What do you feel is wrong with Islam?

[YmirGF]

THe Pharisees were most careful to adjudicate that Jesus could NOT be the Messiah because He failed to meet their criteria. Jesus appeared and left it to the people to decide if He was or He was not.

The priests and pharoah of Egypt were careful to adjudicate that the God of the Hebrews could not be real because the Hebrew belief system did not fit into imperial Egypt. Moses was there to call His people together, they had to choose to follow or not follow.

Muhammed was not accepted by many Jews and Christians because His appearance was not in accord with what they expected. The purpose of Muhammed was to call the people together and let them choose to follow or not follow.

The Bab appeared in Islamic civilization just as Christ had appeared in Judaic culture, The muslims of the time and place declared He could not be the appearance of the twelfth imam and He certainly could not be an Apostle of God. The purpose of the Bab was to call the people together and let them choose to follow or not follow.

Are we seeing a trend here. We were created to CHOOSE, not be commanded.

I suppose using this logic the followers of Charles Manson could claim he was part of the illustrious lineup too and not just another pretty face in a police lineup.

Providing all your "proof" would be contrary to free will which is part of the nature of man CREATED by God.

Not necessarily. There would always be folks who refused to believe. Here I was thinking along the lines of Krsna being able to show Arjuna his Universal form. I think that would convince practically anyone, but I could just be being silly. Heaven forbid that the Abrahamic religions didn't have a strangle hold on "the truth".

You can huff and puff and demand what you will. "Man proposes, and God disposes."

Given that you, nor anyone else, can prove the existence of "god" that is a rather presumptuous statement to make. Do you have any proof to back up this assertion or is it perhaps simply idle speculation.

 

[Popeyesays]

I suppose using this logic the followers of Charles Manson could claim he was part of the illustrious lineup too and not just another pretty face in a police lineup.

Well, test Charlie as Jesus tells you to test his claim, and you will probably find that the fruits of Manson are vile. Therefore he is not a true Messenger. Nice try for a straw man, but no cigar.

Not necessarily. There would always be folks who refused to believe. Here I was thinking along the lines of Krsna being able to show Arjuna his Universal form. I think that would convince practically anyone, but I could just be being silly. Heaven forbid that the Abrahamic religions didn't have a strangle hold on "the truth".

The Apostles also saw Jesus, Elijah and Moses on the mountain and heard the voice of God. Your point is?

Given that you, nor anyone else, can prove the existence of "god" that is a rather presumptuous statement to make. Do you have any proof to back up this assertion or is it perhaps simply idle speculation.

Physical evidence? Of course, not. God is apart from material creation. He did not create Himself, after all.

Straw man second swing, strike two.

Regards,

Scott

 

[England my lionheart]

I suppose using this logic the followers of Charles Manson could claim he was part of the illustrious lineup too and not just another pretty face in a police lineup.

Well, test Charlie as Jesus tells you to test his claim, and you will probably find that the fruits of Manson are vile. Therefore he is not a true Messenger. Nice try for a straw man, but no cigar.

Not necessarily. There would always be folks who refused to believe. Here I was thinking along the lines of Krsna being able to show Arjuna his Universal form. I think that would convince practically anyone, but I could just be being silly. Heaven forbid that the Abrahamic religions didn't have a strangle hold on "the truth".

Physical evidence? Of course, not. God is apart from material creation. He did not create Himself, after all.

Straw man second swing, strike two.

Regards,

Scott

OK where is the evidence that the Angel visited muhamed? did anyone else see it?

 

[England my lionheart]

Try this one it is more appropriate to the issue:

Muhammed says the Great Jihad is the struggle within one's self to submit to the will of God.

Leaders who wish to gain power amongst the people of Islamic nations declare that the great Jihad (struggle) is to make war against the west.

Therefore those Leaders who disobey the word of God are not true followers of the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammed.

Your original syllogism suffers a fallacy of equivalency. It seems you are erecting a strawman since that was never the original argument.

Straw men and red herrings are only successful debate tactics when they remain a distraction from the real point. Let's get back to the real point.

