The Forum > Article Comments > Champion of interfaith dialogue > Comments
Champion of interfaith dialogue : Comments
By Bashir Goth, published 30/8/2005Bashir Goth tells the life and achievements of Sheikh Ahmed Deedat, a Muslim and promoter of interfaith dialogue.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
-
- All
Posted by numbat, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 4:34:33 PM
| |
Numbat; Easter Sunday is the first Sunday after the first full moon that follows 21st March (equinox)- sounds a touch pagan to me.
According to the dictionary, anyone who isn't a Jew, Christian or Muslim is a pagan. Etymology of pagan is rural. Posted by Shoshana, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 5:49:06 PM
| |
BASHIR
first welcome to this forum. Let me also state quite forthrightly that no matter what you say, you are WELCOME to stay as long as u like (from my side anyway).. and I hope you will contrast this, (no matter how much flack you receive, and I assure you, there will be plenty) with the closed mindedness of many Islamic forums. Notably UMMAH.com and ISLAMICSYDNEY. Both of which take strong exception to any criticism of Mohamed, or Islam. You can get about 2 posts of a critical nature through, then BAN. Ahmad Deedat I’ve heard this man, debating with Josh McDowell. I don’t regard Josh as without blemish by any means in some of his ideas, but... what stood out more than anything in Deedats approach was this. 1/ Begin with an out of context, misunderstanding of a verse, (from the Bible) 2/ Build your whole argument on that ‘ 3/ Defend this wrongly derived case with ridicule. Not exactly building interfaith dialogue. The other point which stood head and shoulders above all that Deedat said, was when McDowell spoke of a transformed life ‘in Christ’. Deedat had no answer. But in any case. let us be very clear on one thing. When Jesus said “I am ‘the’ way” He mean’t it now that puts pagan Muslims out of the kingdom of God, as it does for all those outside of Christ. He did not say that with any sense of arrogance. He said it based on the healing of the sick, the restoring sight to the blind, the casting out of demons, control of the weather, and the raising of the dead. Christ came proclaiming the Kingdom of God, and he is the ‘Door’ into it. Which side of the door, are you on ? <<medieval Muslim traders who spread Islam, through their character and their trading acumen,>> hmmm marrying into royal houses helped their cause somewhat also. You make many true observations, Yes.. the Jimmy Swaggart line is ironic. JS any verbal victory over Jimmy Swaggart, is not something I’d be bragging about as an accomplishment. Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 5:56:44 PM
| |
Bashir,
It is true that men of the likes of Deedat will be missed, there is absolutely everything to gain where moslems are shown how to interact with other faiths without resorting to voilence, of the type that is regularly witnessed by those of other faiths within islamic countries. We christians welcome as much dialogue as possible with other faiths, and it is all in the natural course of events that those other faiths might site situations such as the Jimmy Swaggart affair, There can still only be one essential truth, the more we are able to discuss it the better, how great it would be to see the leaders of all faiths in the debating room with Christian leaders of proven ability and faith such as Josh McDowell, Peter Jensen in Australia could do an equally good job. Posted by Chuck, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 9:01:19 PM
| |
Are we being encouraged to grant godlike praise and admiration to this man or to the qualities of character and teaching he defended? We should admire the character qualities that reflect the image of God. It is to the character of God we give worship. If he is an apologist for the true revelation of God then he has performed his calling. However if he was merely a defendant of the Qur'an and Mahomet then his vision of God was limited to a brief and rather questionable period of Arabic history.
For instance the Qur'an reproduces the position of the virgin Mary as held by the pagan Roman Catholic in the period of Mahomet. So I ask was his message from God or merely influenced by contemporary thought. Similarly the Shari'ah developments coincided with the second Jewish Talmud of 600 AD. Shoshana, Christians prefer to remember to death, burial and to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus because it happens to coincide with the Jewish Passover celebrated during that celestial season. The Jews see the heavenly bodies as signs and demarcation of season [Genesis 1: 14] Christians remember Christ our Passover, who shed his blood and gave his life for us. The Church of the Roman Empire called it Easter because it occurred at the same time [the name Easter developed from Astare a pagan god of love and has nothing to do with Christianity]. The term Passover was subverted under Romanism and the name became syncretised with a festival of the pagan god celebrate at that time. Quote you, "Easter Sunday is the first Sunday after the first full moon that follows 21st March (equinox)- sounds a touch pagan to me. Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 9:49:41 PM
| |
"I first saw Sheikh Ahmed Deedat, who died at his home in Durban, South Africa..."
Have you ever noticed how all these 'tolerant' Muslims who promote "interfaith dialogue" never live in Islamic countries? Bashir, I suppose that you are a 'good' Muslim, so could you please tell me where are this 'tolerance' and 'interfaith dialogue' goes when Islam dominates? Unless, of course, by 'tolerance' you mean a person can be a third class citizen and Islam will let you worship as you please as long as you don't offend Muslims in any way, and maybe not even then. What a bunch of hypocrites Muslims are. Wherever Islam dominates, other religions as well as women, gays, Jews, etc... are oppressed and discriminated against. This so-called dialogue that some Muslims in the West like to talk about is fake and phony. They don't respect us and we should not respect them. I have yet to meet a Muslim that can be honest about their dear prophet. Believe me, I have tried, as you folks may have noticed... The bottom line is this: When other religions have the same rights (no more and no less) as Muslims and when women, jews, gays and other groups can walk, talk and live freely in Islamic countries, then there can be 'interfaith' dialogue. If you want to see the true Islam, look at the places where Muslims rule, not in the West. Tell me, Bashir, does the fact that there are about a dozen accounts of your prophet inflicting brutal torture on people bother you? Do you care? Have you any shame? Tell me why anyboy should respect a man that by Islam's own history was a murderer, slaver and torturer? Tell me why anybody should respect or believe people that follow a man like your dear "burn his eyes out" Mohammud? Tell me why I or anybody else should have dialogue with people that cannot even condemn a torturer? Inquiring minds would like to know... Posted by kactuz, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 12:57:38 AM
| |
kactuz
"I have yet to meet a Muslim that can be honest about their dear prophet. Believe me, I have tried, as you folks may have noticed..." All I have ever noticed is your incessant vilification of Islam on this forum. I doubt you would be able to hear an honest opinion in the storm of your hatred for Islam. Take note I am not Muslim - I am an athiest, but I know unremitting bias when I see it kactuz - it is simply impossible to have a reasonable dialogue with someone spewing out constant hate-filled rants. I except this thread will turn into another 'my religion is better than yours' diatribe - going nowehere, achieving nothing. Posted by Trinity, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 9:20:38 AM
| |
Trinity dear....
Can I just offer a word here. Re John, and his comments. We should be absolutely clear on what he is saying..and why. 1/ He is attacking the 'prophet' of Islam, who he charges with 'Theft, murder, torture, rape and mass murder' 2/ The only issue here of importance, is whether these claims are true or not. We can discuss Christianity separately. I reallllly don't understand why you continually say he is 'Villifying' Islam. We are not talking about a small thing, we are talking about a billion+ people who have built their religion on this man. So, it is vital to determine if Johns claims are true, valid or not. Given that all he said is taken from public record, freely available Islamic documentation, and with abundant corroboration between documents, and without any manifest bias to just 'find fault for the sake if it' ... on the contrary, he is probably as concerned as I am about the future of Australia, and our very safety and well being. I DO understand your sense of fair play, support the underdog, and be kind to others. I totally applaud you for this. My only problem is that with regard to Islam(Mohammed) you don't look at the facts as they stand. If John said the same things about Buddhism, I would be the first to defend it, because there is no factual basis for saying such things Most other 'religions' are in the same boat. Its either factual or not. Now, given the factual reliable truthful nature of these events John has alluded to, it remains to us, to properly understand the implications for our own society, and how to correctly perceive this religion. (at its roots) If you can show any error in what John (or myself) have claimed, then bring your well supported view to the debate. If not, then please try to come to grips with the fact that we are speaking truth, which.. last time I checked.. 'will set (and keep) us free' P.S. hope you find work soon.. I'm sure u will. Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 9:47:15 AM
| |
Whether I am believed or not - again I state that I do not hate moslems, I may pity them but I do not hate them. I hate what this pagan religion stands for. I hate the threat it poses to civilisation, to democracy, to Australia.
Deedat was a hate filled moslem, he came to this Christian country and vilified Christianity, and did so on Good Friday. The Australian Government even threatened to deport him. Many say that 'ordinary' moslems are different from the hard liners. If ordinary moslems do not follow the line when ordered then they are slain along with "unbelievers" or all who are not moslem. Now a few choice excerpts from the koran. This book is the only guide to moslems and they must obey its directives. QUOTE: "Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and you love a thing, which is bad for you. But allah knows, and you know not 2:216" This could be aimed at those 'ordinary' moslems. QUOTE: "Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. 9:5" There is so much more in the same vane, moslems detest and despise us and wish to kill or convert us, according to their hate filled koran.Am I suggesting that we destroy them - NO! but what I do ask is that we see them for what they are. To those who rubbish Christianity you also are among the unbelievers. You will have to convert to islam or be destroyed or perhaps be made slaves. read their book -it is all written there. Prior to WW2 Hitler wrote a book which the civilised world did not read much to their later pain. numbat Posted by numbat, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 10:59:46 AM
| |
To Philo, numbat & co
Unfortunately christianity has many links with its pagan past. Here's just a few of over 300. 1)There was long before jesus a pagan demigod who was worshipped as the Son of God. 2) He was born on the 25th of December & his birth was observed by shepherds. 3) He turned water into wine at a wedding feast. 4) healed the sick, exorcised spirits, provided miraculous meals & calmed the waters for his followers. 5) He died as a sacrifice to redeem the sins of the world. 6) He rose again three days later. sound familiar? The main problem is the vast majority of the myths surrounding this guy were formed several hundred years before Jesus was supposed to have been born. So either we have an incredible number of coincidences that defy belief or christianity adopted some pagan elements from myths that were already in existence. Your choice. Posted by Bosk, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 11:29:49 AM
| |
What poppycock, nonsense, garb, intellectual dishonesty....does it make one feel good to spout out nonsense they know to be untrue?
Darl-Al-Harb? Jihad? Dhimmitude? Sharia Law? Until your leaders condemn the utter barbarity of these Islamic tenets, teachings, rituals, concepts, you will never be believed! I find such articles insulting to the utmost, and quite frankly, sickening. To portray Islam as a peaceful religion can never stand up to scientific analysis of history. Did you all know that Syria used to be 100% Christian? Then the Muslims came, now Syria, just as every sick Islamic nation, discriminates against this minority, bombs their churches, beheads their priests. Muslims must remove their leaders, those like Hilali, who have praised jihad, suicide bombings, blamed gang-rape on western dress (one of the highest rates of gang rapes is in Pakistan, but given how few women would actually go to the police, imagine how bad it really is!, oh, and every Islamic diaspora in the west has gang rape within, suggesting a cultural phenomenon, perhaps misoginy? Oh no, don't day that? You racist you!) yet not only do they not remove them, they support them when our media attacks them! Why no Muslims protesting out the front of Sheik Feiz' mosque, the coward who tried to cover up his statement that non-Muslim women deserve to be raped. Muslims cower away from their true beliefs whenever we ask, why not stand up for your principles? Sharia Law is barbaric, and I personally love hearing about insurgents in Iraq, who wish to institute an Islamic state in Iraq, who are killed. I believe we should do worse, as the Iraqi's are ungrateful $%$^$^&** who don't deserve our help. Muslims peaceful......what a joke. Your prophet was a paedophile, murderer, massacre hungry, caravan looting lunatic. One day you'll all wake up, I'm just sick to the stomach that we in the west have to hear your version of the reformation....go have it back home you unworthy ingrates..... Posted by Benjamin, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 8:42:49 PM
| |
Trinity, your an idiot. Typical I suppose, as I remember school was dominated by radical left-wing teachers who tried to brainwash us into believing that only whites can be racist. It may help you to see that it is fact many Muslims that are NAZI's if you pretend they are white. Pretend, listen, then hear the words, and you'll be right.
Boaz, as usual you are a classic. I thank you humbly for all the links you have put here in your posts, it's saved me looking for them! Look people, I'm not a Christian, although I went to a Christian school. I've read widely on Islam, and to be blunt, Mohammad comes nowhere near Christ's philosophy. Christ was the real deal, his values were correct. Mohammad, and Trinity, read up on him, don't just rant, he was nothing other than a tribal savage, who had a six year old for a wife. Grow up people, Muslims can indeed be racist bigots, and to be honest, most of the time, many are. Trinity have you noticed how Muslim community never condemns their own ? How many Muslims have held protests out the front of the radical clerics mosques ? None! I wonder why...............they agree! Posted by Benjamin, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 8:55:20 PM
| |
Bosk,
Can you identify by archeology the existence of your demigod or by a contemporary document that identifies the people actually believed in him as a human person. I realise you delight in negative comments rather than to post higher values. I would have over forty volumes on my shelves dealing with gods of Babylonian, Cannanite, Hittite, Persian, Roman, Greece, Egyptian, Asia Minor, Phoenicia, Philistines, Assyria; so as you assume I am somehow ignorant and believe in pagan falsehoods. As a Christian I personally identify with the revelation of wisdom that gives me dynamic for living and not merely in historical myths. The theatres of the hyprocrites [actors] presented many stories to present hope and aspirations to the people. Many of the stories were presented in drama scripts, and were not the devoted beliefs in actual gods. The story of Job in the OT falls into this catagory, as it is a struggle of gnosticism with monotheism. The gods did not actually exist. Though there were events that inspired the myths they presented a higher principle in the drama. For instance: The practise of casting out demons was also used by the monotheistic Jews as well as Jesus to demonstrate to the person that believed in demons that they were now free. It is similar to telling a child who believes there are evil spitits under the bed, they have gone because you cast them out. The physical act of release reinforced in the mind new faith that the demons had gone. On Jesus being worshipped as the Son of God. The true worship of God is focused in character that expresses admiration for what we believe is in the image of God. The humanity of Jesus was not God or made him the son of God - it was his character, attitudes and selfless actions. From your conclusions on this can we assume you have no values of character that you admire as the highest and greatest of humanity. This is how God is incarnate in human persons - Jesus was that person. Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 10:28:03 PM
| |
Thank you, Boaz...
Trinity.... Yes, I may be playing the same tune all the time, and maybe even too much. But I think the issue is important. I have focused on this because it is illustrative of the problem that Islam brings to the table. Do you think we have problems now? Wait five years! Yes, I do vilify Islam - and why not? Islam, not individual Muslims. My opinion is that Muslims are not really peaceful, but mostly indifferent - but that goes for most people too. I also believe that most Muslims are intellectually dishonest, because of things like this issue. I think that Islam is oppressive and intolerant, based upon my readings and observations. These are personal opinions and I have my reasons. Islamic hate and intolerance is a problem we must all face. The root of the problem is the character of their leader (my opinion). If a Muslim cannot condemn torture done by their great prophet, as clearly described in their own writings on numerous occasions, then why oh why should I believe them on anything? If murder, slavery, lying and torture and torture are OK for old Mohammed, and he is considered a great "example" (PBUH my ass), well you figure it out... Has anybody answered my question? Have I not given them a chance? Did you see Irfan or Bashir jump at the chance to clear this up? Maybe they can't. Maybe they don't want to even think about it. I guess it is painful, but so are hot nails in the eyes. You know I have a life. I collect maps, I hike, I read history books, I do a lot of things that are more pleasant than debating Muslims - not that it is much of a challenge. But it needs to be done Posted by kactuz, Thursday, 1 September 2005 4:09:51 AM
| |
Continued...
