What makes you think Islam is a false religion?

[Surya Deva]

I agree with a lot of what you say Darkness. I am convinced now that the Abrahmic religions are the original Asura/demonic religions that Dharmic history refers to. There were two major civilizations in the world: Indo-European aka Aryans(Indians, Persians, Greeks etc) vs the Semetic(Sumerians, Assiryans etc) and these two civilisations were the founders of two major streams of world religion: Hinduism and Judaism. These civilisations were poles apart(even geographically on other sides of the world) everything about them was different. The Aryans were noble, peace loving, philosophers and poets and the Semitics were war mongering, power hungry and this is why the history of bloodshed, violence and destruction is significantly more associated with the the Semitics. Later on, there was a merging between the Aryan Dharma religion and the Semitic religion leading to the birth of Christianity, which originally was more dharmic in character, until it was assimilated by the Semitic tradition and it became violent again. ***EDITED BY STAFF***
Btw I am not anti semitic, I simply using the term semitic to describe the Sumerians, Babylonians. I have nothing against jews, in fact I can relate to them very strongly.

 

[Caladan]

I agree with a lot of what you say Darkness. I am convinced now that the Abrahmic religions are the original Asura/demonic religions that Dharmic history refers to. There were two major civilizations in the world: Indo-European aka Aryans(Indians, Persians, Greeks etc) vs the Semetic(Sumerians, Assiryans etc) and these two civilisations were the founders of two major streams of world religion: Hinduism and Judaism. These civilisations were poles apart(even geographically on other sides of the world) everything about them was different. The Aryans were noble, peace loving, philosophers and poets and the Semitics were war mongering, power hungry and this is why the history of bloodshed, violence and destruction is significantly more associated with the the Semitics. Later on, there was a merging between the Aryan Dharma religion and the Semitic religion leading to the birth of Christianity, which originally was more dharmic in character, until it was assimilated by the Semitic tradition and it became violent again. Then later on Islam emerged which took elements from all the religions and perverted them to the extreme. If the Judo-Christian tradition before it was violent, then Islam took violence to fanatical extremes.

Btw I am not anti semitic, I simply using the term semitic to describe the Sumerians, Babylonians. I have nothing against jews, in fact I can relate to them very strongly.

Suraj,

I guess it doesnt take much to expose people like you.
let me correct you though, as your ignorance reaches your historical knowledge (or lack thereof) as well.
the Sumerians were not Semitic.

 

[Surya Deva]

Although Caladan, isn't it true that much of the mythology and religion of the Sumerians and Babylonians was incorporated into Judaism?

 

[Caladan]

At this point, I'll advice you Suraj, to remember that Silence is Gold.

 

[Surya Deva]

From Wiki:

The concept of "Semitic" peoples is derived from Biblical accounts of the origins of the cultures known to the ancient Hebrews. Those closest to them in culture and language were generally deemed to be descended from their forefather Shem. Enemies were often said to be descendants of his cursed nephew, Canaan. In Genesis 10:21-31, Shem is described as the father of Aram, Asshur, and Arpachshad: the Biblical ancestors of the Arabs, Aramaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Sabaeans, and Hebrews, etc., all of whose languages are closely related; the language family containing them was therefore named Semitic by linguists.

 

[Surya Deva]

At this point, I'll advice you Suraj, to remember that Silence is Gold

Yeah I too think it would be advisable for you to keep your silence now. As it appears that I have used the term correctly. Although I will admit it is a rather ambigious term, but roughly it is a cultural and linguistic term which describes a certain group of people(Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Jews etc)

 

[Caladan]

You seem to be delusional.
1. your demonization of Abrahamic culture speaks volume about your limited world view.
2. The Sumerians were not Semitic, and you have not proven otherwise, nor can you, because it a known piece of information that they were not.

 

[.lava]

I have no problem with 2 billion Muslims today. I have a problem with the religion Islam, which I consider a false religion.

dear Suraj, come back to your sense please. this is very illogical.

