FELLOW HUMAN

Well, I have to freely admit, you are right and I am wrong :) on the matter of "He also said -if anyone insults him, they must die"

I was correct about the matter of 'If anyone apostates from Islam they must die" based on the Hadith.

So, on the 'insulting' point, I offer my apology and will try to be more dilligent in accuracy in future.

In this connection though, the Imam Maalik who is used to 'bash' Ibn Ishaq as 'not credible' by Muslims wishing to avoid his account of the mass murder of Bani Qurayza, believes that those insulting the prophet should be killed.

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=9154&Option=FatwaId

BTW... u searched me ? :) I've contributed to "IslamSydney Forum" (hardly a Muslim bashing site)and Andrew Bolt forum

JUST_DAN
Smuggness and Arrogance ? thanx Dan, I need constant reminders of my failings I appreciate your call and will attempt to less arrrogant and smug.

What I say may cause distress, and pain, but my goal is that it heals rather than harms, no matter how your personally perceive it.
Dan, read the book of Acts and see how Paul debated with the Jews and the Romans.

Contextualizing Matthew 5
Dan, look closely at the structure of that chapter. Christ came to FULFIL, (give the true intention)
"you have heard 'don't commit adultery', but I say to you he who even LOOKS on a woman with lust in his heart has committed adultery with her" i.e. the Law was about 'heart' condition. (or liver if your in PNG :)
But that is off topic, which happens to be

'heads in the sand over terror'

Omran disputes any 'evil' action attributed to Bin Ladin, I'm showing WHY Omran might think like that based on the core/root of Islam.

DAN of a more serious nature is your ‘head in the sand’. There is NOTHING “subjective” about

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/024.sbt.html#002.024.577

“He cut off their hands and feet, gouged out their eyes and left them to die in the desert” <=Mohammeds dabble in “Torture

Philo,
If that is the true interpretation, then why isn’t is being practiced? So much so that fundamentalists troll through the Bible for their beliefs. Example: It is the Old Testament that denounces homosexuality. Other than the ‘old law’, where does a Christian prove that homosexuality is wrong? On your statement, the perfect law of God, written in the hearts of good men would say that take each person as you find him/her and treat them with respect and dignity. Somehow I think the Christian church has forgotten this little bit of your interpretation of ‘God’s law’.

Xena/Ash
I whole heartedly agree with you both. I’ve become a little emotional about this subject over the last 3-4 weeks and I think it is starting to come out in my responses to BD’s various threads (he just can’t seem to leave it alone anywhere he goes! It even pops up in IR reforms? Go figure…). Actions are the only definition of a person. Faith and belief are personal and not to be pushed, touted or ridiculed by another. If a church/faith grows, so be it.

I think one of the most important philosophies to come from our great joint heritage is that church and state are separate (Ash can you advise me a little on the Islamic thoughts on this?). This is becoming lost in the modern world as all sides try to achieve a supremacy that has nothing to do with faith – just power and money… a sad bastardisation of what religion is all about.

Peace and Happiness to everyone…

OK, BD – let’s look at Hadith No. 234, Vol. 1. (Thanks for the link!)
…Some people came to Medina and were given a gift (of camels), so what do they do? Kill the shepherd and drive off the camels. So, in response, what happens? They are killed after some torture.

Now, how is this different from the death penalty in some current Christian countries? Sure torture seems to be a little rough. But then that never stopped the Inquisition, nor did help during the Salem witch-hunts (we will leave current practices in Iraq – sure the leadership didn’t authorise it…’wink’, ‘wink’…). All more recent and just as ‘temporally valid’.

Now, I know you will refer to Christ and his new message. I think you have gone beyond any good logic here. So, it’s OK to interpret the Bible one way (to your best advantage) and not OK to interpret the Islamic texts in a similar way? BD, you have double standards. That is quite clear. No amount of posturing on your part as to the worth of the Bible and conflict in the Islamic texts will help. Double standards. So, no, my head is not ‘in the sand’. Your’s appears to be blinded by a ‘sandstorm of faith’ though.

I do not deny there is somewhat of a crisis in the Islamic faith. Like the Christians, they have a number of schools of thought. Unlike the Christians in the 1600’s, they can’t take their faith and move to a new world (i.e. the Puritans did). So they deal with it as they can. Western power-mongering and Imperialism-by-stealth has taken care of that. Some of it is not right and some of it is a personal choice. But your crusade to negate Islam’s worth is no more valid than the crusades of the bombers or the Christians who killed during the Inquisition and witch-hunts. Once you get this, then there may be true dialog. Good luck.

Thanks JR for pointing us in the direction of the gospel according to Ambrose ;). I think this one is relevant to this discussion:

RELIGION, n.

A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

"What is your religion my son?" inquired the Archbishop of Rheims.

"Pardon, monseigneur," replied Rochebriant; "I am ashamed of it."

"Then why do you not become an atheist?"

"Impossible! I should be ashamed of atheism."

"In that case, monsieur, you should join the Protestants."

Given the number of times it is referred to by Boaz, I think it is about time we took a closer look at the gospel of Matthew. In what way is this document, whose origins are still obscure and the subject of continual scholarly dispute, sufficiently authoritative to be used in this manner? It is fine, if you are that way inclined, to see it as some form of abstract distillation of the genesis of a particular faith, recorded some time afterwards as a form of operational handbook. But to use it as a stick with which to beat up other faiths is stretching its utility a little.

Can you help here Boaz? It is only fair, since you rely upon it so much, to give us a run-down on its history, authenticity and validity?

I think you are in the wrong forum here, Pericles- this is the one the connection between Islam and terror- not about Matthew/Boaz David/Christianity.

I found something quite disturbing on www.islam-qa.com

"Question #12708: Is it acceptable to marry a girl who has not yet started her menses?

Answer: Marriage to a young girl before she reaches puberty is permissible according to sharee’ah, and it was narrated that there was scholarly consensus on this point."

"Question #27305: Is it permissible to marry a thirteen year old girl?

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) when she was six years old, and he consummated the marriage with her when she was nine, and at that time he was over fifty."

There is much more but it makes me sick to even read it so I will not
disturb you by posting it. Bring on the cries of how hateful I am, but I'm not sorry for being appalled at this 'prophet's' behaviour.

Xena you speak of Christianity as a 'repressive' religion in regards to your 'place as a woman'. Yet you defend Islam until you are blue in the face... you don't see the irony there?

Ibn Katheer said:

It means the man is in charge of the woman; he is her leader, the ruler over her who disciplines her if she goes astray.

“because Allaah has made one of them to excel the other” means, because men are superior to woman, and a man is better than a woman. Hence Prophethood was given only to men, as is the role of caliph, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “No people will ever prosper who appoint a woman in charge of them.”
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=20677&dgn=

In regards to 'moderate' Islam, check this out: "Whatever is in accordance with sharee’ah is moderate; whatever exceeds that is extreme and whatever falls short of that is laxity."
(Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen)