The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A Shaykh dies > Comments

A Shaykh dies : Comments

By Irfan Yusuf, published 16/6/2005

Irfan Yusuf mourns the passing of Shaykh Abu Bakr, one of the greatest scholars of classical Islam.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
Irfan,

It was sad news specially a moderate and smart thinker.
Interesting enough his time in Egypt was in Nasser's period of persecuting everyone, even mosslems.

As for the mainstream media I believe it is becoming more and more business driven and wave surfers rather than wave makers.

Sad day when a good guy passes away, but worse is when you run home to watch what is happening in the world, and all you get is Big brother evictees, ms Corby misfortune and Michael Jackson neverland.

Viva cable TV, BBC and other wave makers...

Salam,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Thursday, 16 June 2005 1:59:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan,

Wonderful words that are a fitting tribute to one of the good guys. Sorely missed, we can only hope that his work and the grace with which he lived his life inspire others to do the same.
Posted by JDB, Friday, 17 June 2005 9:22:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan, your portrayal of this man is a poorly veiled attempt to characterize Islam and its prophet in the same manner. Did his work on the life of Mohammed include references to his cruelty ? The incident below, or the murder of Ka'ab etc Or was he selective, taking a 'sanitized and idealist' approach ?

Sahih Muslim

Book 016, Number 4131:

Anas reported: Eight men of the tribe of 'Ukl came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and swore allegiance to him on Islam, but found the climate of that land uncogenial to their health and thus they became sick, and they made complaint of that to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: Why don't you go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine. They said: Yes. They set out and drank their (camels') milk and urine and regained their health. They killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This (news) reached Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and he sent them on their track and they were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet). He commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died.

--------------------
I find no attraction to Islam or its alledged prophet, and this is one of the major reasons. (among others) Let the truth be known, and let people be FULLY informed, I wonder if Cat Stevens knew about this kind of thing when he was considering becoming a Muslim.

As for the man you referred to, seems like he was sincere, but sincerely wrong.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 18 June 2005 7:30:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz David,

Interesting that you know little about Islam and its teachings and you are a Christian Missionary.

Qu’ran is the source of Islamic faith and belief. The hadith (ie sayings of Prophet Muhammed) have 6 different sources and the ‘narrated hadith’ (ie the proven sources documented during his life time) are only 7 of them.

Now you being a Christian missionary should know all of this, but reading through some of your comments you seem obsessed with Islam being your boo boo man!

You have an equal responsibility to educate your followers on Islam and Quranic teachings. Lots of good Catholics I know go to mosques and their musslim friends because they are confused why Jesus is more glorified in the Quran than in the bible and why Virgin Mary story have a full chapter while there is no mention of her in the bible.

Whoever you are, please stop the “catch the fire’ ministries attitude and come to reason…musslims and christians have common values and beliefs, we both believe in Jesus, his virgin birth we both believe in his second coming.

Peace,

Ash
Posted by Fellow_Human, Sunday, 19 June 2005 12:09:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, did I go to schoool with you? I remember a guy at St Andrews Cathedral School with your name. I finished year 12 in 1987. Were you at that school?

David, I urge you to read Shaykh Martin's book.

You might also read the book of Saladdin's Minister for Health, Shaykh Musa bin Maymun. Shaykh Musa was a Spaniard who fled to Cairo and met Saladdin. Shaykh Musa's reputation had spread far and wide for a brilliant philosophical and theological treatise he had written in Arabic.

Saladdin was so impressed with the treatise and with Shaykh Musa's formidable reputation as a physician that he begged Shaykh Musa to lead his medical team.

So what was special about this book? Well, the book is a trialogue of three faiths. In the book, Shaykh Musa made the bold claim that Judaism is superior to both Christianity and Islam.

Huh? Shaykh Musa? Arabic book? Saladdin impressed?

The book has been translated into English as "Guide to the Perplexed". Shaykh Musa was Moses Maimonides. Saladdin appointed a Jew to head his medical team.
Posted by Irfan, Monday, 20 June 2005 12:45:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Lots of good Catholics I know go to mosques and their muslim friends because they are confused why Jesus is more glorified in the Quran than in the bible and why Virgin Mary story have a full chapter while there is no mention of her in the bible."

They may be 'good' Catholics, but not real bright. Ignorance of the scriptures = ignorance; The Gospel of Like could give them no less than a dozen references about Mary and the Glory of God's son, Jesus.

"muslims and christians have common values and beliefs" however, they are not readily found in Sharia law too often, but, Muslims have at their disposal all sorts of legal folly that Western traditions of freedom set up to, ironically, undermine our own freedom at the expense of new 'minorities.'

When someone like Cardinal Pell says that Muslims & Christians should combine to protect concepts of family, I wonder if this means monogamy or polygamy as the fundamental point of agreement?
Posted by Reality Check, Monday, 20 June 2005 5:07:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Reality Check,

My response was in relation to specific case, Christian missionaries who ‘intentionally’ mislead their followers about their fellow muslims.

Your comments proved my point on the polygamy issue: the verse referring to polygamy in the Koran restricts it to force majeure and under strict conditions (agree it is misused in the Arabic culture). But here is what I find interesting in your comment: I don’t see anyone talking about militant secularism and the fact that polygamy is ‘legally allowed’ in the free world (ie a man can have as many female relations with children in each house hold!).

Cardinal Pell whose vision I respect and value, was talking about that very same issues. Gay marriage and gay priest not only are causing divide within the same church, but widening the divide between Western Catholic church and East Europe Catholic and Orthodox churches.

PS: to put a smile on your face about what we have in common:
the whole chapter 19 (98 verses) in the Koran talks about Virgin Mary’s life before and after Jesus and his first days miracles as a new born (which are not in the bible by the way, Koranic miracles of Jesus when he was a new born is exclusive to muslims:):))

Have a good day.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 21 June 2005 7:23:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This story is long on name-dropping, a common Muslim tactic since they are so keen to have "western" coverts to "legitimise" their religion, but short on details like was the "Shayk" actually a Muslim or was he merely an Arabic/Quranic scholar (which isn't always a positive for Muslims, as some selective Quranic quotes would quickly show)?

It always interesting to see someone who quotes from the Quran being labelled a "Christian missionary"! It's like, well, if you want to become a Muslim you have to read the Quran (preferably in Arabic, the only "reliable" source) but if you question what you read, you're a really bad person.

I love it when Muslims claim Jesus (and, conveniently, a whole swag of Jewish and Christian prophets) but emphatically deny he was crucified, a point which is often left out until they are pressed. Then comes a long lecture on how he lived on to old age and is buried in Kashmir etc.
Posted by Viking, Tuesday, 21 June 2005 4:59:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wow wow wow...hold the horse.
Firstly, Boaz David actually identified himself as a 56 year old Christian missionary in a previous discussion..It is not an 'accusation'.

Secondly, Jesus ' crucifix is not a religious issue for us as muslims. It something that is the corner stone of Catholic faith.

Thirdly, Islam is a fast growing religion. Whether Cat Stevens or others chose it or not, it doesn't add any popularity or legitimacy.
Islamic teachings have been the same since it came and doesn't change to 'attract more candidates'.

Fourth, I studied the Bible and the Koran in their native semetic languages and unfortunately some of the translations done by Christian missionaries replace the word 'ungrateful' with the word 'infidel'.

Fifth, this article was about a good man who passed away, compare you vicious attacks to the North American Mulsims websites (and Aussie muslims) who sincerely paid tribute to the late John Paul (or any other religious figure).

Thank you for stopping by,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 21 June 2005 5:30:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Name dropping?

Next time Shaykh Nuh Keller visits Australia and addresses a packed house at the Imam Ali Mosque in Lakemba, I will let you know. You can see with your own eyes Muslims of all ages and races and colours gathering to listen to him with heads bowed in respect and pin-drop silence.

Yes, an American shaykh speaking in an American accent.

If you take a look at a recent study of Australian Muslims done by Abdullah Saeed and his team at the University of Melbourne, you will see that census figures show that the biggest group of Muslims by place of birth are Muslims born in Australia. Is it any wonder that English-speaking imams and religious scholars are so popular?

On boxing day last year, the Sydney Opera House was packed as people came to hear 2 prominent western Muslim speakers. One was Swiss-born Tariq Ramadan. The other was an American scholar who studied in Turkey, Naeem Abdul Wali.

You might like to check out the website of the Zaytuna Institute, perhaps one of the most influential Muslim thinktanks and schools in the western world. www.zaytuna.org

peace.
Posted by Irfan, Friday, 24 June 2005 3:39:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why are we supposed to be thrilled by the prospect of Muslim Sheiks speaking in comprehensible English? The message is no clearer! Sheik Hilaly has been here 25 years and is incomprehensible, and his "message" is even more muddy after some of the fantastic and illogical claims made over the Douglas Wood affair. As Wood said when asked of the Sheik.. he said "Who?" which is funny as the Sheik had claimed to have spoken to Wood on the telephone!

Going into raptures over the odd Western convert to Islam hides one important fact: the penalty for apostacy from Islam is death, true? So even Yusuf Islam would be in deep trouble if he publicly announced he was wrong, and wanted to become a Buddhist, wouldn't he?
Posted by Viking, Friday, 24 June 2005 12:12:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To my brothers of another faith,
I dropped by the article to broaden my limited knowledge of Islam and with the thought that there might be some interesting comments regarding his life. How I felt tears well when I read the likes of David, RealityCheck and Viking: nothing but fear-based vitriol, ignorance and some level of brain-washing.

As a PRACTICING CHRISTIAN and passionate on the subject of spirituality, I can think of no logical reason for their malice. Any true Christian, for a start will accept the faith of another is real and honest. That each if us has a right to commune with our God as we see fit. That they denigrate (“They may be 'good' Catholics, but not real bright. Ignorance of the scriptures = ignorance”) simply means they are afraid – of their uncertainty and of what they don’t understand. Our God first and foremost taught tolerance, compassion and love. None of which was shown in their writing. I would be ashamed to be held in the same company as they.

On behalf of all true Christians, I think it safe to say that the passing of one of your scholars and faithful is a loss to the world and our true condolences are offered. I can only hope more of his kind appear in all faiths of the world. May OUR God make it so…

JustDan
Posted by JustDan, Friday, 24 June 2005 12:29:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Dan, since you're so "well-read" in the Christian scriptures, have a go at the Quran, you'll love it.

By the way, what is the point of your "message"?
Posted by Viking, Friday, 24 June 2005 1:28:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan, I regret that you felt so moved, as to tears about my post. Let me do my best to clarify, and heal.
Firstly, Ash is correct. I was a missionary for some years. In a muslim country I might add. I experienced the religion first hand.

He is however not correct in his assessment of my claim about Mohammed. The tradition of Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are THE most respected non Quranic material on the life of mohammed, and are the basis of pretty much ALL biographical accounts, along with the Quran itself. There was NOTHING misleading about my statements unless you consider your own traditions to be misleading because all I did was QUOTE from them.
I referred to Cat Stevens knowing the 'full' picture of Mohammed, because I'll guarantee that no one told him "Once u embrace Islam, the penalty for apostacy is DEATH"

I note that Ash and Irfan did not deny what mohammed did. (?)
Irfan, it was not me at that school

Dan, this does not mean we are calling on anyone to harm or hate Muslims, it DOES mean sharing truth with them. It DOES mean, that a falsehood should not be allowed to blind people. Paul said "If anyone proclaims a DIFFERENT gospel, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:6-8)

A muslim who is proclaiming the Islamic gospel, and aggessivly presenting it, is without question under the Judgement of Almighty God. This is not my 'opinion', my 'feeling', its from the Scriptures.

Dan, if you are a practicing Christian, I hope you are also an informed one. Please don't allow sentimentaliity to rule your heart.

Dan, the major point I wish to make, is that if I said the above in the country of my former service, the Special Branch would be on my case quicker than you would believe. Imams would be outraged, and demand my execution. Our friends Ash and Irfan can say what they LIKE about the Christian faith, or Christians, and no one is going to hunt them down as would happen in an Islamic country.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 24 June 2005 9:08:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Death is the spirits entry into a new life for those that love God. If one has givin diligence to faith and true revelation there is no fear in death as the apostle Paul said,
"O, death where is thy victory?
O, death where is thy sting?
The sting of death is sin;
and the power of sin is the (perfect) law.
Thanks be to God because He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 15: 55 - 57.

*****

That Jesus was crucified is one of the most basic tenets of Christianity: so for Islam to claim that such did not occur is to accuse Christians of deception or lies, or at least being deceived through ignorance. So what are the facts? What are the motives for deception or ignorance? Who has falsified the facts? That Jesus was crucified as believed by Christians or as disclaimed by Islam must rest upon historical reports from the time for validation. As Mohammed lived 570 - 632 AD he also relied on verbal reports, or records relayed from earlier times, so it is important to know what reports or documented evidence he listen to, or read.

To establish what actually happened we too must rely on eyewitness reports; so what documented reports are contemporary with that time for verification? The facts are actual, the claims made by one or the other are either a deceptive lie believed because of ignorance or were intentionally created by someone with a subversive agenda to deceive or discredit. Both defendants of the facts cannot be true; one claim must be intentionally concocted to deceive, and propagated by proceeding generations because of misinformation. For us to establish the facts we too must give attention to the contemporary records of the events, and the contemporary attitudes that might have distorted the facts. One only wonders what historical evidences does Muslims have to make such a claim. The claim that Jesus was crucified and was seen alive after his death has been upheld to the death by Jesus followers at the time
Posted by Philo, Friday, 24 June 2005 11:03:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That Jesus was crucified was witnessed by Mary his mother, Mary of Magdalena, a Roman soldier at the cross who later became a Christian, Peter who stood aloof during Jesus trial and crucifixion [Matthew 26: 58] and later was himself crucified upside down, because he refused to be hung the same way as Jesus; and Mark writer of his gospel, Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Judas who committed suicide because his scheme failed when Jesus was condemned to death [Matthew 27: 3 - 8], Jesus cousins John and James the sons of Salome conversed with Jesus while he was on the cross, Jesus asked the apostle John to care for his mother Mary, after his death. Nicodemus a leader of the Jews and Joseph of Arameathea a devout and wealthy Jew, who converted to Christ, embalmed Jesus body in his private tomb. All these person’s stories are witness accounts as recorded in the New Testament Gospels. All reliable Jewish historians uphold that Jesus was condemned and crucified to death.

The Qur'an 19: 34 says of Jesus, "Blessed was I on the day I was born, and blessed I shall be on the day of my death and on the day I shall be raised to life." The fact of blessing from his death is identified by the Qur’an and proclaimed continually by the Christian Church and commemorated each year at Passover time as the Gospels state, and is clearly evident. To deny his death places his death as unknown and obscure and not a day recognised for blessing. So there must be an underlying agenda assumed by some Muslims to deny Jesus was crucified that is contrary to the Bible and this pasage in the Qur'an.

On this issue the Qur'an contradicts itself, or at least tries to deny the earlier Qur'anic position but notably consistently upheld by Christians.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 24 June 2005 11:18:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's an interesting exercise to compare the tone and content of the posts to these forums by those who identify themselves as Muslims and Christians, respectively. The former correspondents invariably write polite, considered posts that express their points of view without seeking to offend readers who might disagree with it. The Christians, on the other hand, with a couple of notable exceptions like JustDan and Sells, dogmatically preach their particular versions of sanctimonious fundamentalist intolerance with various degrees of shrillness, insensitivity, or downright rudeness.

Might I suggest that the Christian godbotherers here do a little less preaching and a bit more communicating?

Vale Shaykh Abu Bakr.
Posted by garra, Saturday, 25 June 2005 10:01:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
I respect your efforts and knowledge through living in an Islamic country. Your wealth of knowledge/detail of their faith far outweighs mine. However…

Firstly, “it DOES mean sharing truth with them.”. Whose truth? Yours? Christianities? On the basis of this argument, can’t Islam argue the same? I admire your faith. It is almost equal to mine (no offence, said with a sense of irony!). But no matter how much you believe yourself right, there is no way you can prove it. Which relies on faith. On that basis, you cannot deny Islamic belief. This will become a circular argument and we will have to agree to disagree. The purpose of faith is strength. On that point it does its job well. Let’s leave this issue and move on.

“A muslim who is proclaiming the Islamic gospel, and aggessivly presenting it, is without question under the Judgement of Almighty God. This is not my 'opinion', my 'feeling', its from the Scriptures.” Well, as per the previous, this could be said (and is I might add) by the Muslim faith regarding the Christians… it’s a matter of faith – which cannot be proven or disproved.

Regarding my informedness (?!). Well I hope I am. In a joint response (to Viking), I have a copy of the Bible, the Qu’ran and even a Tao in my library (I love books). And none have burst into flame (not aimed at yourself David. You have been polite).

Finally, David, I agree that it is sad that in the current incarnation of certain cultures, there exists a paranoid, fearful and totalitarian mind-set. However, look out our own and you will see that this existed during various (and in some ways current) incarnations. How many were burned at the stake, executed and reviled for not believing as Christians did? I have a response to cultural difference, to Peter Sellick in ‘Scandal of Christianity’… feel free to have a read and join in. The more discussion, the less fear and more peace we will find.

Peace and strong faith to you all
JustDan
Posted by JustDan, Saturday, 25 June 2005 5:23:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
peace. salam/shalom. namasthe. sat sri akaal.

i wrote trhis article about an english shaykh. and i did it because i wanted to make a simple point.

the same point could be made by christians and jews and buddhists and hindus and followers of other faiths and no faith at all.

religion and culture are two separate things. religion is unrelated to culture and nationaility.

religion is about what we believe. it is not about what language we speak or what colour our skin is. nor is it about whether we like or hate george dubya.

i spoke of shaykh martin lings. when i was at st andrews, the head student's father was the reverend mall. an anglican priest. of pakistani origin who spoke fluent urdu and was a family friend of ours. the rev mall's son was for years the secretary of the pakistan association.

think about it. heads out of the sand, people.
Posted by Irfan, Saturday, 25 June 2005 6:25:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Viking a Christian? What a concept!

Dan, having a Quran will not tell you all that much about Muslims. It's a confusing document, really. Nowhere in it is there a prohibition on alcohol or the keeping of dogs as pets, or how Muslims should prey, for instance. All this and much, much more are found in the Hadiths. Try doing a search of them on "right hand possessions". Try another one on "dhimmi". Think about why it is that so many Muslim countries are almost 100% Muslim, and why is it that Bethlehem, which was 90% Christian in 1948, is now 90% Muslim?

The issue really comes down to is Islam really the "religion of peace"? It is obviously not now, nor was it ever, any such thing.
Posted by Viking, Sunday, 26 June 2005 1:27:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garra,
I have a sneaking suspicion, that your awareness of Islam in its various manifestations of political/cultural/spiritual is limited to your reading of the newspapers?

I don't quite understand why you even came to this thread.

You will never see the true color of Islam until it is ruling you.

You probably have never had a Muslim Chief minister tell you in no uncertain terms, that unless you basically shut down the fastest growing Christian movement in his country, you will be dealt with in the severest manner ? That particular state had no more than 30% muslims, and the rest were either Christian or Pagan, mostly pagan.
Or had the secret police tell you to shut down newletters which said nothing about Islam but did proclaim Christ.

Islam is a 'total' all encompassing phenomenon, (culture/law/politics etc) it is also very crafty and "flexible". I doubt that you followed the Catch the Fire case, but you would benefit from a careful study of detail right down to the Judges misrepresentation of the TRANSCRIPT in his verdict. If Islam is characterized as 'brutal' using the Hadith as basis for the charge, they (like Ash did) will say "Oh, the Quran is the foundation", but on other issues, they will appeal to the Hadith.

Garra, read Surah 23:5-6 Then, do some research on what 'who your right hand posseses'

Garra, goto Aceh Indonesia, and say something about Mohammed which is insulting. Then, if you survive, goto St Pauls Cathedral in Melbourne and do likewise, no, do it the other way around, at least you will be alive after St Pauls. That, Garra, is where you will see the true difference between how Islam effects its adherants and how Christ does His.

Don't confuse 'speaking with passion'- with hate, this is not the case.
Sometimes the verbal destruction of cherished myths can be painful, but it is neccessary if we are to preserve our freedoms, including the freedom for you to describe me as 'shrill, insensitive and rude' :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 26 June 2005 8:56:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MULTICULTURAL DIVERSITY SHOULD ALLOW DIFFERENCE

Posting on the National Forum will receive contrary comment, it is perfectly normal: that is the nature of a democratic Forum. If the above article was posted as a eulogy, merely to capture praise of the deceased then the National Forum is not the appropriate place; a magazine read by persons supporting his position would be a better option.

The name-dropping in the article appears as an appeal for acceptance of the Muslim intellectual position, so it’s perfectly appropriate to challenge intellectual opinion. The democratic voices on the National Forum may not be acceptable to Muslim minds unless it is degrading infidels, Jews, or Christians.

Opposition to Islam in Western Democracies is the reason Muslims from the Australian Multicultural Foundation instigated and drafted Victoria's Religious Vilification Totalitarian Shari'ah Law, as it encourages them to set spies to seek damage against things said, and claims they felt offended.

Those that follow Christ’s example will grow under opposition (Matthew 5: 11). The religious zealots of the Mosaic (Shari'ah) took offence at what Jesus had said this ultimately incited them to murder him. Compare: When the prophet Mohamed rose in military power he had all his opponents beheaded for contradicting his word - now typical of the totalitarian Muslim world-view to incarcerate or behead religious opponents.

There are those that wish to rewrite history to place Mahomet in better appeal to Western minds - then there are the facts. There are enough of the facts enshrined in the Qur'an as revelation to understand Mahomet's early appreciation of Christ, Mary and the Jews under the Abrahamic covenant and the second Jewish Talmud (Babylonia 600 AD); contrasted with his later violent opposition toward any of the sources that had earlier influenced him. Religious intolerance in his later life identified him as a violent fanatic and warlord, even his own relatives feared for their lives. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is this quandary between the earlier tolerances of other world-views, with his later totalitarian intolerance of other views that marks the difference within Muslim communities.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 26 June 2005 12:40:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The pagan Roman Church was responsible for the deaths of many independent thinkers and heretics so cannot be considered as following the attitudes of Christ. They call themselves "Christian" but adminstered the State under Totalitarian Religious Law, not under the grace of Christ.

The beginning of Christian persecution rests upon verifiable facts.
A young zealous Jew, an orthodox Pharisee, named Saul (known by his Gentile name Paul) had authority to capture and bring before trial those who followed Jesus teachings. Stephen was one of those who defended Jesus that Saul (Paul his gentile name) oversaw the stoning to death authorised by the Jewish Sanhedrin [Acts 6:7 - 7: 60]. Christians who spoke about Christ were being accused of undermining the Temple, Mosaic ceremonial Law and blasphemy and were being stoned to death. [The Midrash developed in the last centuries BC, and Mishnah - Jewish Law written in Aramaic 600 AD was the influence foundation for Shari'ah Law.]

*****

Acts. 6:8 Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people. 6:9: Opposition arose, however, from members of the “Synagogue of the Freedmen” (as it was called) - Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia. These men began to argue with Stephen, 6:10: but they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke. 6:11: Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, "We have heard Stephen speak words of blasphemy against Moses and against God." 6:12: So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. 6:13: They produced false witnesses, who testified, "This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. 6:14: For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us." 6:15: All who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at Stephen, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 26 June 2005 1:02:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi JustDan,

Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated.

Boaz_David,

Koran is the only source that muslims believe is inspired by God.
My point was not to debate however but to ask why do some of you hate us so much?
I see you guys inventing a new slogan everyday to get closer to other religions and non religions for that matter.

Philo

There is no contradiction in the Koran for those who understand it. Jesus ‘story in the Koran that God saved him and is sending him back at the end of times.
But as I said in a previous writing, Jesus’ crucifix is not a religious issue for Muslims. Islam is about confirming the previous messages of monotheism: One God, follow the commandments, etc.
The Koran has enough teachings on:
-Tolerance towards other religious beliefs (One of the references 3:112-116).
- Finding common grounds with Judaism and Christianity to worship one God.

As for your ‘facts’ on Islam and prophet Mohamed, please read work done by historians like George Sale “Translation of the Koran” or Sir William Muir “Life of Mohammed”.

I find it interesting you coming to a tribute article and spreading what you call ‘facts’ about Islam, yet you are comfortable with the sources of your beliefs being established by mortal men in the year 325 to 386 AD.

Ash
Posted by Fellow_Human, Monday, 27 June 2005 7:09:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess I should thank B-D for illustrating my point so well.

I mean, the sheer arrogance of Christian missionaries who go to a Muslim country in order to spread their religion, and then complain about a hostile reception from the authorities there... duh!

As usual, in amongst B-D's rabid assertions are numerous erroneous assumptions. As far as they apply to me, I'll take the opportunity to inform him that I too have lived and worked in Malaysia, also at times with Orang Asli peoples. However, in my case I was there to work with local organisations in helping to improve services for disabled people, as opposed to 'saving souls' under some pretext.

I had no problems whatsoever with the Malay Muslim authorities, and in fact the organisation with whom I worked comprised members from the Malay, Tamil, Chinese and Sikh communities, who worked together in a model of tolerance to develop services for people with disabilities from all ethnic groups and religions. B-D could learn much from them, if only he wasn't so certain that his belief system is the only correct one.

With respect to the conflicts he brought upon himself with the Malaysian authorities, perhaps he might like to consider what reactions would be like here if a mob of Muslim missionaries set up camp in some of our benighted Aboriginal communities. However, I'm not aware that any Muslim organisations exist for such proselytising purposes, unlike the evangelising Christian groups who seek to peddle their beliefs where they are neither needed nor wanted.
Posted by garra, Monday, 27 June 2005 7:23:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garra,
You don't appear to have read David's post too well. The province he was in wasn't in peninsular Malaysia, it would seem, but Sabah or Sarawak which originally had very few Muslims. Something has happened to change that? Wonder what? Something like the huge increase in the Muslim population in West Papua maybe? lebensraum?

You comparison between prosletising in Malaysia by Christians, and by Muslims amongst Aboriginals, is totally ridiculous. It's prohibited by law in Malaysia and in fact Malays are Muslims automatically, under the constitution. The penalty for an apostate from Islam is death, by the way (not carried out in Malaysia, but Malays who convert lose their bumiputra status- I'm sure you'd know what that is).

There is nothing to stop a bunch of Muslims hopping on a bus and going out to the bush and doing some dawa in the settlements, if they could stand the noise, dust, smells and the dogs. Unlikely. Muslims do quite well building mosques with Saudi oil money, I think you'll find, and manage to find a largish number of Aboriginal converts without ever going near the outback- in urban prisons.