Trinity, if you want to criticize me for what I have said, be my guest. I can take it and be sure that I have many faults and failings. If you or any Muslim wants to condemn Moses, King David, Jesus, the Apostles Paul, Peter, and Mary, or George Washington, Sharon, Howard or Bush based on any of their actions and words you also have my permission. In the West we can do this and it is what makes us great, and it is part of what makes so many Muslims want to come here. The problem is that they come and they bring their hate and anger with them, and soon trouble starts (We have enough problems already without their help, thank you!). Then they blame us and everybody else - everybody except themselves and their faith - for their problems. Muslims refuse to consider even the most obvious facts, like TORTURE = EVIL. Please don't tell me that asking about murder and torture is a "hate-filled rant." Also I never mention my "religion", and I would never argue from a religious viewpoint. I am a simple guy and my logic is simple, too. If a guy named Joe did what Mohammed did, everybody would agree that Joe was a thug! You would not Joe to babysit your kids, and you wouldn't leave Joe alone with your wife - or young daughter. There is nothing difficult here. It is all common sense. I am correct on this (torture = evil) and I will not give an inch. Think about it.... John aka kactuz Posted by kactuz, Thursday, 1 September 2005 4:21:18 AM
| |
bosk: If you know that the person you mention really did as you claimed then you had better worship him/her.
But let's face it is unmitigated garbage isn't it! We still have pretend saviours today don't we. Some men & women have claimed to have seen aliens and even been on their spaceships. Others have seen and talked with fairies,gnomes and goblins. There are over 300 prohpecies about Jesus in the O/T all were fulfilled by the way. Jesus is mentioned by the ruling Romans. He, Jesus, existed as a God/Man and He still exists as you will know one day. numbat Posted by numbat, Thursday, 1 September 2005 1:24:51 PM
| |
Please all of you,
If its still about terrorism, why do we have to make a religous crusade out of it? As was said back in the colonial days, why don't we just live and let live? Why haven't we learnt a lesson about charging into other people's territory as we are still doing in the Middle-East? Just put ourselves in the Arab's position and try to think what way we would be fighting back? Just as the Tamil Tigers are still fighting back in Sri-Lanka, having lost more of their people as suicide bombers than any Muslim country. Also we don't have to want to fight on the side of the Muslims to think this way, just a bit of understanding, and less knocking their religion all the time. Maybe this is what the young Jesus meant when he said to try and love your enemies. Not that we have to be religous about it, because it should relate to what our Aussies believe is a fair go, to try and stop stealing from our global neighbours, the Middle-East Arabs. And if we all started to think this way, especially our powers that be, maybe we'd be surprised how everything would right itself. George C, WA - Bushbred Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 3 September 2005 1:48:12 AM
| |
Bushbred, thank you for your reasonable and down to earth comments. Unfortunately, you will find that they fall upon deaf ears. There is an element (clearly represented on this particular thread) where a request to treat muslim people as human beings is simply like waving a red flag.
Why write about tolerance when there is an opportunity to patronise (trinity, dear), insult (trinity your (sic) an idiot) - never once do the authors of these not so cogent responses understand that vitriol never won converts. I guess feeding on the festering pile of hatred is more fun - doesn't solve anything, merely alienates people, but it must be entertaining because look how they persist in their mud slinging. Posted by Trinity, Saturday, 3 September 2005 7:43:14 AM
| |
Well we have here those pacifists who ignore issues of real conflict. They like to pretend there is no injustice in the world. That we can all agree to be nice to each other without discussing conflicting differences, but this is dishonest. They would have us all accept mediocrity and be under their subtle control.
For instance: The basis of the practise of the Christian faith is the death of Jesus, while Muslims deny this very event. They cannot accept the fact of grace is expressed in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus life offered once for all as the basis of our salvation, but the strict observance of every Islamic preceipt gives salvation. They hold that the first drops of blood shed by a person fighting jihad atones for his own sins - results in an endless stream of persons offering as terrorist bombers. However real issues of difference that have resultant actions that affect others lives must be argued out to resolution not sublimated in a pretence of agreement if we are to live together. It would appear some have no understanding of the issues of conflict or the motivation and agenda by some of control over others. Islam is a religion of total control; it has laws on the very intimate details of our lives. It does not offer personal freedom. Muslims in the West have that opportunity unrestricted, but where the laws of Islam are in control it not only restricts Muslims it affects every single person in the State. Being in a so-called democratic Islamic State like Indonesia or Malaya is no guarantee of personal freedom from Muslim extremists Posted by Philo, Saturday, 3 September 2005 10:55:27 AM
| |
Philo,
I am not saying this because you do not have a good argument. But what I meant in my other Post, is why bring in religion all the time, when Islamic terrorism as expressed by most modern political philosophers, and incidently by the CIA, is simply called "Blowback" caused by interfering in another's territory. There is also another longer expression that should go with blowback, will we ever learn? Regards, George C, WA - Bushbred Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 3 September 2005 6:10:51 PM
| |
Bushbred,
Can I assume you believe the West should not have supported those people in Taliban and Sunni controled countries who are persecuted and displaced by the extremes of shari'ah laws. So according to you we should allow Islamic nations to enforce their justice of beheadings infidels and stoning women to death because they happen to look at another man not her husband. So you would let the innocent die as your answer to islamic enforcement of State shari'ah laws? I believe a modern Planet deserves better justice than that. The West according to them may be decadent but they are also compassionate to offenders of trivial laws. Quote, "Blowback" caused by interfering in another's territory. There is also another longer expression that should go with blowback, will we ever learn?" Posted by Philo, Saturday, 3 September 2005 7:12:49 PM
| |
Dear Philo,
It was thought by your knickname, that you would be more philosophical about the problems of terrorism and religion. One important thing all us so-called students should be doing is to admit to to our Muslims that the one least bloodthirsty during the Crusades was Saladin, who was relegated to a kind of sainthood by the leader of France, for always sparing the lives of non-combatants, especially women and children. We also owe much to Muslim scholars who deliberately travelled to the West to help Christians lift themselves out of the Dark Ages with passages from Aristotle giving indication how the Light of Reason could give more understanding to what had been a kind of misguided Christian faith. There have been many reports coming in just lately from journalists that the terrorist problem can never be solved by hi-powered bombs and bullets because the enemy is not a great power which has the capacity to use such means. While similar to the Tamil Tigers they have no other means to fight big powers than the use of suicide bombing, is well supported even by mothers who encourage their daughters to join in the attacks. It is probably the reason more thinking people from both sides should do their damndest to get together. Such was suggested by the former Pope and also by Nelson Mandela, who himself was called a terrorist by an extreme right-wing government, which unfortunately our fear of terrorism is causing democratic governments as some call our English-speaking Anglophile Alliance, the USA, Britain and Australia, to lean dangerously towards such arpathaidism. There is also the danger that if we move too far right wing, especially if the US gets too mercenary in the Middle-East, there could be a strong shift to the far left which we do not want in a democratic state either. Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 4 September 2005 4:37:21 PM
| |
Nice work bushbred. Well said.