I consider it false because

1) It is not an original religion, it takes elements from other religions and claims its new. It takes from the Judo-Christro tradition the stories of Abraham, Jesus, and from Hinduism it takes the Kabba, prayer and cleansing rituals, Eed and the god Allah itself. The rest of it is just Mohammed progressively revealing his Quran based on his conveniance(like having special privilages such as number of wives he can have, or have the right to be adulterous)
and because it was so repulsive to people it can only be spread through violence and death threats.

Islam is new? Qur'an does not say so;

42:13 He hath ordained for you that religion which He commended unto Noah, and that which We inspire in thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish the religion, and be not divided therein. Dreadful for the idolaters is that unto which thou callest them. Allah chooseth for Himself whom He will, and guideth unto Himself him who turneth (toward Him).

Kaba was not built for idols. it was built by Abraham (PBUH) first for Allah.

22:26 And (remember) when We prepared for Abraham the place of the (holy) House, saying: Ascribe thou no thing as partner unto Me, and purify My House for those who make the round (thereof) and those who stand and those who bow and make prostration.


almost all the wives of Mohammad (PBUH) were older than 50 when he married them. some proposed him because they were widows and life was not secure for alone women. in the house of Prophet they were secure in peace.

2) The excessive content of violence and hatred against non-Muslims. The fact that Mohammed himself murdered people and looted them. He is certainly no holy man.

there is no hate for anyone. there is no hate for non-Muslims either. but there is fighting back. there've been wars and Prophet naturally led Muslims. yes, unfortunately that is what happens in war, people kill each other.

3) The horrific history of terrorism right from its inception to this very day. I still balk at thinking that his Caliphs actually ordered masscres of men, women and children with something like 20,000 at a go.

source of terror is hatred, greed, revenge and ignorance. as there are non-Muslims who have these vices, there are also Muslims who have the very same. this is not about religion. this is about human ego.

i don't know what happened in India. i researched a little. i guess it was Mogols who invade. we know them as vicious and cruel warriors.

This is not a divine religion in my opinion. It's the antithesis of it.

sure, is it just an opinion? i don't know where you studied, what you red, what kind of source was that...please hear as i say...you're wrong about us and what we follow, so are terrorists.

 

[Surya Deva]

Looks like you did not want to stick to your own advice:

Wiki:

Sumer (Sumerian: ki-en-ĝir15[1][2], Akkadian: Šumeru; possibly Biblical Shinar ), located in southern Mesopotamia, is one of the earliest known civilizations in the world. It lasted from the first settlement of Eridu in the Ubaid period (late 6th millennium BC) through the Uruk period (4th millennium BC) and the Dynastic periods (3rd millennium BC) until the rise of Babylon in the early 2nd millennium BC.

This about website here conflates Semitic with Sumerian:

Ancient Sumerian/Semitic Gods - Shamash (Utu)

It is clear that the word Semitic refers to a whole family of tribes Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians, Assyrians etc etc and Sumeria is the earliest known civilisation of this family. The Judo tradition is based very strongly on this tradition and borrows significantly from them e.g., Noah and the flood; the epic of Gilgamesh.

The word Aryans or Indo-Europeans is just as ambigious. It refers to several tribes of people. These identifiers are given to refer to common lineages of people. They are just cultural and linguistic terms. As long as we know what we mean...

 

[Surya Deva]

dear Suraj, come back to your sense please. this is very illogical.

No it isn't I said I have no problem with 2 billion Muslims, my problem is with the religion Islam. How is that illogical?

Islam is new? Qur'an does not say so;

Well the credibility of Islam is already in question. So you cannot prove objections raised against it with what the Quran says.

My objection is the Quran is a fabricated text by Mohammed based on his own conveniance. To justify something, he just reveals another "divine" passage. For example when he commits aduletry with one of his wives and she becomes upset and chides him, he feels guilty and then suddenly he has a revelation, "You shouldn't feel guilty, she was wrong"

My objection is Allah is none other than Mohammeds alter ego.

Kaba was not built for idols. it was built by Abraham (PBUH) first for Allah.

22:26 And (remember) when We prepared for Abraham the place of the (holy) House, saying: Ascribe thou no thing as partner unto Me, and purify My House for those who make the round (thereof) and those who stand and those who bow and make prostration.

Again sorry this is not proof. Mohammed says it was built by Abraham, but remember my objection is his crediblity is questionable. I think he's made that up to justify the capture of Kabba. Go to the other topic, "Is it true Kabbha was a Hindu temple" there is now conclusive evidence that Kabbha was a Hindu temple and the stone is none other than the Shiva stone.

almost all the wives of Mohammad (PBUH) were older than 50 when he married them. some proposed him because they were widows and life was not secure for alone women. in the house of Prophet they were secure in peace.

He was married Aisha when she was 9 years old, and apparently even at the the age of 7 he had lust for her!

there is no hate for anyone. there is no hate for non-Muslims either. but there is fighting back. there've been wars and Prophet naturally led Muslims. yes, unfortunately that is what happens in war, people kill each other.

Rubbish. I have already proven that to be untrue. There was no fighting back. Mohammed attacked Mecca in cold-blood and massacred its people as revenge for them not accepting him as a prophet. I have already given you proof of authentic letters composed by Mohammed and delivered by his followers to neigbouring kingdoms which say:

CONVERT OR DIE

The Hadiths record just how brutal Mohammed was. He would have women raped, childrens limbs hacked off, and thousands beheaded if they refused to convert to his religion.

source of terror is hatred, greed, revenge and ignorance. as there are non-Muslims who have these vices, there are also Muslims who have the very same. this is not about religion. this is about human ego.

Nope the Hadiths clearly show the source of terror was Mohammed himself. Do you want me to link how many murders Mohammed commited which are recorded in the Hadiths which were done on the order of Mohammed? He did not even spare women.

 

[Caladan]

"The Sumerians were a non-Semitic people"

Sumer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prove that the Sumerians were Semitic you cant. because they were not. not only that you also have to be nuts to claim in your original post any genetic relation between Greeks and Indians, supposedly as having the same 'Aryan' linage.

also, nice try at attempting to divert the original point of your vile demonization of Abrahamic cultures.

 

[Surya Deva]

Caladan,

I am not interested in debating this rather moot point. If you don't like the word Semitic being used to clump together the Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians etc, then fine lets not use it. As long you understand that I am referring to a very particular tradition or culture which is distinct from the Indo-Europeans or Aryans.

not only that you also have to be nuts to claim in your original post any genetic relation between Greeks and Indians, supposedly as having the same 'Aryan' linage.

Sigh, then in that case don't attack me for it, attack linguisits. They are the ones that group the Greeks and Indians together as Indo-Europeams. They are the ones that claim that they are descedents of the same root race the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

 

[Caladan]

I am not interested in debating this rather moot point. If you don't like the word Semitic being used to clump together the Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians etc, then fine lets not use it. As long you understand that I am referring to a very particular tradition or culture which is distinct from the Indo-Europeans or Aryans.

In other words, you vainly tried to prove information that was wrong from the beginning.

Sigh, then in that case don't attack me for it, attack linguisits. They are the ones that group the Greeks and Indians together as Indo-Europeams. They are the ones that claim that they are descedents of the same root race the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

do you think any linguist will claim that Greeks and Indians have any genetic relation?
Different cultures speaking languages from the same family, in this case a proto language, does not mean biological relation. Indo-European proto language, is found in the prehistoric past of humanity. Indians are related to Europeans, about the same way Africans are related to Indians, after all we are all Africans in exile!

 

[Darkness]

I am convinced now that the Abrahmic religions are the original Asura/demonic religions that Dharmic history refers to. There were two major civilizations in the world: Indo-European aka Aryans(Indians, Persians, Greeks etc) vs the Semetic(Sumerians, Assiryans etc) and these two civilisations were the founders of two major streams of world religion: Hinduism and Judaism. These civilisations were poles apart(even geographically on other sides of the world) everything about them was different. The Aryans were noble, peace loving, philosophers and poets and the Semitics were war mongering, power hungry and this is why the history of bloodshed, violence and destruction is significantly more associated with the the Semitics. Later on, there was a merging between the Aryan Dharma religion and the Semitic religion leading to the birth of Christianity, which originally was more dharmic in character, until it was assimilated by the Semitic tradition and it became violent again. Then later on Islam emerged which took elements from all the religions and perverted them to the extreme. If the Judo-Christian tradition before it was violent, then Islam took violence to fanatical extremes.

I divorce myself from this sort of reasoning. Firstly, you create a false dichotomy between the peaceful "Aryans" and the vicious "Semitic" peoples. If we can learn anything from history, it is that humanity is a violent and vicious race. You mention the Greeks as peace-loving, but any serious study into Greek life and you would find that they were brutal, petty slave-masters; Athenian Democracy was a sham. How do you factor the Chinese race into your dichotomy? Read up on Chinese history. It is filled with cold-blooded killings. Lastly, do you honestly believe Islam is worse (more tyrannical/totalitarian) than the kingdom supposedly set up by Moses? The books of the Tanakh are filled with many, many genocides.

 

[Surya Deva]

do you think any linguist will claim that Greeks and Indians have any genetic relation?
Different cultures speaking languages from the same family, in this case a proto language, does not mean biological relation. Indo-European proto language, is found in the prehistoric past of humanity. Indians are related to Europeans, about the same way Africans are related to Indians, after all we are all Africans in exile!

Yes, the studies in Phiology(comparative linguistics) has come to the conclusion that the Indo-Europeans belong genetically to the same race. They are descendents of a root race and they are called Caucasians. Nor is it contested that humans altogether have descended from Africa. These are not mutually exclusive points.

In order to make easier for the linguist, historian, anthropologist one has to split up humanity into groups; racial groups; cultural groups and linguistic groups(very closely tied in with culture) and far as that is concered there are two very major cultural-linguistic groups: the Indo-Europeans and the Semitics. They are very distinct groups.

 

[Surya Deva]

If we can learn anything from history, it is that humanity is a violent and vicious race. You mention the Greeks as peace-loving, but any serious study into Greek life and you would find that they were brutal, petty slave-masters; Athenian Democracy was a sham.

I'm afraid I do not share your pessimism oh darkness, anti-christ disciple. I can see why you would think humanity is inherently evil/vicious/violent, but at the same time I think you overlook the great compassion and love it is capable of. I am aware of a relatively peaceful country which has virtually never invaded another country: India. Tibet is another example of a peaceful country.

The Greeks were also not very violent especially comparatively. They were philosophers, lovers of wisdom, art and literature. Indeed this is a common feature of Aryan cultures. The Greeks, Persians and the Indians were full of sages and poets.

How do you factor the Chinese race into your dichotomy? Read up on Chinese history. It is filled with cold-blooded killings.

I don't, because I don't know much about their history to pass comment. I am aware of violence in Chinese history, but I am not aware of its history completely.

Lastly, do you honestly believe Islam is worse (more tyrannical/totalitarian) than the kingdom supposedly set up by Moses? The books of the Tanakh are filled with many, many genocides.

I generally consider the Abrahmic religions to be violent anyway. I think Islam took it to a whole new level though. It killed hundreds of millions of people over a millenia, 80 million in India alone. The kind of violence done by Islam is completely inhumane, like butching 20,000 people and feeding them to crows in front of their relatives, or chopping of the heads of children, making neclaces of them and putting them on their mothers. If you look at history when the Mohammadens beseiged the Armanian kingdom they were genuinely shocked with the cruelty they brought, the records show that such fanaticism was never witnessed before.