You knowledge of Islam is abysmal, and your example of "working with the Orang Asli" another example of name-dropping, because they are not Muslim and are held in great contempt by Malays because they eat pig (or used to).In fact the Malay slang word for the Orang Asli translates as "slave". Malaysia loves to project an image of great tolerance, but do some digging and the reality's different. Like how many new churches or Hindu temples are being built in comparison to mosques? Very few indeed.
Posted by Viking, Monday, 27 June 2005 1:10:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
garra, you might investigate the success of Islam in converting angry indigenous people. Let us know.

JustDan, on another post you say "If so, then why do Christians (such as BOAZ_David, Reality Check, Viking, etc on this site) revile Islam and deny its validity. "

Revile? Pretty strong claim on the basis of my post don't you think?

My comment, that appears to 'justify' this slur (above) was where I was noting that I found it interesting that 'good Catholics' didn't know about scriptural references to Mary (Mother of Jesus & God?!) and were happy to rely on Islam for their knowledge. The same religion that doesn't (according to another poster) seemed prepared to follow its own traditions regarding polygamy et al.

I am more than happy to concede that I don't hold Islam valid, nor do I agree with the rewriting of Islamic history by apologists from that tradition. At the same time, I am also happy to express my concern about any man prepared to house several women and their offspring at variance to Australian marriage & social security laws, irrespective of the religious (or lack thereof) affiliation.

However, I do not revile Islam, but, disagree with its reinvention as anything but a cultural variation of earlier religious traditions and cultural empowerment of Arab nationhood (caliphate)and its demonstrated ability to continue to suppress non-Islamic religious practice. I have the same reservations about Communist China, so am I am also to be accused of reviling the Chinese?
Posted by Reality Check, Monday, 27 June 2005 1:16:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PS: to put a smile on your face about what we have in common:
the whole chapter 19 (98 verses) in the Koran talks about Virgin Mary’s life before and after Jesus and his first days miracles as a new born (which are not in the bible by the way, Koranic miracles of Jesus when he was a new born is exclusive to muslims:):))

Have a good day.

Posted by Ash Koheil, Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:23:29 AM

Dear Ash,

just on the above, the Koranic miracles may well be the same ones that gnostic gospels include and which were 'ignored' when compiling the New Testament - don't know? Anyway, anything we have in common is because you ripped it off from our shared tradition (as we 'ripped off' a fair bit from the Jews)! (This is an aside, not an attack.)

Keep smiling!
Posted by Reality Check, Monday, 27 June 2005 1:36:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I hate to say this, Mr Boaz, but i have just thought of an excellent title for your new book (should you ever choose to write one). you can call it "the protocols of the learned mullahs of malaysia".
Posted by Irfan, Monday, 27 June 2005 3:20:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Viking,

Nice fantasy on Saudi money building mosques and funding Dawa!
Last I have checked donation boxes are waiting for weeks to fix a whole in the roof of a Sydney mosque.

Death apostate: is more of a cultural penalty than a religious penalty, I knew few in Egypt who changed from one religion to the other and vice versa. By the way, the death sentence in tribal mentality applied to Orthodox Christian girls who married Catholic men as well. All you need is follow local news in these countries.

Dear Reality check,

Islam never claimed to be a new religion but all references in the Koran “it is a reminder of previous messages”. Don’t hold me accountable for your lack of knowledge please.

As for Islam ‘supressing’ other religions so how come most of South Egypt are still keeping their faith then? Maybe you should compare that to the Queen Isabella when they took over Spain from the Arabs how many muslim lives did they spare? Maybe your memory does not go that far since the Daily Telegraph wasn’t published then but how religious is the Serbian Orthodox (blessed by an Orthodox priest in killing 8,000 muslim women and children)?
How come the leaders of the Islamic empire from the year 996 AD onwards appointed senior ministers from Christian and Jewish faith?
How come in North African musslims countries senior ministers are of the Christian faith (today’s Egyptian treasurer for one)?

Now I am really amazed!
Posted by Fellow_Human, Monday, 27 June 2005 3:22:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ASH
we ....dont....hate...you ! :) got it ?
I have said NOTHING about hating muslims, I find it amazing that for Muslims and Lefties, to disagree with them is to them 'hate'. I would have you or Irfan over for some chow and a cuppa anytime.

Irfan alluded to malaysia, and my upcoming book. Sorry Irfan, its already been written by Syed kecik "The politics of federalism" about the Sabah election of around 1972 it was banned in Malaysia.

I could tell you stories of 'Islamic Evangelism' which would make your ears tingle. One classic under Tun Mustapha was when they called village 'A' to have a public meeting because a high ranking government member was coming. After they all gathered, they hoisted up a banner indicating it was an 'Islamic conversion ceremony', they photographed it with Polaroid cameras and went to other villages which had already been informed of the 'government member' coming and they tried to persuade them also to become Muslims "Look, village A all embraced Islam" etc etc. it just goes on and on.

But you will tell me 'Thats not Islam' :)

I take issue with "Islam" not with Muslims, don't misunderstand me. I know from the Quran AND the Hadith, AND the life of the prophet in various biographies, and about the Sword of Allah and the massacre of the Romans at Yarmuc (who, by the way were defending, not aggressing)
I know of the letter Mohammed sent to Hericlias etc etc.

When you say "you hate us, whyyyy" you are projecting 'your' about out feelings into us, and they are not there. This is 'issue' related.

You should not say that every labor member 'hates' every Liberal, even though they work very HARD and passionately for the other's defeat.

There is still, a malay(Muslim) village located behind the premises occcupied by our mission, there are many muslims in that village who owe their lives to the medical help given by the 'hateful Christians'

This, and the head Muslim of that area, was appointed to murder ALL missionaries during a revolution he sympathized with.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 27 June 2005 7:32:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garra
nice to know you have also experienced the 'nasi goreng' land.
"Rabid" ? thats a bit over the top mate.

'Muslim Country' ? You should know the racial mix there, and in the state I was in, it was about 26% Malay. Hardly a 'Muslim Country'.

In any case, our mission began work there before "Malaysia" existed in a state not related to 'malaya'.

You should also know that there is a very strong undercurrent of racial and religious tension. You should know about the 'New Economic Policy' and similar documents which are institutionalized discrimination against chinese who comprise almost half the population. Why so many malaysian chinese here for an education ? *think*.

I agree though, that there is a good degree of interacial harmony, now, on the surface. But in 1969 they were slaughtering each other in the streets.
The happy marraige of the rich chinese and the politically powerful malays seems to keep it all together, as long as you jail the occasional rival who might rock the boat. (Anwar)

Well done on your work with the Sengoi (Asli)
I'll bet there is one thing we can agree on, after the "KLIA+Fast Train" experience, Australia seems positively 3rd world.

Garra, you make the same mistake as Ash, you attibute 'hate' to those of differing opinion. Try to get over this will you. How would you like every Liberal to say to you 'you hate us' when u just disagree.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 27 June 2005 7:50:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fascinating. I make a comment about the differences in the tone and content of posts by Muslim and Christian correspondents to these forums and of course the rabid Christians prove my point with more of the same, while the Muslim correspondents continue to post polite, restrained comments in the face of godbotherer attacks.

I didn't notice any rude or insensitive posts in these forums from Muslims following the death of the Pope, for example.

While I'm no fan of either Islam or the Malaysian government, from the agnostic position where I stand it's very difficult to ascertain whether fundamentalist Islam is worse than fundamentalist Christianity, or whether the Malaysian government policies regarding their indigenous minorities are any worse than Australian treatment of Aborigines.

Unfortunately for the indigenous inhabitants of Australia, Sarawak, Sabah, West Papua etc, their lands were subject to the rapacious colonial interests of European invaders, and their continuing travails (including religious proselytising of one form or another) can arguably be directly traced to the failed colonial interests of the Brits and the Dutch.

For the European colonials, and the postcolonial nationalists who followed them, missionaries paved the way for the economic exploitation of the original residents of these resource-rich lands. In particular, the arrogance of Christian missionaries and evangelists in continuing their neocolonial project where they are clearly not wanted by legitimate governments is astonishing.
Posted by garra, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 7:44:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz_David,

Thank you for your clarification.
My point was some people still hate us and just try and justify their hate with crimes committed by those who call themselves muslims. Muslims don’t do that…we do not wonder around accusing our Christian friends of horrible things because of a priest did the wrong thing to a child …we KNOW that bad people are just plain bad. And religion have nothing to do with it. When it comes to you however, you expect me to ‘prove’ to you why not all muslims are bad. I wonder what gave you this right?

The Qu’ran have great teachings for muslims on how to interact with other religions and how to respect Christians and Jews. Prophet Mohammed first wife “Khadija’ family were Christians (Her cousin was the famous Arabian Monk Waraka).

In modern Islamic states (and I can only talk about where I lived and grew up: Egypt) Christians and Jews are the back bone of day today lives and economy. Egyptian treasurer is a Christian, the wealthiest telecom tycoon is a Christian, Christmas is a public holiday in this muslim country. Jews were the owners of all retail stores (still called after their Jews of Egyptian decent: Cicurel, Sidnaoui) even when they left Egypt for Israel in the time of Nasser, it was President Sadat (another muslim leader) who reconciles with them and kept their synagogues opened and now they are coming back for visit and business.