Interesting how when Islam was in ascendancy, it provided assistance to the West in it’s Dark Age, yet when the West appears to be the world dominant ‘culture’ (used loosely) Islam is exploited, abused and considered the enemy. Is it no wonder the Middle East produces terrorists to fight when the countries have no power in the world? I don’t condone terrorism or violence but I do understand it’s roots. If leaders in the West weren’t so focused on greed, power and maintaining the status quo of control, the globe might have a chance to find peace and co-operation that could save this little ball of iron and mud. Posted by Reason, Monday, 5 September 2005 11:39:15 AM
| |
Dear Reason,
can you explain to the forum how Islam came to ascendency - surely not through military conquest and forced conversion? Unless the West peacefully concedes defeat - noting its already apparent demographic suicide - there will come a time when like Inquisitorial Spain, or the Battles of Vienna, Lepanto etc, Christianity will have to re-assert its worth & value and perhaps take to the battlefield again, but, let's hope it doesn't come to that. However, someone is going top have to make a concession and historically, Jesus' teaching and actions appear to be better than Mohammed's re-interpretation and practice. On the issue of vilification, one needs to distinguish between the teachings of a religion and its practice. There are peaceful Moslems and peaceful Christians, but, not many Moslems are actively persecuted by Christians per se, more like they are victims of a mercenary captilist system that ultimately doesn't distinguish between faiths and is happy to exploit all & sundry. Too bad there is so much oil in the middle east. If oil wasn't part of the equation - ie. funding the Saudis and lining company pockets too - I wonder whether anyone would give a tinker's cuss about the ancient lands of Persia and thereabouts. So many empires have come & gone in that part of the world... Posted by Reality Check, Monday, 5 September 2005 4:33:35 PM
| |
Reality Check,
If you review history, the ascendancy of Islam was no different to the ascendancy of Christianity – both were invasion and forced conversion. That Christianity has moderated in the last 100 years or so gives no moral standing to a conflict of faiths now. Christian history is full of exploitation, bloodshed and invasion. My simple point was… how did that JC guy say it? “He who is without sin, cast the first stone” Posted by Reason, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 12:25:31 AM
| |
Reason,
I think the first 400 years of Christianity - ie persecution and state sanctioned slaugther of UNARMED devotees - is a little bit different to the early (and subsequent?) history of Islam - armed soldiers and forced conversions. That Christians shamelessly fought amongst themselves conquered & established colonies and from time to time defended themselves against Islam has ensured that we can use this forum. Sure the inappropriate actions of many 'christians' (all without sanction by JC!) are points of shame, but, not so 'fullsome' as you claim. When Islam can claim 400 years of peaceful preaching and state persecution, then we can start comparing apples. Those 400 years plus your 100 years (under dreadful humanist regimes such as Nazism, Communism etc)= 500 years of thoughtful Christianity, now, lets see if the Koran or the actions of its Prophet has anything that might be contrary to peaceful co-existance? Ultimately, we are dealing with people following a paradigm of behaviour based on the writings and historical actions of their religious founders. Which is the better foundation? Who provides the better rule of law? Sure, complain about bad christians, but, you have to acknowledge the seminal role of Christianity in sureing up modern western culture & freedoms. Of course, Shari'a is always an option and ultimately Islam will have the numbers. Posted by Reality Check, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 9:26:51 AM
| |
Reality check,
Corrections: 1.Islam co-existed with other religions always: When Islam came to Egypt, Christians and their properties were protected (churches are still there until today and people kept their faith). Please check writing of credible writers either Karen Armstrong or Dr Milad Hanna (An Egyptian Christian historian). In fact, Islam didn't become the religion of the majority in Egypt until another 500 years. 2. Check William Muir "history of Islam" on the forced conversion myth. 3. The Quoran is clear on accepting other religion specially christianity and Judaism. The Koran makes no distinction between prophets (4: 152-177) and even states that good Christians can go to heaven. Please quote me from your core teachings where do you accept that other beliefs can go to heaven. 4. The 'crusades' were called so by Europeans, Islamic history was smart enough not to associate them with Christians. Salahudin period used to call them "Frengat" (French tribes attacks) so not to alienate Arab Christians. You need to study seriously buddy. Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 1:16:36 PM
| |
Fellow Human
Corrections: 1.Islam co-existed with other religions always: Dimmitude – slavery, tolerance, sufferance or freedom? See 2 below; 2. Check William Muir "history of Islam" on the forced conversion myth. Check newspapers re Sudan, Aceh etc etc and http://www.barkati.net/english/chronology.htm and see what enlightenment Islam led between 600 AD and the 1st Crusade of 1091AD, then compare it with the 1st 400 years of Christianity (my original point!) 3. The Quoran is clear on accepting other religion specially christianity and Judaism. Given the English, German & French Catholic dominance in the defence of the West, try some Catholic documents that they (and most others) wouldn’t know about: "Second Vatican Council's Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions," Nostra aetate, Proclaimed by Pope Paul VI, 1965-OCT-28. See: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.” “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. .. Dominus Iesus on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the church," Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. See: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ 4. The 'crusades' were called so by Europeans, Islamic history was smart enough not to associate them with Christians. Salahudin period used to call them "Frengat" (French tribes attacks) so not to alienate Arab Christians. Is Salahudin the same person as Mohammed the Prophet? Didn’t think so, so back to Mohammed, not Salahudin and Attaturk and other enlightened exceptions to the Rule of Islam. We all need to study seriously, and look around us. Ps On Other Post - "Medieval Europe burnt 400,000 women with red hair and green eyes" - awaiting your detailed references on this one! Posted by Reality Check, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 4:43:03 PM
| |
FH.. with regard to Egypt... how about detailing in point form how Islam dcame to Egypt ? :) (don't miss any bits)
I'd like to hear your version. Reality Check.... keep up the good work. I'm sure even you and I will not agree on all things (ur Catholic ?) but I do appreciate your efforts to source your points in History. Thats the place to start and end. Never mind about 'should the hijab be banned' the issues are far bigger than that. That is but one small symptom. Ash, have a look at the writings of Irfan on his website/blog, makes interesting reading about the social and political dynamics among Sydney Muslims. Regards all Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 5:19:38 PM
| |
Reality,
Religious debate me no like! I was referring to credible historians not theologists: William Muir (later knighted for his work) , George Sale, Karen Armstrong and Dr. Milad Hanna. Then you referred me to Catholic writers which are to me non-credible and irrelevant to the period or location. You seem to have a view and only want to see what confirms it. BD, Please read any of above references on how did Islam come to Egypt. (PS none of the above are muslims). I will have a look at Irfan’s blogg. Though you BD inspired me to develop my own interfaith harmony website!. Reality & BD, So to focus on the subject, Islam is in modernisation phase and it won’t happen overnight but it is happening, Some key drivers are its growth within western countries which in turn, will filter out a lot of the negative influences of Arabic culture. My point is and was always the same, there is no conflict at all between the values in Islam, Christianity and Judaism either social, family, ethics, charity, etc.. The theological differences are a personal choice and according to our teachings, it is for God to judge everyone at the end. You guys need to learn and accept that Islam is a religion which some of you are still struggling with the idea. You need to embrace Muslims as brothers and show respect to their religion and not ‘embrace them until they convert’ strategy. Best of luck, Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 3:51:04 PM
| |
F.H. next thing you will tell me the Charter of Omar is 'just a story' ? :)
Sorrrry.. like I said.. we have a goodly grasp of history. That Charter had only ONE intention.... to destroy and wipe out Christianity.... its abundantly clear... have a read. Unless I'm on the wrong track ? could be. I've read about the taking by invasion of Egypt... I just wanted to know if your version agreed with mine. Point form will be ok. CHEERS Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 6:16:44 PM
| |
Fellow_Human,
It would be appropiate if Muslims studied the writings of James and the records of Jesus life and teachings as recorded in the NT gospel, rather than accept the Roman Catholics version of Mary as found in the Koran, which is where most of the interfaith dialogue has happened. Also question the Jewish influence upon Mahomet found in the Koran which denies the death of Jesus, for which the Catholic Church held the Jews responsible. Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 10:01:04 PM
| |
Hi Philo,
I rarely came across a muslim who have read both the NT and the OT. personally I studied them both. First, the Jewish influence myth "mohamed copied from the Torah": If your question is on theology, Jewish influence have nothing to do with the Jesus in the Quoran since Jews denied Jesus propehthood and accused Virgin Mary of adultery (mentioned in the Quoran 4:155-157). Quoran, while confirms Jesus prophethood, virgin birth and the his status as a messiah, promised Jesus' return before the end of times and penalise those who persecuted him. All across the Quoran while characters are the same, the stories, language and morality are fundamentally different. Second, all over the NT and OT, Paul's theory while maybe had a good intent, is a serious breach of Jesus 's teachings and the a dilution of the first commandment "God is one". The creation of a theory of God is one but also three, as I see it, is a serious compromise on monotheism. It is the choice you made and I am not to judge. Anyway, I guess I just explained what an average muslim sees the interfaith and intersection of faith. The common ground are a lot more than the point of disagreement. The idea is not universalism but to agree to disagree and continue to be better people. Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 11:44:48 PM
| |
Reality Check,
The original invasion (leading to the crusades) was Christian. Enough said. This set off years of revolving door attacks, one against the other. The Christians did not only ‘fight among themselves’. They started the whole shebang. Previously, there were raids from both sides, pressures of expansion, etc. – much like you see today (just think about why the US is in Iraq, it’s ‘projected power’ to ‘strategic locations’ around the world – all very Christian I might add). As to state persecutions – just two words – The Inquisition. I would also disagree that Christianity had a role in ‘shoring up’ modern western culture and freedom. For most of the last two millenniums, Christianity was used by the State to entrap the people in servitude under a belief that royalty was ‘Gods appointed’ till recently in history. It was not a few ‘bad Christians’ but the entire church involved. Yes, Islam has problems. And yet Arab Islamics gave us advanced mathematics, explored the movements of the stars and planet and taught the West Chess. They traded in rare spices and silks, some not seen before. They introduced new arts, dance, metal working, story telling, all which became incorporated into the culture of the West, as clothing, jewellery and literature. It also seems a common claim by Christian proponents that freedom and democracy are benefits of Christianity. Not so. The ideas of freedom and democracy came from pre-Christian times, where ‘pagan’ religions reigned. The ideas of freedom came well before Christ and were fought for regardless of the religion of the time or State. The French revolution was not religious. It was in fact a rebellion against the almost theocratic rule of the monarchy and church at that time. America’s revolution was not religious. It was over serving in British military forces and paying ‘tribute’ to England. India’s eventual passive revolution was not religious. Freedom was gained with a finally enlightened approach by England that they could not win against a nation unwilling to actually do as they were told. Fellow Human... like your stuff... agree to disagree. Posted by Reason, Thursday, 8 September 2005 1:03:55 AM
| |
An Islamic commentary on Surah 4:34
<<Surah 4.34 "As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)." The words in parentheses are NOT explicit in the text; however the translators would argue that they are implied. The term used for "beat" (idribuhunna, based on “dharb,” “beat”) does NOT have the word "lightly" built into it;>> (I made the capitals in 'not') Watch out Trinity, laura, enaj and Xena :) COMMENTARY "We can expect the Holy Qur'an to mention beating only if there was some wisdom in that mention. Now there are two possible points of wisdom in the mention. First, the beating done within the limits defined by the Qur'an may indeed bring the husband and wife to some kind of understanding. (are u actually SEEing this girls ?) This is not because of the PAIN involved, which in any case cannot be too much if the guidance in the Quran and Hadith are to be observed. Rather, the husband and wife may come closer together after beating because of the emotions involved." Interesting view of how to treat women. As a contrast.... "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her." Eph 5 28 ish So husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. Funny, I looked and looked..but for the life of me I cannot find any reference in the Bible (old or new testaments) which allow/command a husband TO BEAT his wife. The treatement by Islamic commentators is always the same, no matter how BAD it is, 'there must be some wisdom in it, because it is the book of God'...... It's not hard to make a value judgement on these 2 approaches to women, and if anyone mentions 'VILLIFICATION' I'll scream. These are simple factual matters. Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 8 September 2005 11:59:13 AM
| |
Don't the moderators ever check these blogs.
Bashir, don't worry mate - most of the bloggers having a go at you aren't representative of the rest of us. Vilification is the tool of evil's dupes. Benjamin you know what the Christian's say?: "What Peter says about Paul says more about Peter than Paul." I don't think it is helpful or constructive to refer to another blogger as an "idiot" just because they have you on the ropes. You need to grow up and get a little more fair dinkum - Benjamin. Did you all know that sociologists have found that there is more difference within cultures than between them. Just have to read Opinion on Line to see that. God bless all the good souls -He knows who I am. Nashing teeth I can't hear nashing teeth. DB will get it. Posted by rancitas, Thursday, 8 September 2005 1:37:00 PM
| |
BD,
On Women and Islam: (All part 4) legislates women rights in keeping their maiden name, financial entity, right to for inheritance, to be supported by the husband. It goes even in defining that a man cannot ask to date her in secret. They are equally mentioned in every verse as equal believers, which I have not seen in NT or OT. The verse you chose deals with the obligation and punishment of the wrongdoers to their families (the word “Nashez” could mean anything such as abusive, beating children, etc.). It is not a ‘command’ for a man to beat his wife. The Quran is contextual and cannot be taken literally and the meaning must be interpreted in today’s format. We have a social justice system that punishes abusive men or women. Islam is not a blind faith religion though some people think of it that way. Every few verse in the Quran, Muslims are asked to think. While on the subject BD, What u r doing is not vilification but just lacks of the basics of a decent argument. a. Why do you always need to compare to Islam: why don’t you have any confidence in your religion by itself? b. When you compare, picking up 2 words or half a verse is a deceitful approach and lacks the basic respect for the audience. Can I ask you to be more...truthful in the future if you insist in quoting from Quran? Regards Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 9 September 2005 4:56:40 AM
| |
Reason
Persons calling themselves “Christian,” with a grab for power over territory committed the Crusades, but it wasn’t based in Jesus Messiah teaching regarding social responsibility. Quote, ”The original invasion (leading to the crusades) was Christian. … They started the whole shebang”. The message of Christ was personal choice and faith, not enforced belief over others lives by Religious State. The Crusades were unlike the teachings of Christ and his followers were encouraged to persevere the severe persecution withour reprisal[1Peter]. The Roman Church State as the Islamic State wishes to control personal belief and practise, (http://freedom.homemail.com.au/). Jesus teachings are about being a servant of God in community. He encountered disfavour with Jewish leaders they planned recapture of their State from Rome. Jesus however accepted the Romans, the underclass Samaritans for neighbourly service to the injured: upheld the faith of a gentile woman of Zarephath in Sidon, and king Naaman of Syria an opponent [Luke 4: 24 – 28]. Jesus kingdom is ”not of this world”; power struggles of State: it is about personal spiritual relationship with God. Where God is worshipped in character and behaviour by heart, mind and body. Quote, “It also seems a common claim by Christian proponents that freedom and democracy are benefits of