. It is what it is. Islam is something defined. That is why the Messenger of Allah forbid us to add or subtract to anything he brought. the definition became sealed and established. Cannot be altered or changed. if it is not something the Messenger of Allah or the companions did. We do not do it. If we understand Quran different then the way they understood it. we are incorrect in belief. If we do things and react to situations in ways other then the way they did it, we will be wrong in our actions. if we it other then their way we are wrong.

Like I said. the hadith of Abdullah ibn Masa''ood. A great sahabi told a tabi'een the second best generation, when he himself was from among the best. He said if you want to follow a path. Follow the path of those that are dead. The path of the Messenger of Allah and his companions. for the living of among you may fail in their trials and tests.

Maybe it is unfair to judge a tree by its spoilt fruits but unfortunately it is such fruits (fruitcakes?) that tend to be in the news and catch our attention and make an impression.

Muslims today are not the fruits. The companions of the Messenger are the fruits. We are the tainted fruit, for the deviant muslims are adding to the religion, hence why we have sects. Their were no sects with the companions. They were the ones who did it right as I said. the people today are failing in their trials and tests.

Not sure why you would use them as the example.

 

[lew0049]

the Quran no, yes in a sense. for the Quran in arabic means the recitation. so it was taught to the Messenger by the angel Gabriel. But since he could not read or write he himself did not write the Quran nor did he come up with the words of Quran himself. these are Allah's words given to him. Saying it is written by man is also in a sense implying that Muhammed himself is the author of it for you say it is written by man and it came from him. Man did not write it meaning he did not author it Muhammed is not the source of the text. Man copied it. So yeah in a sense man wrote it but I think a better way to say it is they copied down the words of Quran authored by Allah through the revelation given to Muhammed through His angel Gabriel. the companions wrote down what Allah revealed to Muhammed, to preserve the recitation of the Quran they had memorized in their minds and hearts. the Prophet himself never wrote or copied any of it. Muhammed did not author the Quran, Man did not author the Quran. So they did not write it meaning they are not the source of it.

Okay... so what is your point. Do we know if they were written by Isaiah. And why is it not used as the manuscript source in the bible since it is oldest version and because of which should be the most accurate.


Uh, yes and no. Literally no they are not the same, but since it is understood they came from the same source. Before the Jewish and Christian alterations of the text they were given. so the stories of course would be similar because of the source. but we have no way of knowing what they kept from the original scriptures and what was taken away unless we have an original copy to source from.

Let us not forget the fact that Muhammed never heard any of this before the revelation. for He could not read or right and never read the christian or jewish traditions. The words of Quran are the words of Allah, not the words of Muhammed, he is not the source of the words and did not write. He was to give this message to the world.

Okay, I have seen countless statements like these before about the differences between Islam and Christianity, and your approach is inaccurate. First, you can state the Quran is not from Muhammed, but the fact of the matter is that he is the "author" of it. Yes, you believe that it came from Allah and was passed through Gabriel, but this is all supposing that Muhammad accurately articulated his "vision" from Gabriel. Nevertheless, you discount the words of the Bible b/c it was written by apostles who were not direct eyewitnesses - a decent amount of the NT came from a vision Paul had. Additionally, the dates of gospels range from AD mid 50ish to AD 75, not centuries. Yes, your religion tells you that Muhammad was given the message from Gabriel BUT you cannot successful argue that they are truly Allah's words and not Muhammad - yes you might believe them to be, but anyone that looks at it from an objective standpoint (outside of Islam) would say they are Muhammads words.

Relating to the Dead Sea Scrolls - the fact that Isaiah is 99.5% (according to sources) to same today as was found in the DSS indicates that there are very few alterations.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

'Islam' defined how?

there can only be two logical ways to define it. the right way and the wrong way. it is defined how the ones who brought it defined it.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Okay, I have seen countless statements like these before about the differences between Islam and Christianity, and your approach is inaccurate. First, you can state the Quran is not from Muhammed, but the fact of the matter is that he is the "author" of it.

How? If my mother tells me to write something to someone for her and I do it. Am I the author of it? Did I sign my name on it? Am I the source of the information?

Yes, you believe that it came from Allah and was passed through Gabriel, but this is all supposing that Muhammad accurately articulated his "vision" from Gabriel.

why would he not be? What do you mean?

Nevertheless, you discount the words of the Bible b/c it was written by apostles who were not direct eyewitnesses -

No, not because of the apostles. The apostles meaning the ones appointed by Issa's accounts are not in the bible. The four canons are not by apostles. Nor are they by those attributed to it. There are other reason for discounting it. The bible says to not change the word of God ie. itself as they claim. and if they do plagues will come and He will remove himself from the book. rev.22:18-19. so who told the many unnamed authors and scribes they could change it. Who told the bishop of canteburry he could change what King James authorized The AV Bible, King James Version, AV 1611

Who told the mormons, the JW, or the Protestants during the reformation that they could change it. The book they have says not to. yet they all have at one time or another.

a decent amount of the NT came from a vision Paul had. Additionally, the dates of gospels range from AD mid 50ish to AD 75, not centuries.

this is the dates they assume the originals were written but they do not have them. Only copies of a copy of a copy.

Yes, your religion tells you that Muhammad was given the message from Gabriel BUT you cannot successful argue that they are truly Allah's words and not Muhammad

Really? Why are their verses addressing or talking about Muhammed? like in surah Imran 3:144, Surah Ahzab 33:40, Surah Muhammed 47:2, there are even verses correcting him in his actions. Unlike in the bible, the fact that the verses are in 3rd person is quite significant. That clearly indicates to anyone who has basic knowledge phonics and semantics would know that these verses are not from the Muhammed and are from His source. Not to mention the fact, why do we have hadith. why don't we just combine them all like the bible.

- yes you might believe them to be, but anyone that looks at it from an objective standpoint (outside of Islam) would say they are Muhammads words.

Really? Maybe you mistook me for someone who was always muslim. I was once christian and looked at it from that standpoint as being his words. But given all the evidence and the study of his life and the religion itself. It is impossible to assume anything other then that unless, arrogance or ignorance will not allow it.

Relating to the Dead Sea Scrolls - the fact that Isaiah is 99.5% (according to sources) to same today as was found in the DSS indicates that there are very few alterations.

Really based on whose scholarship? And if it is great that is one book in a book of compilations which is under constant revision, correction, and alteration from its beginning. And since it is old testament tell that to the NT christians are on the idea of out with the old and in with the new.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Ok i accept that it is comming from the source but it was still written by a man.

How when the man who got was unable to write. I mean seriously how did he write it if he himself could not write.

The dead sea scrolls which contain the oldest book of isiah by a thousand years includes everything in the old testament except esther but it does have psalms to david that are not in the ot.

big deal, the codex sinaticus is the same for the new testament but it also contains the shepard hermes and gospel of barnabus which were later removed. So, Okay that goes back to the thing who gave them the authority to change it take books out put others in. The bible clearly warns of this type of thing in Revealtions 22. why are you guys just playing musical chairs with verses and books of God. Did Allah say to do this. Who gave them the right. Where did Issa say in the bible that this is how it should be.

This collection of books which is the bible written by jewish people 500 years before the qur'an ,so this leads me to think some of the bible is in the qur'an like lut=sodom and gammorah and other similaritys so i say why should i believe the qur'an n the bible?

As I said earlier there will be some similarity for the source is the same however one is altered from its original and the other has been maintained never altered. that is a huge difference.

 

[Popeyesays]

Mujahid,

I agree that the original recitation is from God, through Gabriel to Muhammed. Howeeve3r, no one but Muhammed reeceived this directly from the angle. Therefore, those who DID memorize and write down the recitations received them directlyu from Muhammjed, not God.

Do you see the nuance here?

Regards,
Scott

 

[Quoth The Raven]

How when the man who got was unable to write. I mean seriously how did he write it if he himself could not write.

So he wasn't capable of dictating either then? Illliterate and no mouth to speak of...must have had quite a job getting the message out there.
So this book in written form just popped out of the ether? It wasn't part of an oral tradition with a few variations until one man - who didn't happen to be the illiterate non writer - thought it ought to be written down so no one buggered it up?

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Mujahid,

I agree that the original recitation is from God, through Gabriel to Muhammed. Howeeve3r, no one but Muhammed reeceived this directly from the angle. Therefore, those who DID memorize and write down the recitations received them directlyu from Muhammjed, not God.

Do you see the nuance here?

Regards,
Scott

As I said since the author of it is neither Muhammed or his companions. They recieved the Message from the Messenger. what we mean by write the Quran, is author. Is he responsible for coming up with the dictation of the Quran. No, are the words of the Quran the companions words?

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

So he wasn't capable of dictating either then? Illliterate and no mouth to speak of...must have had quite a job getting the message out there.

No that not what I or anyone is implying. As I said before, The Messenger was given the words of Allah through his angel Gabriel. the words given to Muhammed are not his words. He did not author the Quran. Whatever Allah told the angel, He told Muhammad and he was commanded to give his people the message. the source of the Quran is Allah therefore he is the author. they wrote it the sense that they copied down what they were told, but they did not write it. Writing in the sense that they authored it. Like Stephen King wrote The Shining. The people who copied the book did not write it. they did not sign their names where it says by so and so. Muhammed did not write the Quran, Allah says in many ayat of Quran He is the author, how He gave the verses to Muhammad and he delivered the message of the Quran to them.

So this book in written form just popped out of the ether? It wasn't part of an oral tradition with a few variations until one man - who didn't happen to be the illiterate non writer - thought it ought to be written down so no one buggered it up?

No, they wrote it down from the beginning. The companions who were lettered wrote it down since the beginning. Now later they decided to take all the leaflets, animal skin, rocks and whatever else they wrote and compile them together with in book form. This was done during the Messenger of Allah's time. And he appointed one of his companions to gather them all. They brought it to him and with two witnessess minimum to each verse brought it to the Messenger. they got it all write and it is what we have today. some of the compilers like Zaid ibn Thabit, Mujahid, Abdullah ibn Masa'ood and others sat with the Messenger and went through every verse of Quran giving the tafsir of each to the messenger 3 or 4 times until the Messenger knew and the sahabi knew that they know it. Alot of effort was taken in this. changing or altering anything in our religion is a major sin. I hope this helps. Let me know if you need a more clarification.

 

[lew0049]

How? If my mother tells me to write something to someone for her and I do it. Am I the author of it? Did I sign my name on it? Am I the source of the information?

why would he not be? What do you mean?


No, not because of the apostles. The apostles meaning the ones appointed by Issa's accounts are not in the bible. The four canons are not by apostles. Nor are they by those attributed to it. There are other reason for discounting it. The bible says to not change the word of God ie. itself as they claim. and if they do plagues will come and He will remove himself from the book. rev.22:18-19. so who told the many unnamed authors and scribes they could change it. Who told the bishop of canteburry he could change what King James authorized The AV Bible, King James Version, AV 1611

Who told the mormons, the JW, or the Protestants during the reformation that they could change it. The book they have says not to. yet they all have at one time or another.


this is the dates they assume the originals were written but they do not have them. Only copies of a copy of a copy.


Really? Why are their verses addressing or talking about Muhammed? like in surah Imran 3:144, Surah Ahzab 33:40, Surah Muhammed 47:2, there are even verses correcting him in his actions. Unlike in the bible, the fact that the verses are in 3rd person is quite significant. That clearly indicates to anyone who has basic knowledge phonics and semantics would know that these verses are not from the Muhammed and are from His source. Not to mention the fact, why do we have hadith. why don't we just combine them all like the bible.

Really? Maybe you mistook me for someone who was always muslim. I was once christian and looked at it from that standpoint as being his words. But given all the evidence and the study of his life and the religion itself. It is impossible to assume anything other then that unless, arrogance or ignorance will not allow it.

Really based on whose scholarship? And if it is great that is one book in a book of compilations which is under constant revision, correction, and alteration from its beginning. And since it is old testament tell that to the NT christians are on the idea of out with the old and in with the new.

Wait, so you are saying that anyone who doesn't believe after studying the Islamic religion and Muhammads life is either ignorant or ignorance is not allowing it? Well, call me either b/c I was once an atheist and studied Muhammads life and it definitely doesn't help the case, in my opinion obviously, for the validity of his message.

And as far as the copies of copies of copies is concerned, there is much arch. evidence that validates a good estimation of the dates. Plus, what would you expect from a document written over 2,000 years ago? The originals would be properly reserved? Also, with a book that old and w/ some of the errors we have found w/ translations, MANY have been attributed to simple translation errors and/or difficulties w/ legability of the sources. What the NT Christians believe doesn't matter to me or the views of many other Christians - I can only testify to what I believe. Similiar to the analogy, just b/c the bucket is rusty doesn't mean the water is not pure.

With regards to the mother analogy you used, it really is not valid b/c your mother is physically real, Gabriel, being an angel, was not. Regardless of it the vision/experience happened, the only evidence for the experience comes from Muhammad - he is the only one that had this specific experience. I am simply saying that it is a blinds leap of faith b/c the only knowledge of the event comes from 1 man's vision, that is all.

And look at what the apostles, who wrote the canons, had to gain from writting there testimonies? Absolutely nothing. Them being praised or looked up too during the time is far from the truth - instead the exact opposite.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Wait, so you are saying that anyone who doesn't believe after studying the Islamic religion and Muhammads life is either ignorant or ignorance is not allowing it? Well, call me either b/c I was once an atheist and studied Muhammads life and it definitely doesn't help the case, in my opinion obviously, for the validity of his message.

reading one book, and indepth study are two different things. I am sure you read a little on his life but I doubt you spent years sitting with someone everyday learning all the aspects of it. I doubt you went to a islamic university and learned from a scholar or student of knowledge. Yeah if someone studies it, I mean really study. Not looking at a few newpaper articles, or read a book about what a non muslim may say about him.

And as far as the copies of copies of copies is concerned, there is much arch. evidence that validates a good estimation of the dates. Plus, what would you expect from a document written over 2,000 years ago?

I expect if the adherants really believe the word they have to be the word of God to leave it in its perfect state which is not the case.

The originals would be properly reserved? Also, with a book that old and w/ some of the errors we have found w/ translations, MANY have been attributed to simple translation errors and/or difficulties w/ legability of the sources.

One of the problems with this statement is you are associating a translation with the original text. The translation is not the origninal. it is what it is by definition.

What the NT Christians believe doesn't matter to me or the views of many other Christians - I can only testify to what I believe. Similiar to the analogy, just b/c the bucket is rusty doesn't mean the water is not pure.

but how will I know what you believe or testify is any more validated then the next man in terms of the actual belief of Jesus. based on what you have as far as sources. The Apostolic fathers letters, the 250,000 all different manuscripts, the many different versions with different books and beliefs.

With regards to the mother analogy you used, it really is not valid b/c your mother is physically real, Gabriel, being an angel, was not.

Angels are not physically real? So didn't Allah create them just like you and me, How are they not real?

Regardless of it the vision/experience happened, the only evidence for the experience comes from Muhammad - he is the only one that had this specific experience.

You are forgetting those who was with him.

I am simply saying that it is a blinds leap of faith b/c the only knowledge of the event comes from 1 man's vision, that is all.

so you would rather have it like in the bible with many unknown men's vision, whose visions are not the same in terms of testimony and was not there to witness the event.

And look at what the apostles, who wrote the canons, had to gain from writting there testimonies? Absolutely nothing. Them being praised or looked up too during the time is far from the truth - instead the exact opposite.

The apostles did not write the canon. The apostles are the companions of Jesus none of the authors of the canon were companions.

 

[YmirGF]

reading one book, and indepth study are two different things. I am sure you read a little on his life but I doubt you spent years sitting with someone everyday learning all the aspects of it. I doubt you went to a islamic university and learned from a scholar or student of knowledge. Yeah if someone studies it, I mean really study. Not looking at a few newpaper articles, or read a book about what a non muslim may say about him.

I cannot image an endeavor that could be considered a greater waste of time. So, you recommend that we sit, with baited breath, learning all there is to know from the white-washed fabrications around "Prophet" Muhammed [pbuh]? Are you saying that not a single thing written by non-Muslims is factual in any way?

I expect if the adherants really believe the word they have to be the word of God to leave it in its perfect state which is not the case.

Yes, but "being" and "believing" are two different things, no matter how hard one believes something to be true does not make that something so.

but how will I know what you believe or testify is any more validated then the next man in terms of the actual belief of Jesus. based on what you have as far as sources. The Apostolic fathers letters, the 250,000 all different manuscripts, the many different versions with different books and beliefs.

There is that, taken from a jaundiced viewpoint, but if one considers that SO MANY things were written by so many people, with varying accounts, simply underscores the probability that something of note actually DID take place. It wouldn't be as convincing if each account was identical, to the letter. That would smack of a white-wash as evidenced in the foundation of modern day Islam where orginally all opposing viewpoints and accounts were dismissed.

Angels are not physically real? So didn't Allah create them just like you and me, How are they not real?

Angels are physically real? Now that IS news. If you could be so good as to have one sent over to my house I will put the kettle on. Then again, perhaps this is just something you desperately want to believe. To insist that angels are even "real" could be considered by some to be childish nonesense.

so you would rather have it like in the bible with many unknown men's vision, whose visions are not the same in terms of testimony and was not there to witness the event.