To make it short: you will always find what you are looking for: bad examples or major good examples. Humans are unique in that we have always given a choice, even belief over disbelief (but that is another debate with an atheist!!:))

Salam - peace
Ash
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 10:07:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see that no position will change in this post. Not that I expected any too. As was previously said, this was a simple post to highlight the passing of a good man – regardless of his religion.

There have been plenty of questionable acts and persons in both Islamic and Christian history – both recent and past. Perhaps it is time the more zealous elements in this post took note of that.

I for one am finished here. I don’t want anyone to change but to accept and tolerate. Without those two virtues, you would be a hypocrite in any faith.

Best of luck and be patient, we’ll find out the Krishna’s were right at the end I suppose!

Peace,
JustDan

PS – All are welcome in my house. Just be nice and enjoy a game of scrabble!
Posted by JustDan, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 12:07:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JustDan,

if we are playing Scrabble, do we place the letters down left to right or vice versa?

Ash,

what we see demonstrated here is a clash of civilisations no less serious than the times of Queen Isabella or the Battle of Lepanto.

Unlike the 'West of Old' our (Christian) cultural situation is no longer dominant or united behind a single faith. Secularism rises as a common enemy, along with that longtime proponent of war - avarice.

It is difficult, from a historical and theological point of view, to reconcile the life of Jesus with that of the Islamic prophet, who, denying Jesus' divinity, is happy to appropriate the person of the Holy Spirit by assuming the role of being the Advocate that followed Jesus and yet,personally led people into battle.

Where less enlightened followers of Christ go wrong is when they see armed conflict as a means of evangelisation. Many more have been brought to the Faith by persecution, so oppressed Christians lead a more authentic faith. Hopefully, in these more enlightened times, armed conflict will not be the basis of reconciliation in Australia, however, like Isabella, many Australians feel threatened by a foreign culture taking over - an irony given our treatment of Indigenous cultures.

Now should we take a Saudi approach to immigrants from other cultures? Should we assume everyone born in Australia is a Christian, awaiting reconversion? Should we prohibit the building of Mosques?

Should we see Egyptian Christians living in Australia and marrying Islamic people from their old country forced into Islamic practices (under threat)once they have borne children? (I have several documented cases)

Countries like Egypt and Turkey are marginally better than Gulf countries, but, unless we can convince people (like JustDan and yourself) that the Christian west has values worth protecting and do something to redress our demographic decline - Moslem women having abortions is probably not a significant number, but western women see 1 in 3 pregnancies terminated - then victory to the Islamic Prophet is only a matter of time.
Posted by Reality Check, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 3:47:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Reality Check,

Your writings are still about ‘us or them’.
Let me clarify basic historical facts:

- The ‘Christian west’ as you refer to it became modernised, secular (ie Peaceful) ONLY after the separation of the Church and state (I am sure we all read medieval Europe). The basis of modern world we live in started with the French revolution when the values of modernisation were taken from science and sociology rather than theology. The ‘modern west’ have mutilated Christianity if you compare Christianity practices west versus east Europe or even North African countries.

- Islam and Jesus: will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one: the theological challenges facing Catholicism since its inception is not related to Islam at all. Jesus ‘divinity established 325 AD was opposed by top priests like Arios and Militos. In fact, Emperor Constantine (first sponsor of Christianity) was baptised by Uthipios (follower of Arios). Not until another 56 years later that the trinity became to enforcement by the church in the year 381 AD. It was debated then vigorously and violently and priest who opposed it ended with some ugly choices.

- Even within the church, Pope Honorius (648 AD, when muslims where only few hundreds) questioned the commitment to Trinity versus Monotheism only to be removed and discredited after his death. The doctrine of Trinity has been always confusing to Christians within the same faith whether Islam was here or not (I am sure we both read history on this one).

- Saudi approach: it’s a political theology and you can compare it to the Vatican. I am sure none of them will allow the other one to build mosques or churches (Although I would love to see them establish a dialogue first)

- ‘victory to Islamic prophet’ : I am not sure what’s with the football attitude and the islamophobia. Jesus is also is an Islamic prophet and muslims are waiting for him to come back not Mohamed. We love them equally and that’s really all there is to it.

Cheers…Ash
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 5:18:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ash, O
On matters of theism I generally agree with you. I am an orthodox monotheist who follows the teachings of Jesus. I do not accept the Roman position of God as three persons in a trinity. Jesus life and words were far more inspirational than the confusing message of the Koran. Jesus was more than a prophet, his character, and actions revealed more of God than merely his words. His spirit expressed the very heart and mind of God (Koran 3: 46), and that in the true sense meant his spirit was as a son to the Father. Hence we respect him, because his spirit revealed God to us.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 6:30:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ash Koheil,
Ash, hatred does not equate to defending an opposing opinion!

Defending a different opinion does not mean: quote, “why do some of you hate us so much?” Hatred is: a personal attack or violent rejection of a person. Hatred is not holding a different opinion or rejecting ideas held by the “us” in your comment.

We respect you as a person but may reject your beliefs.

Quote: ”Koran is the only source that Muslims believe is inspired by God”.

It may be true that Muslims believe such to be true, but are we allowed to challenge the Koran? From my search of the Muslim belief system it’s about control of the mind by Imams. In our Western society such control follows the definitions of a “religious cult”; where a person abandons all critical thinking and submits to the total control of the leaders, gurus, Imams, the Koran and the precedent established by the Hadiths.

Quote, “There is no contradiction in the Koran for those who understand it.”

The stories of Mary and Jesus found-in the Koran is a full regurgitation of the Catholic Church beliefs++ in 600AD, therefore equally questionable as it represents a mythological understanding of the Mary and Jesus. Such a belief is not consistent with the original records of James the son of Joseph who was present at the birth of Jesus, and later became elder in the Jerusalem Church.

Quote Ash, “But as I said … Jesus’ crucifix is not a religious issue for Muslims.”

This is true as Muslims actually deny such an event ever occurred. Christians are not afraid to debate such an idea as the records of history validate that it did occur. Mahomet denied it at the encouragement of his Jewish monotheistic friends at the time, because the Catholic Church was in unforgiving conflict with the Jews for his crucifixion.

Quote, “you are comfortable with the sources of your beliefs being established by mortal men in the year 325 to 386 AD.”

Not true Ash I research the records of ideas from every generation to form my beliefs
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 6:38:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reality Check,
I forgot to apologise for my use of the word revile. I reviewed the thread and you are right - I reacted with a little too much emotion. Again my apologies. Perhaps a better word would have been 'dismisive'? It is just that I find it very arrogant to see that some Christians (as well as some Muslims) find that their religion is the 'right' one. It is impossible to substantiate. Yes, you can claim kowning truth through opening your heart, studying and understanding or presenting 'facts' disproving the other. The bottom line is that no one can susbtantiate anything. Religion and faith are good things - when applied correctly. My personal opinion (and it is only mine) is that it is not how you worship but why. For strength, comfort and guidance is fine. For self-esteem, abrogating fear or out of blind following is, well, thoughtless. Anyway, enough of my babbling.

Well, take care all and I hope our truths can find a peaceful existence.
JustDan
Posted by JustDan, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 7:07:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JustDan, Philo, Ash et al,

the discussion we are having is maturing nicely as we tackle issues that call all of us to reach to the furthest points and depths of our feelings, intellect and nature.

Any believer worth their salt must adopt a certain level of 'arrogance' (certainty?) - otherwise they wouldn't be a believer or adherant of their faith. However, because we are dealing with the uncertainties of history, the development of understanding of various believing communities/traditions and trying to fathom what is essentially a mystery, we by the very nature of the subject are acting on faith.

Now, the difficulty that we all have is JustDan's proposition / ideal that our 'truths' can co-exist. Truth, by its very nature, is singular, eternal and immutable, hence the search for it takes on such proportions. However, it should remain the battle of minds and hearts not swords and guns.

A study of natural law will see us able to agree on many issues (athiest & believer alike) however, the point where we can agree that our Creator has a single path may not be as important as a single purpose - to save and enable us to share in his/her eternal majesty. Of course, we could all end up like Kerry Packer and find nothing...but for JustDan's sake I look forward to the mother of all Scrabble tournaments.
Posted by Reality Check, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 10:19:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Theology then!
- Jesus divinity and Crucifix are two separate topics. For muslims , Jesus is God’s miracle. “God is one’ is a very clear message in the quoran and Jesus only enforced this message in the bible “follow the commandments”.
- “Mohamed changed the quoran to please jews” does not hold water because:
o Quoran blamed SOME Jews who do not follow the Torah’ teaching but rather toy with words to work on the Sabbath or to charge interest to non-jews, etc.) the Quoran also criticisedSOME Christians for not following Jesus teaching in the bible. The quoran speaks about itself as a ‘ reminder of previous books and messages”
o The Quoran is the only scripture to mention Jesus ‘miracle in talking to the Rabbis and defending Mary when he was a new born and hence why she was not stoned. This was not mentioned in the bible however.
o Muslims belief is Quoran is God’s message to Mohamed; In the Quoran God educated Mohamed when he forgot to smile to a blind man (80:1-6) setting the ultimate example of charity and human love: smiling to someone is a good deed even if he cannot see you.
Now, how can the quoran be so picky on all these details (Major and minor) even picky on the prophet and yet compromises on Jesus Crucifix if it was true?
- The reference to Jesus crucifix ‘God said (to Jesus)”: I am taking you to me until the end of days” . Hence Muslims belief Jesus return will spread peace and he will be the last human soul to die before judgement day.
- This belief is not ‘invented’ by muslims however. The Basilidans in the early days of Christianity held the belief that Simon the Cyrenean was crucified instead of Jesus. Even the Cerinthians before them believed ‘he actually walked away and laughed at is crucifiers”. His ‘very quick death’ was confusing throughout history if he was meant to suffer as crucifix is a horrible and lengthy death
Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 10:34:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ash,

the death & resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most fundamental tenant of Christianity. The Koranic version is akin to Barbara Therring's interpretation of the Essene communities (mis)understanding and is a bit like Monty Python's "he turned me into a newt...I got better."

