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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.