 

[Caladan]

Seems, Suraj, that you dont have relevant information of what is Caucasian.

"The Caucasian race, sometimes the Caucasoid race, is a term of racial classification, coined around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach for the "white" race of mankind, which he derived from the region of the Caucasus.[1] It was thus in use as denoting populations of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Central and South Asia, or more narrowly people of European origin.[2] The concept's existence is based on the now obsolete typological method of racial classification"

19th century classifications of the peoples of India considered the Dravidians of non-Caucasoid stock, as "Australoid" (Thomas Huxley 1865) or a separate "Dravida" race (Edgar Thurston) and assumed a gradient of miscegenation of high-caste Caucasoid "Aryans" and indigenous Dravidians. Carleton S. Coon in his 1939 The Races of Europe classifies the Dravidians as Caucasoid as well, due to their "Caucasiod skull structure" and other physical traits (e.g. noses, eyes, hair), in his 1969 The Living Races of Man stating that "India is the easternmost outpost of the Caucasian racial region".
With the turn away from racial theory in the late 20th century, the term Caucasian as a racial classification fell into disuse in Europe. Thus, in the United Kingdom, Caucasian is more likely than in the United States to describe people from the Caucasus, although it may still be used as a racial classification.[11]
Sarah A Tishkoff and Kenneth K Kidd state, "Despite disagreement among anthropologists, this classification remains in use by many researchers, as well as lay people."[12] According to Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, the concept of race has been all but completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology.[13]
The United States National Library of Medicine used the term Caucasian as a race in the past, but has discontinued its usage in favor of the term "European".[14]



Source: Caucasian race - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You also seem to be out of touch with the fact that it is vastly understood among paleoanthropologists that humanity has its roots in Africa.

 

[Darkness]

I am aware of a relatively peaceful country which has virtually never invaded another country: India.

Yet, it did come up with the infamous caste system.

 

[Surya Deva]

You also seem to be out of touch with the fact that it is vastly understood among paleoanthropologists that humanity has its roots in Africa.

Sigh, read my previous post address to you again. I do not at all contend that humanity did not originated in Africa.

Yet, it did come up with the infamous caste system.

Yes it did, and there is a thread discussing it right now in the Hinduism thread. It never was the evil and racist system it was made out to be. It began as as meriotcratic system assinging people in society according to their merits(not birth) and only later became corrupt after repeated invasions of India, but even then it was not rigid or universally practiced. For more read the thread: "Caste and Hinduism"

 

[Right_Path]

To put this another way, it is also saying:
"Allah forbids you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought against you on account of religion and drove you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal inequitably."

Well, this is your very own interpretation, or...maybe interpretation is not the right word here...your very own hoax.:areyoucra

You are obviously hapless to the extent that you invented
a verse according to your point of view.

Hmmm. Clipping there does make it sound as if it is addressed to unbelievers in general, where in fact it is addressed the People of the Book.

Again, you are interpretting yourself...poor:no:

It is referring to the unbelievers, including unbelievers from the People of the book.

It could just be me.

Yes I think so as well, that's why you will be the last one who can convince me with such marvelous ideas.:sarcastic

He understood that his people's time was important and if someone just wanted to argue and the Muslims couldn't answer the line of questioning, it was better just to smile, say "Peace!" and then cut and run. This would allow them to move on to the next mark who might possibly be more receptive.

So now you are talking about the disability of Muslims to answer 'the line of questions' by People of the Book and ignoring the Peace issue.(again, changing the subject because you are hapless).

No, the verse is very clear...: When the prophet sees no hope that they would believe, he was ordered to forgive them and say peace..and for his self-relief, God informs him that one day they will know who is on the right path.

I dunno, Right Path, how do you interpret this the passages from 81 to 89? :flirt:

Finally, verse 86 beats your 'People of the Book' claims.

''And those unto whom they cry instead of Him possess no power of intercession, saving him who beareth witness unto the Truth knowingly''

Cry instead of him is addressing pagans.