Many Christian Theologians still tread down this path - denying a bodily resurrection and proposing a 'resurrection of belief' (along with a steady discounting of most of the Acts of the Apostles and other early testimonies.)

If Jesus didn't die, didn't ascend into heaven and is due back, where will he come from - a cave near the Dead Sea? Perhaps from Mecca - now that would be ironic - or is he hiding with Osama B-L?
Posted by Reality Check, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 5:18:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ash, you claim that you and your co-religionists are awaiting the reappearance of the Prophet Jesus, yet isn't it true that Muhammad is claimed as the "Final" prophet and anyone who follows a subsequent prophet is an apostate? What of the Qadianis? What of their prophet Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? This group has been declared apostate in Pakistan, in fact they are declared non-Muslim (despite the fact that their holy book is the Quran and they recognise the "Prophethood" of Muhammad) and subject to gaoling for heresy, beatings and murder.

Wouldn't Jesus be subjected to similar treatment (especially if he were to surface in Pakistan)? He wouldn't be too much better off in Saudi Arabia or Egypt or anywhere else in the Islamic world, would he?

Truly, the prophet was cunning when he claimed all previous Jewish and Christian phophets as Islamic, and that he was the "final" one too! Anyone who claims "prophet" status is dead meat, isn't he? (or "God forbid", she!!).
Posted by Viking, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 5:21:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Viking / Reality check,

Don't get carried away guys (gals) , I was responding to Philo 'stereotype' Islamophobes which I have seen over and over again.

Until we all die and meet Jesus, Mohamed, whoever, everyone is free to believe whatever he likes.

All I can say is at least for us muslims, most of us not only would understand the Qu'oran, but would have read the bible and the Torah which is more than I can say about my fellow brothers/ sisters. At least you won't be walking around thinking Jihad is Holy War but hey?

As for Viking, I read an earlier comment from you "not finding any reference in the Koran to forbid alcohol". There are three specific verses (Unless you are reading a sensored version translated by Hunter Valley wineries! :):):). The verses actually link alcohol and gambling..

I always enjoy a logical debate with those who can maintain the same...
ash_koheil@hotmail.com

All the best..Ash
Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 10:26:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garra.... back to you for a moment.

you said:

"from the agnostic position ..it's very difficult to ascertain whether fundamentalist Islam is worse than fundamentalist Christianity,"

If by this, you mean the 'Fred Phelps' brand of fundie Christianity and the "bin ladin" version of Islam, The only difference I can see is that Phelps is just gloating over dead homosexuals, rather than planting bombs in the World Trade Centre. Both manifestations are obnoxious to the nth degree.

But you do raise THE important point. 'Fundamental' Christianity must go back to the teaching and life of Jesus and the apostles. That is our measuring stick. Same goes for Islam.

And that, is where the differences lie, and where you, from your position should have the objectivity to actually recognize this.
I pointed out a considerable number of differences, including the father in law of Mohammed (in the other post) Abu Bakar, who ruthlessly supressed with force of arms, those who claimed prophethood after Mohammed died. I contrasted this with the example of 'violence' in the New Testament Peter slicing the ear off a soldier, which was immediately condemned by Jesus.

That is what you should measure all historical examples of so called Christianity against. Don't look at what the Spanish did and say 'Ah, Christianity, so cruel' u can say "Spanish Government.. what cruel and blind people."

Such is not the case when one compares violence done in the name of Islam, because it DOES go right back to the Prophet and his immediate circle of followers. When you see cruel, aggressive behavior by alledged Christians, you should say "Look how FAR they have strayed from Christ" But with Islam, war and invasion are legitimate and you can say "Look, those faithful muslims following the example of the Prophet and his Companions". Are you seeing it yet ?

Ash, I take your points about how Christians and Jews were treated in Egypt, but this must be balanced against the extortion by the more extreme elements who 'Tax' the Christians whenever and for however much they want.

"Grace and Peace" :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 30 June 2005 10:31:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz,

Thank you for your reply.
The origin of taxing the 'people of the book' in Islam comes from 'Gezyah' which in its own semetic language means the 'substitute' or 'replacement'. These rules were only made because Christians at the time could not serve in the army because of its teachings. When Islam came to Egypt, the Byzantine empire were 'physically torturing Christians who do not join the army and most Christians used to escape for weeks and months in the mountain in their own country. Bottomline..the guideline for this tax was basically a defence tax (muslims had military compulsary service) also for funding the church maintenance (they were few hundreds of them built in this era).
This tax always had proper guidelines until started being abused by muslim sultans (996 1056AD)..where economy mishandling lead them to increase taxes among other measures and they started looking at who in the society can afford more tax.

Some great Orthodox Christian Scholar called Dr. Milad Hanna have actually detailed this period but unfortunately I don't think his work is translated to English..I shall find out for you if you are interested.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 1 July 2005 7:35:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was wondering when dhimmitude and "protection money" would be justified.

Any Muslims here care to offer a marriage age for Aisha, since her father Abu Bakr has been mentioned? How about the all-important age of consummation? Something else that is hidden from non-Muslims.

I did a long post about alcohol and Quran, but it was lost in the ether. in essence, I don't read prohibition into most English Quran translations, and one has to understand the concept of abtogation, as well. Later Sura abrogate earlier ones, don't they, and the earlier ones talking of alcohol didn't ban it, did they? Yet idols were banned outright.
Posted by Viking, Friday, 1 July 2005 5:51:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
www.islam-qa.com
Q:Reference: 44990
Q:Did Mahomet marry ‘Aa’ishah when she was nine, was he intimate with her?

Answer: Prophet married ‘Aa’ishah who was the only virgin he maried. And he consummated the marriage with her when she was nine years old.

Among her virtues was the fact that the Revelation did not descend when he under one cover with any of his wives other than her. She was one of the dearest of all people to the Prophet, and news of her innocence was revealed from above the seven heavens. She was one of the most knowledgeable of his wives, and one of the most knowledgeable women of the ummah as a whole. The senior companions of the Prophet used to refer to her opinion and consult her.

With regard to the story of her marriage, the Prophet had grieved over the death of the Mother of the Believers Khadeejah, who had supported him and stood by his side, and he called the year in which she died The Year of Sorrow. Then he married Sawdah, who was an older woman and was not very beautiful; rather he married her to console her after her husband had died and she stayed among mushrik people. Four years later the Prophet married ‘Aa’ishah, and he was over fifty. Perhaps the reasons for the marriage were as follows:

1 – He saw a dream about marrying her. It is proven in al-Bukhaari from the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah that the Prophet said to her: “You were shown to me twice in a dream. I saw that you were wrapped in a piece of silk, and it was said, ‘This is your wife.’ I uncovered her and saw that it was you. I said, ‘If this is from Allaah then it will come to pass.’” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, no. 3682). As to whether this is a prophetic vision as it appears to be, or a regular dream that may be subject to interpretation, there was a difference of opinion among the scholars, as mentioned by al-Haafiz in Fath al-Baari, 9/181.
cont:
Posted by Philo, Friday, 1 July 2005 8:59:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
2 – ‘Aa’ishah intelligence impressed the Prophet as a small child, so wanted to marry her so she would more than others transmit reports of what he did and said. In fact, as stated above, she was a reference point for the Sahaabah with regard to their affairs and rulings.

3 – The love of the Prophet for her father Abu Bakr, and the persecution that Abu Bakr had suffered for the sake of the call of truth, which he bore with patience. He was the strongest of people in faith and the most sincere in certain faith, after the Prophets.

It may be noted that among his wives were those who were young and old, the daughter of his sworn enemy, the daughter of his closest friend. One of them occupied herself with raising orphans, another distinguished herself from others by fasting and praying qiyaam a great deal… They represented all kinds of people, through whom the Messenger of Allaah was able to set out a way for the Muslims showing how to deal properly with all kinds of people. [See al-Seerah al-Nabawiyyah fi Daw’ al-Masaadir al-Asliyyah, p. 711].

With regard to the issue of her being young and your being confused about that, you should note that the Prophet grew up in a hot country, the Arabian Peninsula. Usually in hot countries adolescence comes early and people marry early. This is how the people of Arabia were until recently. Moreover, women vary greatly in their development and their physical readiness for marriage.