Christianity. Not so... freedom and democracy came from pre-Christian times, where ‘pagan’... The ideas of freedom came well before Christ and were fought for regardless of the religion of the time or State.” Personal freedom is an eternal divine principle emphasised by Christ. Judea-Christian morality and ethics have influenced modern Western society, undisputed. Quote, “Arab Islamics gave us advanced mathematics, explored the movements of the stars and planet and taught the West Chess. They traded in rare spices and silks, some not seen before. They introduced new arts, dance, metalworking, story telling, all which became incorporated into the culture of the West, as clothing, jewellery and literature.” The religion of Islam didn’t give us such benifits it was scholars in natural science and commerce. The things you state are natural sciences not religion. Religion deals with interpersonal relationships, expression and spiritual dimensions Posted by Philo, Friday, 9 September 2005 3:04:33 PM
| |
FELLOW HUMAN
its nice to see your continued non hostile responses.. I'm a bit worried, you might lul me into becoming blaze :)or.. guilt trip me into not wanting to offend you even if it is about truth :) The section on beating is apparently not a command, but it is an authorization a permission. In reality the 'whack' still feels the same. But without revisiting all the issues u responded to, I want to make reference to your belief that the Quran is 'contextual' , I find this difficult to accept in this section, because of the very nature of the 'New Islamic Society' which was supposedly being formed. "Contextual" understandings of scripture which are valid (for Islam or Christianity) would be those where the way of speaking of the day (idiomatic) is clear in the text. Example "If you eye sins, gouge it out, ur hand sins, cut it off,.. u cannot follow me unless you 'hate' your mother father etc".... What cannot be 'contextual' are commands which are clear "I now give this command. (Not I but the Lord)..." as Paul said sometimes or.. "On this matter, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my opinion" he said on another. Just so Sura 23 on 'The Believers' is like the 10 commandments, "You will do this and this and this" etc.. its not open to 'contextualization' Be all that as it may.... I've been thinking more of your own psychology lately.. your education, family background etc..ur 'wilderness' period and return to Islam/roots. All I can say is that my heart goes out to you, my prayers are for you, and I can assure u of God's love, because he knows your heart, I trust that if you ever feel Christ is knocking at the door if it, you will open :) blessings Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 10 September 2005 10:20:42 AM
| |
Hope this fits in,
The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant declared near the turn of the 17th century, when he became unhappy with the tactics of Napoleon, that there is now revealing proof that from now on, not one man, nor one nation, should ever be trusted to rule the future world. Better a Federation of Nations, selected by all peoples of the globe. Instead, we have now a unipolar nation with all the weaknesses that Kant himself had stressed. A nation which declares it has the power to forbid all other nations opposing this power, revealing itself as a reborn Rome which totally destroyed Carthage, and every person, and every building and everything the culture had represented, captured states like Israel allowed to keep their puppet monarchs. How much will the future Iraq, be like those Roman subject states, though with US troops withdrawn, and a Dyarky democracy managed from the White House, with Israeli nuclear rockets right close by Iraq and ready. We note the present White-House lineup, with Dick Cheney, not George Bush, much first in line - Cheney with Paul Wolfowitz masterminding the whole shebang since Gulf-War One. Along with other neo-cons, American Zionists and ex-oil-executives such as Condoleeza Rice, and to not forget to add again that the presence of corporation man, Dick Cheney, means that all the US slaughter from up high, has been mostly for Iraqi oil. And if it comes to prove that the Iraqis will be double-crossed, our sons and daughters will inherit a world not ruled by British gunboat diplomacy, but by US missiles all nuclear tipped, said by Americana, the only way an angry world can be kept in order. World problems have reached the stage that they cannot be fixed by modern missiles, but by moral understanding. Our classic English grammar has become all mixed up - terms like “liberalism and rationalism”, when applied to freedom, do not mean a unipolar Americana capitalist corporate global takeover, but a “moderation in all things”, followed by the “freedom for all the peoples of our world to share and share alike.” Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 10 September 2005 6:58:03 PM
| |
What can change a life, a community a nation a world?
Read the story of a KKK Grand Wizard on Andrew Denton 5th September 2005. Life is full of journeys but rarely do any of us travel as far as Johnny Lee Clary. A former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, now a Christian preacher, his journey from a world of hate to one of tolerance has been remarkable indeed. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1453904.htm Posted by Philo, Sunday, 18 September 2005 9:27:11 PM
|
Moslems worship a different god, they worship the moon god of mecca.
Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and Ishmael)the Father of Jesus Christ.
Christians are told not to lie to anyone. Moslems are allowed, by the koran, to lie to unbelievers - or all non-moslems.
To moslems a non-moslem's life is worth nothing, according to the koran and many sheiks,leaders and teachers.
Moslems, male and female, are encouraged to commit suicide re suicide bombers. Not only encouraged but are rewarded with 40 or 70 perpetual virgins and 32 'pearls ( perpetual un-touched hairless boys) in paradise. Do not know what moslem women get, some say that they get to watch the men with their virgin women and un-touched boys.
The aim of islam is to convert the world to islam by what ever means.
According to God's Holy Bible moslems, I'm afraid are pagans. numbat