Regards,

Scott

So if jihad does'nt =war then why have many muslims called for one against the west?
saddam hussien called for a jihad to defeat the "wicked Americans"so in this context it obviously means holy war.

 

[England my lionheart]

jihad against ones self,jihad of the tongue,jihad of the hand and the most relevant jihad of the sword which ithink we can safely say means war.

 

[YmirGF]

Well, test Charlie as Jesus tells you to test his claim, and you will probably find that the fruits of Manson are vile. Therefore he is not a true Messenger. Nice try for a straw man, but no cigar.

In some respects it is indeed a strawman but given that his followers did not perceive his teachings as being "vile", heck, they thought he was Jesus Christ. So, in some respects it IS a valid comparrison. They certainly chose to believe him regardless of what our sentiments are about this particular wingnut.

Physical evidence? Of course, not. God is apart from material creation. He did not create Himself, after all.

Straw man second swing, strike two.

Hmm. Scott, you are a clever man, there has never been any real doubt in my mind on that point, however, surely you can see that your statement directly above is simply supposition. There is no possible way you could know that "god" is, in fact, "apart" from material creation. There is no possibility that you personally know that "god" did not create himself. You are simply giving assertions -- based on -- what exactly? Regardless of what you base your perceptions on, they are still within the realm of supposition, because there is no proof to test if your suppositions (or those of others) are true or false. No doubt that is where "faith" comes into the mix.

Fond regards,

Paul

 

[England my lionheart]

So if jihad does'nt =war then why have many muslims called for one against the west?
saddam hussien called for a jihad to defeat the "wicked Americans"so in this context it obviously means holy war.

A historical fact to show jihad in action was Mahdi Muhammad Ahmads jihad to establish an islamic state in the sudan (see siege of khartoum)and then move on to a universal state of islam,well that was the idea.
After taking khartoum the mahdi died and his army was defeated at the battle of Omdurman.

 

[England my lionheart]

O God, deal with the enemies of religion. O God, deal with Jews and their supporters and Christians and their supporters. Shake the land under their feet. Instill fear in their hearts, and freeze the blood in their veins. O God, scatter their ranks, make fate turn against them, and continue pressure on them. The criticism in such homilies is not always directed at those perceived to be the external enemies of the Arab world. Occasionally, the orator seeks to inspire the listener to action by surveying events in the region and pointing out the failings of the faithful.

This was broadcast on yemeni television from sannas grand mosque,sounds like jhad does'nt it
​

 

[England my lionheart]

O God," he said, "support our brother holy warriors for your sake everywhere. O God, grant them victory in Palestine, Kashmir, and Chechnya. O God, deal with the aggressor Jews and all aggressive infidels. O God, deal with them for they are within your power."

How about this one scott,broadcast on saudi arabian tv1 does this sound like jihad.
PS more on request
Happy days

 

[England my lionheart]

So this leads to the question do the muslims in the west describe jihad as only an internal conflict to justify living in a country predominately of another faith or are the extremists or islamic states such as syria,iran,yemen etc following the correct teachings of the qur'an.
It is worth looking at jihad through history,for example saladin during the crucades was infatuated with jihad in all its aspects and waged holy war(jihad of the sword) against the crusaders.

 

[Popeyesays]

O God," he said, "support our brother holy warriors for your sake everywhere. O God, grant them victory in Palestine, Kashmir, and Chechnya. O God, deal with the aggressor Jews and all aggressive infidels. O God, deal with them for they are within your power."

How about this one scott,broadcast on saudi arabian tv1 does this sound like jihad.
PS more on request
Happy days

No, it does not sound like Jihad to me, if one pays attention to the Quran, and the message of Muhammed.

Regards,

Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

As an aside this was in my mail today:

"Press Statement
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
January 23, 2008


Death of Imprisoned Student in Iran

The United States is deeply concerned about the tragic death under suspicious circumstances of Ebrahim Lotfallahi, an Iranian student of Kurdish descent detained by the Ministry of Intelligence on January 6. We call on Iranian authorities to conduct a full investigation. The Iranian regime continues to deprive its citizens of a future free of fear, abuse, and arbitrary arrest. We urge the regime to release all individuals held without due process and a fair trial, including the three young Baha'i teachers being held in a Ministry of Intelligence detention center in Shiraz and the three Amir Kabir University students that prison authorities refuse to free despite an order issued by an Iranian judge in late December.
2008/049


Released on January 23, 2008"

"Remember the days in which the Sun of Batha [Muhammed] shone forth above the horizon of the Will of thy Lord, the Exalted, the Most High, and recall how the divines of that age turned away from Him, and the learned contended with Him, that haply thou mayest 102 apprehend that which, in this day, remaineth concealed behind the veils of glory. So grievous became His plight on every side that He instructed His companions to disperse. Thus was the decree made manifest from the heaven of divine glory. Remember, furthermore, how, when one of these same companions came before the King of Ethiopia and recited unto him a Surih of the Qur'án, he declared to his attendants: "This, truly, hath been revealed by One Who is All-Knowing and All-Wise. Whoso acknowledgeth the truth, and believeth in the teachings of Jesus, can in no wise deny what hath been recited. We, verily, bear witness to its truth, even as we bear witness to the truth of that which we possess of the Books of God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting."

(Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts)

Regards,
Scott

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

So this leads to the question do the muslims in the west describe jihad as only an internal conflict to justify living in a country predominately of another faith or are the extremists or islamic states such as syria,iran,yemen etc following the correct teachings of the qur'an.
It is worth looking at jihad through history,for example saladin during the crucades was infatuated with jihad in all its aspects and waged holy war(jihad of the sword) against the crusaders.

It is not an extremist view that Islam mentions war, describes it, and gives the criteria for when it is justice to carry it out, on what grounds it should be resorted to, and how to end it as soon as possible. I'm confused because I didn't see where the muslims on this forum denied that Islam does make war under the correct conditions permissible?

BTW jihad does indeed mean struggle, the greatest of which is inner struggle against oneself, and it can also mean a physical fight if it comes to that. A war however that is purely under the conditions that Quran describes cannot be simply be called for on a whim. It is a condition that muslims would meet under duress, because the Quran describes all out war to be done in times where the muslims are being killed, oppressed and such and would not, to my understanding, be a happy time. Everytime somebody says, 'we need to declare war on somebody' does not make that war one about religion just because the participants are muslim.

 

[England my lionheart]

‘Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi led an invasion of europe with jihad of the sword,saladin loved jihad of the sword,these crazy clerics call for jihad of the sword what conditions did they meet

 

[England my lionheart]

As an aside this was in my mail today:

"Press Statement
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
January 23, 2008


Death of Imprisoned Student in Iran

The United States is deeply concerned about the tragic death under suspicious circumstances of Ebrahim Lotfallahi, an Iranian student of Kurdish descent detained by the Ministry of Intelligence on January 6. We call on Iranian authorities to conduct a full investigation. The Iranian regime continues to deprive its citizens of a future free of fear, abuse, and arbitrary arrest. We urge the regime to release all individuals held without due process and a fair trial, including the three young Baha'i teachers being held in a Ministry of Intelligence detention center in Shiraz and the three Amir Kabir University students that prison authorities refuse to free despite an order issued by an Iranian judge in late December.
2008/049


Released on January 23, 2008"

"Remember the days in which the Sun of Batha [Muhammed] shone forth above the horizon of the Will of thy Lord, the Exalted, the Most High, and recall how the divines of that age turned away from Him, and the learned contended with Him, that haply thou mayest 102 apprehend that which, in this day, remaineth concealed behind the veils of glory. So grievous became His plight on every side that He instructed His companions to disperse. Thus was the decree made manifest from the heaven of divine glory. Remember, furthermore, how, when one of these same companions came before the King of Ethiopia and recited unto him a Surih of the Qur'án, he declared to his attendants: "This, truly, hath been revealed by One Who is All-Knowing and All-Wise. Whoso acknowledgeth the truth, and believeth in the teachings of Jesus, can in no wise deny what hath been recited. We, verily, bear witness to its truth, even as we bear witness to the truth of that which we possess of the Books of God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting."

(Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts)

Regards,
Scott

I'm very sorry to hear that but what else do you expect from this country.

 

[England my lionheart]

It is not an extremist view that Islam mentions war, describes it, and gives the criteria for when it is justice to carry it out, on what grounds it should be resorted to, and how to end it as soon as possible. I'm confused because I didn't see where the muslims on this forum denied that Islam does make war under the correct conditions permissible?

BTW jihad does indeed mean struggle, the greatest of which is inner struggle against oneself, and it can also mean a physical fight if it comes to that. A war however that is purely under the conditions that Quran describes cannot be simply be called for on a whim. It is a condition that muslims would meet under duress, because the Quran describes all out war to be done in times where the muslims are being killed, oppressed and such and would not, to my understanding, be a happy time. Everytime somebody says, 'we need to declare war on somebody' does not make that war one about religion just because the participants are muslim.

I have been repeatedly told in this thread jihad is the internal struggle of oneself however all know that there are different jihads and the context in which it is used.

 

[Popeyesays]

‘Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi led an invasion of europe with jihad of the sword,saladin loved jihad of the sword,these crazy clerics call for jihad of the sword what conditions did they meet

Abdu'l Rahman al Ghafiqi led his invasion after Muhammed was dead. It was not a Jihad because it was not a defensive war, and Muhammed would not have approved of it.

Sala'a-din did indeed lead a defensive war and a proper jihad against invaders, when you come right down to it. He did so skillfully, successfully and maintained the respect of his enemies in the process.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

I'm very sorry to hear that but what else do you expect from this country.

I see you avidly read the first announcement and totally ignored the second. I'll repeat it for you:

""Remember the days in which the Sun of Batha [Muhammed] shone forth above the horizon of the Will of thy Lord, the Exalted, the Most High, and recall how the divines of that age turned away from Him, and the learned contended with Him, that haply thou mayest 102 apprehend that which, in this day, remaineth concealed behind the veils of glory. So grievous became His plight on every side that He instructed His companions to disperse. Thus was the decree made manifest from the heaven of divine glory. Remember, furthermore, how, when one of these same companions came before the King of Ethiopia and recited unto him a Surih of the Qur'án, he declared to his attendants: "This, truly, hath been revealed by One Who is All-Knowing and All-Wise. Whoso acknowledgeth the truth, and believeth in the teachings of Jesus, can in no wise deny what hath been recited. We, verily, bear witness to its truth, even as we bear witness to the truth of that which we possess of the Books of God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting."

(Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts)



Again, Muhammed said "There is no compulsion in religion; the right way has been distinguished from the wrong, and whoso disbelieves in Taghut and believes in God, he has got hold of the firm handle in which is no breaking off; but God both hears and knows." (The Qur'an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 2 - The Heifer)

If the Iranian, or Egyptian government practice compulsion in religion how can they be muslims in any sense?

Regards,
Scott

 

[doppelganger]

Again, Muhammed said "There is no compulsion in religion; the right way has been distinguished from the wrong, and whoso disbelieves in Taghut and believes in God, he has got hold of the firm handle in which is no breaking off; but God both hears and knows." (The Qur'an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 2 - The Heifer)

So long as your religion doesn't include the belief in free speech (or at least free speech that Muslims find offensive). If it does, and you have the gall to act on that belief by speaking, drawing a cartoon, or introducing someone to a book or idea, then brace yourself up for a lovely wave of compulsion.

 

[Popeyesays]

So long as your religion doesn't include the belief in free speech (or at least free speech that Muslims find offensive). If it does, and you have the gall to act on that belief by speaking, drawing a cartoon, or introducing someone to a book or idea, then brace yourself up for a lovely wave of compulsion.

Compulsion in religion refers to forcing someone to become muslim.

The compulsion you are fretting about even though it is misguided and fundamentally wrong does NOT force anyone to BE muslim, does it?

Regards,
Scott