The Prophet did not marry any virgin other than ‘Aa’ishah, and all his other wives had been previously married, because if his intention was (lust)he would have chosen only those who were virgins and beautiful.

Such slanders against the Prophet of Mercy by kaafirs and others of their ilk, are indicative of their inability to find fault with the law and religion that he brought from Allaah, so they try to find ways to criticize Islam with regard to issues that are not related to sharee’ah.

For more information see Zaad al-Ma’aad, 1/106
Editored
Posted by Philo, Friday, 1 July 2005 9:12:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, Arabia's a "hot country" so it's OK to consummate marriages with children! It's slander to question the mores of Arabians. When will the world wake up to this cult?

No answer to the "right hand possessions" question?

Fascinating that Bosnia should be brought up. A tu quoque argument if there ever was one. The Serbs were widely condemned for their actions against Muslims (and others) and are being prosecuted for War Crimes. Campare and contrast with Muslim attacks in many countries and on almost all continents. While I doubt anyone would support Serb actions except Serbs, it should be remembered that they suffered for centuries under Ottoman rule and the people of the Balkans have long memories. Bosnian Muslims are the descendants of barbarous oppressors, to the Serbs.
Posted by Viking, Saturday, 2 July 2005 7:39:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo/ Viking,

The age of Aisha has contradicting sources; in the history of Abu Bakr (ie the 1st caliph after the prophet and the father of Aisha) Aisha was born ‘four years before the message (ie she was four when prophet Mohamed was fourty). If he married her was he was 53, then she wasn’t 9. Two other proofs support:
1. Her age when she died (she died at 66 in the year 58 Hijra).
2. Her age when the prophet died at 63 as documented in Caliphate Ali ‘s biography was 28.
The fact in most sources is that she was born in the time of his message (ie she was 3-4 years old when he was 40) which disqualifies the 9 y.o. story.

Anyhow, Qu’ran is the only of the holy books that a) regulates polygamy and even refers to one wife and b) have a full surah on women rights (keep the maiden name, inheritance, treatment, etc..).

Anyway let’s take an exciting turn here and ask some questions on biblical prophecies then:

a) Deuteronomy XXXIII-2, VVIII-18
“He shined forth from Paran and he came with ten thousands of saints; from his right hand went a fiery law for them”

b) John XVI 12-13
“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now. Howebeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, come he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself: but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak”

Now:

• Isn’t Mohamed the descendant of Ishmael? (Inhabitants of Paran)
• Wasn’t he the only the one with a ‘fiery law’? (Similar to Moses).
• Isn’t “he shall not speak of himself but only what he hears” is exactly what the Koran’s is?
• Don’t you find it strange that the reference to that prophet is always associated with the word “the praised one” and ‘the earth will be full of praise (Hab III.3) and the meaning of Mohammed in Arabic actually means “The praised one”?

For those who think..stay tuned..
Posted by Fellow_Human, Saturday, 2 July 2005 9:56:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Viking (and Ash) when William the conquerer invaded mostly Saxon England in 1066, his left flank consisted of the descendants mostly exiled CELTS who the Saxons had greedily stolen the land from, they also did not forget. I fully understand the 'feeling' of the Serbs, but will not justify any cruelty. I CAN on the other hand, justify the desire to cleanse their land from the UNJUST invasion by the Ottomans. i.e. "put right a crime of history". Note, 'invasion'.

"Right hand posseses" :) yes. That is worthy of more exploration. After all its in the QURAN and is therefore ENDURING to this day. It has not been abrogated. The usual muslim argument is to point to how many slaves were freed by Mohammed etc etc. But it does not change the DIVINE LAW according to Islam. Surah 23:5-6 "The conduct of the believers"

5. And who guard their private parts,

6. Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable,

7. But whoever seeks to go beyond that, these are they that exceed the limits;

Ayat(verse) 5 is translated by Indonesian MUSLIMS "FOR" muslims, to read "sexual relations". Those who their right hand posses are the captive slave women. (who's husbands had been slaughtered)
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/femalecaptives.htm

But this type of direction usually just brings out references to the Old Testament on Captives and slaves, (most of which are inadequately qualified or unsoundly exegeted.)

I prefer to examine the 'Sharia Law by Stealth' which Waleed Aly and the ICV appear to be attempting, by his own confession.

Muslims cannot by their Sharia Law pay "interest". So, the state government of Victoria was lobbyed to CHANGE OUR LAW, to facilitate a double title transfer which avoids 2 lots of stamp duty. They end up paying a financier a PROFIT for the transaction, so is this not in principle INTEREST ?

See Waleed's article==>http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2872
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 2 July 2005 4:22:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.. continued Part 2

Sharia by stealth is not just happening in the Financial sector.

BURIAL
We also have 'discriminatory burial' provisions, which provide for Muslims to bury their dead in a 'shroud'.

FOOD
We then have the Ham Sandwiches debacle of Hume council which blatantly discriminated against 78% of the rate payers who are not Muslim when they decided not to offer our favorite aussie food, (ham sanga's) at council functions. How EASY would it have been for a THINKING person, to offer a table of HALAL food AS WELL ! but no, the mayor was Muslim, so.... go figure.

POLITICS a group of Muslims in Sydney attempted to branch stack one labor seat to get the candidate up who would lobby for a change of government policy re- Israel.

ISLAMIC CENTRES
The incident in outer Sydney, where the local population CLEARLY did NOT want the Centre to be built, was bulldozed and stream rolled through. And you wonder why people in that area 'hate muslims' ?

It all just goes to show, that everyone sees the world through their own cultural eyes. But for all 'minorities' such as Muslims, I urge a big re-think on seeking to shape and mould this country in ways which pander for 3 % of the whole population AT THE EXPENSE of the 97%.

Not to do so, would be to invite feelings which you have referred to a lot in various posts (Ash) "Why do you hate us".. well, we don't, but we DO hate the idea of our culture being 'white-anted' by minorities.

Strangely enough, the Buddhists DON'T try this stunt, the Hindu's DON'T try this stunt, the Falungong DON'T try this stunt. Nor do the Bahai's, the Zoroastrians the Hari Krishna's or any other mob I know of.

'Which' is the ONLY Minority group seeking to change our laws in terms of their RELIGION ?

Hmm.. now that's a hard one, can we try an easier question ? :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 2 July 2005 4:36:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deuteronomy 33: 2 - 29 “Yhovah came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them, He shined forth from Paran and He came with ten thousands of saints; from his right hand went a fiery law for them”

The reference is part of the blessing of Moses before his death - began with enlightenment that shined from the Mt in the wilderness of Paran - the fiery Mt Sinai with the giving of the Mosaic Law and continued until they settled in the Promised Land.

Mt Paran in Israeli poetry refers to wilderness on the west side of the Dead Sea where the 12 spies departed to the land of Canaan (Numbers 13: 26). The area Paran may extend into the whole Peninsular through which the children of Israel traversed before entering the land west of Jordan. The Lord brought enlightenment from Sanai where they received the law, for Jacob's children it was the vision of a new land where the law of God would reign. Note verses 3 the saints sat down to hear the words of the law, verse 4 an inheritance for the sons of Jacob verse 5 the king was the king of Jerusalem.

This Fulfilled 2 Kings 14: 23 - 27 In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash, king of Judah, Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel, became king in Samaria, and reigned forty-one years. He restored the territory of Israel from the entrance of Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the LORD God of Israel, which He had spoken through His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet who was from Gath Hepher. For the LORD saw that the affliction of Israel was very bitter; and whether bond or free, there was no helper for Israel. And the LORD did not say that He would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven; but He saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash.

No mention of Ishmaelite prophet or law other than Moses Law - Sorry

Cont:
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 2 July 2005 10:09:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hab3: 3 Aloahh came from Teman,
The Holy One from Mount Paran.
Selah His glory covered the heavens,
And the earth was full of His praise.
4 His brightness was like the light;
He had rays flashing from His hand,
And there His power was hidden.
5 Before Him went pestilence,
And fever followed at His feet.

While Jacob was in Haran he worshipped God under the exclusive Temanite celestrial female God Aloahh. Teman a decendant of Esau was a cousin of Job, and Job also worshipped Aloahh. Job believed Aloahh would reveal herself in the earth (Job 19) which God does (Job 38) as the God who controls the desert storm that had earlier killed his children, but emerges as YHWH. Job 1: 21 YHWH gives and YHWH has taken away. Abraham had earlier identified ElShaddai as his God from the many gods of his father worshipped at Ur. ElShaddai was also a celestrial female God of fertility. (see other of my posts)
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 2 July 2005 10:34:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Ainulindalë

"There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made. And he spoke to them, propounding to them themes of music; and they sang before him, and he was glad."

"For a long while they sang only each alone, or but few together, while the rest hearkened; for each comprehended only that part of the mind of Ilúvatar from which he came, and in the understanding of their brethren they grew but slowly. Yet ever as they listened they came to deeper understanding, and increased in unison and harmony."