Yes. To my thinking, hearing slightly differing accounts is FAR more convincing that hearing a rather boring one note symphony. It is interesting how Muslim's feel that this approach validates their thinking and yet, if anything it strikes the reader as being less than genuine. No, single authority's saying even something slightly different sounds like a marketing campaign to me. Doesn't it strike you are odd, Muhahid Mohammed? Not a single authoritive person dissenting on any single thing. How likely is that to be real and not a complete fabrication?

 

[Popeyesays]

As I said since the author of it is neither Muhammed or his companions. They recieved the Message from the Messenger. what we mean by write the Quran, is author. Is he responsible for coming up with the dictation of the Quran. No, are the words of the Quran the companions words?

Please understand that I believe the Qur'an is the word of God, not Muhammed.

My point is that the Qur'an during the process of recitation, memorization and writing is subject to the memory of those companions.

Why did the Qur'an require recision if it was perfectly recorded BEFORE the recision?

If it required recision at all, then the copies of the Qur'an varied one from the other.

The recision process itself is NOT a guarantee of perfect rendition of the original.

In the end insistence that the Qur'an is a perfect transmission of Muhammed's original recitation is no more trustworthy than insistence that the Bible is perfect.

Baha`i holy text is all authenticated and original documents and transcriptions all still exist. That's a big advantage in trustworthiness.

Regards,

Scott

 

[Autodidact]

I love how "True Islam" is all either so long ago that you can't know the facts about it, or just an ideal that you can't find in the actual world. Meanwhile, we have something that does exist in our world, that goes by the name of Islam, that is exemplified by:
Disdain for modern science,
Poor economic development,
terrorism,
suicide bombers,
oppression of women,
primitive superstitious practices,
death to apostates,
etc. etc.

But none of that is the "real Islam." How's this: I don't have a problem with "real Islam," it's this fake Islam--the only one actually existing in the world today, that I have a big problem with. I'm not worried about "real Islam" because it doesn't seem to actually exist.

 

[wednesday]

I love how "True Islam" is all either so long ago that you can't know the facts about it, or just an ideal that you can't find in the actual world. Meanwhile, we have something that does exist in our world, that goes by the name of Islam, that is exemplified by:
Disdain for modern science,
Poor economic development,
terrorism,
suicide bombers,
oppression of women,
primitive superstitious practices,
death to apostates,
etc. etc.

But none of that is the "real Islam." How's this: I don't have a problem with "real Islam," it's this fake Islam--the only one actually existing in the world today, that I have a big problem with. I'm not worried about "real Islam" because it doesn't seem to actually exist.

I agree to an extent, Islam needs to take responsbility for the actions of its followers and to deliver a clearer message. The Islamic leader of Australia is responsible for our disrespect for their religion, is he an extremist? No, because there are no flaws in Islam are there? He tells Australian women to cover up because they look like "pieces of meat," is he an extremist or just an ignorant fool with no respect for the nation he immigrated to?

 

[Popeyesays]

I agree to an extent, Islam needs to take responsbility for the actions of its followers and to deliver a clearer message. The Islamic leader of Australia is responsible for our disrespect for their religion, is he an extremist? No, because there are no flaws in Islam are there? He tells Australian women to cover up because they look like "pieces of meat," is he an extremist or just an ignorant fool with no respect for the nation he immigrated to?

Then you have to blame Christianity for Crusaders and cross-burning. Hinduism for the destruction of mosques and atrocities in Ceylon--etc., etc..

Criminal behavior lies at the feet of criminals, not God.

What the Qur'an describes as "modest dress" is far more lenient than the Australian imam thinks is "covered up". He's wron, of course, but that's a political thing he has involved himself in to stroke his own ego.

Regards,
Scott

 

[TashaN]

Angels are physically real? Now that IS news. If you could be so good as to have one sent over to my house I will put the kettle on. Then again, perhaps this is just something you desperately want to believe. To insist that angels are even "real" could be considered by some to be childish nonesense.

It's childish to assume they are not real without evidence, and it would be definitely ridiculous to not believe they are real just because no can send some to greet you into your house, lol.

Not a single authoritive person dissenting on any single thing. How likely is that to be real and not a complete fabrication?

Can you elaborate please?

 

[TashaN]

In the end insistence that the Qur'an is a perfect transmission of Muhammed's original recitation is no more trustworthy than insistence that the Bible is perfect.

And why you think so?

Bahaullah taught you that?

Baha`i holy text is all authenticated and original documents and transcriptions all still exist. That's a big advantage in trustworthiness.

Why you think the Quran original script doesn't?