"Then Ilúvatar said to them: 'Of the theme that I have declared to you, I will now that ye make in harmony together a Great Music. And since I have kindled you with the Flame Imperishable, ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices, if he will. But I will sit and hearken, and be glad that through you great beauty has been wakened into song.'"

" It seemed at last that there were two musics progressing at one time before the seat of Ilúvatar, and they were utterly at variance. The one was deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came. The other had now achieved a unity of its own; but it was loud, and vain, and endlessly repeated; and it had little harmony, but rather a clamorous unison as of many trumpets braying upon a few notes. And it essayed to drown the other music by the violence of its voice, but it seemed that its most triumphant notes were taken by the other and woven into its own solemn pattern."
Posted by garra, Saturday, 2 July 2005 11:14:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
well i am so impressed. i write an article about an english shakespearean shaykh named martin and others here are arguing about the origins of the biblical god or pontificating about alleged muslim conspiracies to take over the world and convert everyone by killing them.

could we please return to the topic? has anyone read shaykh martin's books? what do you think of them?
Posted by Irfan, Sunday, 3 July 2005 3:23:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Irfan,

No haven't read them yet but planning to soon.
I just can't understand the Islamophobia by some. It is the attitude of "I just hate you and make up the reasons as I go".
The interesting part is not with the phobia but by those who claim to be christians. A new teaching, hate and offend others during the day and God is love in the afternoon.

Anyway, that is my last posting on this article, God bless the sheikh and reward him for his good work towards Islam and humanity.

AK
Posted by Fellow_Human, Sunday, 3 July 2005 10:57:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_Human,
The context of John chapters 14-17 expounds the Spirit of God indwelling ordinary people of faith empowering the graces of character, and ability to perform compassionate acts of ministry like Jesus.

There’s no reference to a prophet indwelling (v17) the spirit of believers forever (v16). The fact is the disciples already knew him (v17).

John 14:10 - 17 (Jesus speaking) Do you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwells in me, He doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do… Whatsoever ye ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask any thing in my name, I will do it. If you love me, keep my commandments. I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him, neither knows him: but ye know him; for he dwells with you, and shall be in you.

He will guide you into all truth
He will not proclaim himself
He will declare the things to come
He shall glorify Christ to you - V14
His guidance would come by prayer – V 24
The Spirit of truth is the Spirit of God and fulfilled in Acts 2.

No prayers to Mahomet!
Mahomet doesn’t proclaim the glory of Christ forever.
Mahomet does not enable the glory of Christ to manifest in believers.
Obviously not Mahomet!

Ifran,
I recognise your pure spirit, and your despondency with this post. I know nothing of Shaykh Abu Bakr’s writings. Perhaps if you had posted examples of his work earlier we’d be on track
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 3 July 2005 10:43:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ifran,
Like Fellow_Human, I think it is time to end my participation in this thread. I have been educated to the existence of some further writings that are useful to my growth and I will endeavour to read them. Thankyou for that.

As to the debate (if I can be so kind as to call it that), it has been interesting (again, kind). Best of life to each of you. However a closed mind is as damaging as a closed heart.

Regards,
Posted by JustDan, Monday, 4 July 2005 11:48:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Ainulindalë (cont.)

" The Ainur know much of what was, and is, and is to come, and few things are unseen by them. Yet some things there are that they cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Ilúvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past."

"Now the Children of Ilúvatar are Elves and Men, the Firstborn and the Followers. And amid all the splendours of the World, its vast halls and spaces, and its wheeling fires, Ilúvatar chose a place for their habitation in the Deeps of Time and in the midst of the innumerable stars."

" 'I know the desire of your minds that what ye have seen should verily be, not only in your thought, but even as ye yourselves are, and yet other. Therefore I say: Eä! Let these things Be! And I will send forth into the Void the Flame Imperishable, and it shall be at the heart of the World, and the World shall Be; and those of you that will may go down into it. And suddenly the Ainur saw afar off a light, as it were a cloud with a living heart of flame; and they knew that this was no vision only, but that Ilúvatar had made a new thing: Eä, the World that Is."

"Thus it came to pass that of the Ainur some abode still with Ilúvatar beyond the confines of the World; but others, and among them many of the greatest and most fair, took the leave of Ilúvatar and descended into it. But this condition Ilúvatar made, or it is the necessity of their love, that their power should thenceforward be contained and bounded in the World, to be within it for ever, until it is complete, so that they are its life and it is theirs. And therefore they are named the Valar, the Powers of the World.
Posted by garra, Monday, 4 July 2005 11:56:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ash
if you are going to leave the thread, don't leave with the thought 'they hate us' in you mind or heart. It has not, is not and will not be about hating you ! (Howwww many times must this be repeated) Disagreement, even PASSIONATE disagreement does not equal hate. As they say in the movies 'hELLOOOOO' :)

Irfan,

I guess now you realize that some subjects press peoples buttons. Like 'Assylum seekrs' press the bleeding heart left's buttons and this subject presses ours. Its life. Roll with the punches and come back swinging :) metaphorically speaking of course.

My hope and prayer is that you guys will come to know Christ as Savior and Lord, and that you give Jesus the place He inherrantly has, as Son of God/God the Son, to reduce Him from this is something one would need to think carefully about I believe.
Grace and Peace
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 4 July 2005 5:16:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Ainulindalë (end):

"When the Valar entered into Eä they were at first astounded and at a loss, for it was as if naught was yet made which they had seen in vision, and all was but on point to begin and yet unshaped, and it was dark. For the Great Music had been but the growth and flowering of thought in the Tuneless Halls, and the Vision only a foreshowing; but now they had entered in at the beginning of Time, and the Valar perceived that the World had been but foreshadowed and foresung, and they must achieve it. So began their great labours in wastes unmeasured and unexplored, and in ages uncounted and forgotten, until in the Deeps of Time and in the midst of the vast halls of Eä there came to be that hour and that place where was made the habitation of the Children of Ilúvatar."

" And the Valar drew unto them many companions, some less, some well nigh as great as themselves, and they laboured together in the ordering of the Earth and the curbing of its tumults."

Will & Grace ;)
Posted by garra, Monday, 4 July 2005 9:54:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deserves a standing ovation. Loud applause! Encore! Garra! Garra!
Garra! Garra! We want more!
Posted by Philo, Monday, 4 July 2005 10:55:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Philo - glad you enjoyed my little joke :)

Please note that I mean disrespect to neither Islam nor Christianity, but rather to highlight the silliness of simply deploying slabs of obscure and ambiguous text, instead of actually communicating.
Posted by garra, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 7:10:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that:

‘three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe, to know what he ought to desire, and to know what he ought to do.’

'Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.'

'Beware the man of one book'

'To convert somebody go and take them by the hand and guide them.'

'To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.'
Posted by Reality Check, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 2:13:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reality Check,
Thanks for the thoughtful post.

garra, my quotes of text was in answer to two questions put foward by Fellow_Human: Saturday, July 02, 2005 9:56:23 AM.
He said, "For those who think..stay tuned.." I am still tuned waiting for his reply to my answers on his two Bible quotes. Perhaps he is still thinking! Perhaps he thought the better of Irfan's concern.

Anyway your quotes added a break to any tensions.

A good man died, and we ask what has been the contribution he has made to our lives. We have dishonoured his memory, and trampled on his blood, and been indifferent of his contribution and work for mankind. A good man died and we say it is of little consequence to our lives. Perhaps he was a word from God. (Compare Sura 3: 45) For those who do not know of the importance of his work we need to be educated.
Blessings
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 8:46:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Irfan Yousuf:

I am a great admirer of Martin Lings whom you justifiably call the Shayakh.
In your piece you had observed that –“all of these writers, scholars and artists, including Shaykh Martin Lings, are proof that the modern Muslim mind has allowed itself to be open to influences from all cultures.”
Human beings per se are capable of inculcating a modern mind but it is the religious dogma of comes in the way. Though to start with the Hindus, the Jews, the Christians et al were mentally constrained by their respective religious upbringing, the changing times in their communes brought about by the questioning few among them have tended embrace modernism, which itself is relative in its perception and practice. Sadly, this did not happen in case of the Muslim societies that besides allowing them to be chained by the Quranic precepts swear by what Muhmmad said and did.
Ironically, in spite of what prophet himself is quoted as saying: "Knowledge is the lost property of the believer. Let him take possession of it regardless of where it is found", the Quranic stress on believing what was revealed to the prophet, makes contemporary ideas the lost property of the Muslims ever.

If only any Muslim can go through the Shayakh’s biography of Muhammad after removing his Islamic glasses tinted with Muhammad’s enamour, he would see how all his actions and utterances had a sub-context in the overall context of his ambition in his life and times. Going back to the modern minded Muslim authors, they were mostly converts who had imbibed secular education and cultivated rational thinking. When the umma believes that the Quran is the be all and end all of all knowledge and the Hadith bears the last words on worldly wisdom, the Islamic scholarship would be akin to the learning of a frog in the well. Muslims would do well to remember that modernity is a product of persistent questioning and not the phenomenon of unquestioning belief.

BS Murthy
Posted by Rationalist, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 1:52:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy