What's up with Islam?

[Weatherlite]

Swing, the reference to a man having sex with a married woman and getting away with it wasn't about a concubine...it was about a captive. From what I have read he could opt to have sex with her if he wanted because she was his property as a captive. That is where the woman being married and giving consent/not giving consent (rape) issue came into play. It really seems like no matter what she is screwed. (no pun intended)

 

[Weatherlite]

CyniQ, you sort of have the idea right. Very close....a lot closer than I would have expected from a non-pagan to tell you the truth.

And Grizz is right, Christianity came after most of the other religions out there. The bible (in it's crudest form of verbal transmission) may have been around during the time of some of the pagan religions creation but I doubt very much that it would have influenced a people who were (for all intents and purposes) on the other side of the world. Besides, what is the bible except an idea of how to live passed down through the generations? In it's purest form that's all it is...a guidebook to help man not screw up. Later, when man decided he needed to put his own flair into it and record it on paper, it took a turn for the worst and was tainted by each individual writer's personal whims. This is especially shown with the King James version. Basically what I'm getting at here is that man, no matter where he lived and what religion he ultimately created, generally held the same basic beliefs. Being good to others, not killing people (in some cases it only applied if they didn't deserve it lol) not stealing. This was a basic tenet in many societies without having a central guidebook such as the bible. So, it's no wonder that there are many similarities between Christianity and many pagan religons.

On a side note, Christianity has its originators to blame for many of the coinciding holidays. Pagan religions had their holy days set for thousands of years before Chrisianity. The early Christians just adopted them to make the conversion easier to swallow (in many cases it was either that or face the sword)

In a way, I agree with ya Grizz that religions (and possibly gods) are created by man to explain the unexplainable and to comfort primitive men when they were in fear during the night. However, I still feel that there is an ultimate power out there. It's really hard to explain but in essence, that power is nature....we're all a part of it. When we die our energy rejoins it and our consciousness may even become a part of it as well. Eventually, with billions of consciousnesses (is that a word?) acting together you get an ultimate power which, in a way, can be a being, hence a god. Doesn't make much sense but I said it was hard to describe.

Hell, who knows? Maybe we're all wrong and it's just like the movie/TV show Stargate and all of the gods were actually aliens living on earth and making us their slaves?


When did the tower of Babel supposedly exist? Enlighten me cause I'm ignorant in this area....it may have truely existed and archaeologiusts found it but I don't know. One thing I have to question though is the scattering of the people. Scientific theory would state that there was a continent named Pangaea and all people lived on this continent and could walk wherever they felt like. Over the eons the tribes settled in different areas and the continental plates separated slowly...so slowly that it wasn't a problem for them in the least. If you disagree then perhaps you could explain why the continents seem to fit together awfully nice.

And Grizz....will you please make him happy and read that outlaw thing????

 

[CyniQ]

CyniQ, you sort of have the idea right. Very close....a lot closer than I would have expected from a non-pagan to tell you the truth.

And Grizz is right, Christianity came after most of the other religions out there. The bible (in it's crudest form of verbal transmission) may have been around during the time of some of the pagan religions creation but I doubt very much that it would have influenced a people who were (for all intents and purposes) on the other side of the world. Besides, what is the bible except an idea of how to live passed down through the generations? In it's purest form that's all it is...a guidebook to help man not screw up. Later, when man decided he needed to put his own flair into it and record it on paper, it took a turn for the worst and was tainted by each individual writer's personal whims. This is especially shown with the King James version. Basically what I'm getting at here is that man, no matter where he lived and what religion he ultimately created, generally held the same basic beliefs. Being good to others, not killing people (in some cases it only applied if they didn't deserve it lol) not stealing. This was a basic tenet in many societies without having a central guidebook such as the bible. So, it's no wonder that there are many similarities between Christianity and many pagan religons.

On a side note, Christianity has its originators to blame for many of the coinciding holidays. Pagan religions had their holy days set for thousands of years before Chrisianity. The early Christians just adopted them to make the conversion easier to swallow (in many cases it was either that or face the sword)

In a way, I agree with ya Grizz that religions (and possibly gods) are created by man to explain the unexplainable and to comfort primitive men when they were in fear during the night. However, I still feel that there is an ultimate power out there. It's really hard to explain but in essence, that power is nature....we're all a part of it. When we die our energy rejoins it and our consciousness may even become a part of it as well. Eventually, with billions of consciousnesses (is that a word?) acting together you get an ultimate power which, in a way, can be a being, hence a god. Doesn't make much sense but I said it was hard to describe.

Hell, who knows? Maybe we're all wrong and it's just like the movie/TV show Stargate and all of the gods were actually aliens living on earth and making us their slaves?


When did the tower of Babel supposedly exist? Enlighten me cause I'm ignorant in this area....it may have truely existed and archaeologiusts found it but I don't know. One thing I have to question though is the scattering of the people. Scientific theory would state that there was a continent named Pangaea and all people lived on this continent and could walk wherever they felt like. Over the eons the tribes settled in different areas and the continental plates separated slowly...so slowly that it wasn't a problem for them in the least. If you disagree then perhaps you could explain why the continents seem to fit together awfully nice.

And Grizz....will you please make him happy and read that outlaw thing????

I don't remember much about the tower of Babel. I'll do some research on the details and get back to you. I have a theory about continental separation being the means by which God scattered the people.

It's amazing how irritatingly narrow-minded you bunch of dolts are. Don't you think it's interesting that as you said, "no matter where he lived and what religion he ultimately created, generally held the same basic beliefs."?? How do you suppose that came about? That's not the norm in the animal kingdom. Why did we abandon our survival of the fittest instincts (according to your evolution) in favor of "harm none" (I know lots of stuff Weatherlite )??? The simple fact that there are so many similarities in world wide religions is an incredible testimony to the accuracy of the Biblical creative record.

BTW weatherlite. WRT the whole pagan religion predates everything else idea. Do you have any thoughts on the origin of the crucifix (aka sign of the cross)?? OR the Holy Trinity??

 

[Grizzly]

"That's not the norm in the animal kingdom. Why did we abandon our survival of the fittest instincts (according to your evolution) in favor of "harm none" (I know lots of stuff Weatherlite )???"

Sure it is. For the most part, animals don't harm their own kind. Survival of the fittest refers to he who is the best hunter, the best gatherer, has the strongest genes, is he who survives long enough to beget another generation.

Bears, wolves, lions, tigers, owls, hawk, etc. all live together peacefully. Sure, they get into territorial disputes and fight and sometimes even kill each other. Is that any different than the human animal? No.

How does "harm none" come about? Easy. It's very much like Kant's "Categorical Imperative". You don't want to die. You sure as fuck don't want to be killed by an axe murderer. You don't want your shit to be stolen. These things are common to all humans. So, to that end, we developed rules that say, "YOU will not kill" and "YOU will not steal" to protect the I.

 

[oldtimer]

Swing, the reference to a man having sex with a married woman and getting away with it wasn't about a concubine...it was about a captive. From what I have read he could opt to have sex with her if he wanted because she was his property as a captive. That is where the woman being married and giving consent/not giving consent (rape) issue came into play. It really seems like no matter what she is screwed. (no pun intended)

Took me around an hour to go through this thread and it was well worth it.

A man can't have sex with a captive, this is not allowed in Islam. The confusion comes from the fact that in the past, when a country/army wins war, they usually take the young males and the females of the other country/army as slaves ("molk yameen" in Arabic). It is allowed in Islam (and many other religions for that matter) for a man to have sex with his female slave.

Having said the above, in modern days countries don't take slaves anymore (muslim countries and others), and thus, the above is not applicable anymore.

And about being homosexual and having sex with another male, this is not allowed in Islam, whether you're young/not married or not is irrelevant.

For the stoning, there's no distinction, in the prophet's time there were men and women who were stoned to death. However, in order for someone to be stoned/lashed he/she needs to have significant proof against them (I will not go into the details of what the proof needs to be, but I will gladly do if someone is interested). If you read about early Islam (the days of the prophet) all the people who were stoned (men and women) came forward and asked to be stoned according to history.

Islam DOES NOT encourage someone who did this sin to come forward, but instead, it encourages him/her to just repent and pray to go that he forgives him/her.

A couple of stories to shed some light on the subject (I left some details to make them shorter):

1- A guy came to the prophet and said that he has sinned and slept with a woman although he is married. The prophet turned his head away to the other direction. The man went to the other direction as to face him again and said the same thing about what he did. The prophet turned to the other direction. The man went a third time and said the same thing. The prophet asked the people around him whether the man was known to have mental problems, and they said no. He then asked the man to go and come on another day, and some people to go and talk to more people who knew him and verify that he was not mentally ill (notice all the things the prophet tried to do so the man doesn't get stoned). The following day the man came again and said the same thing, and it was then that he got stoned.

2- A woman came to the prophet and said that she has sinned and slept with a man although she was married, and that she was pregnant. He asked her to go and not come back before she dlivers the baby. She then came after a few months with the baby. The prophet then asked that she leaves and never come back before the baby is old enough so he doesn't need her milk anymore and can eat. After two years, she came back with the baby walking with her, his one hand holding her hand, and in the other he had a piece of bread (showing that he could eat), and it was then that she got stoned. Notice how in all the three years she still came back everytime, no one asked her to come forward and it was like the prophet wanted her to see her child and out of love for him not come back, yet, she still came back.

A note not directly related to this discussion, but its worth mentioning nontheless, is that when Islam came it encouraged freeing slaves heavily, and the last words of the prophet when he was dying were in the meaning of "take good care of your prayers/praying and what you own [as slaves]". He said it several times before he passed away.

Many muslims in the early days of Islam would try and get closer to god by freeing slaves they own because this was a good deed in islam. In fact, many "kaffarats" (making amends) in Islam are freeing slaves. If you look at how a person redeems himself in many situations in Islam, you will see that he needs to free a slave(s) in order for him to be redeemed.

And for the treatment of women, I know for a fact that Angel - my wife - is very happy with me, she always tells me that if all men were like me there would be no divorce anymore. How do i treat her?, I try and lookup the prophet's history in dealing with his wives. I encourage you to read it (from credible sources and not those hate sites).

My honest opinion in the whole west/muslims matter is that us - Muslims in general and muslims in the middle east in particular - and the rest of the people in the west will never reach peace again. I've always heard about us "not saying enough"... "not showing that we condemn these acts"... and to be honest; I don't know what needs to be said and done more that what have already been said and done. The fact that everyone I know has said many times, in many occasions that we do condemn these acts is proof of the matter. If only there was a quantitive way to measure "saying enough". I think this conflict will go on for decades, I've come to peace with the idea that one day I might have to fight my friends and many people I have respected for a reason both me and them will never really understand. Maybe I'm being pissmistic, but I really don't see a way out of this anymore.

-OT

 

[CyniQ]

My honest opinion in the whole west/muslims matter is that us - Muslims in general and muslims in the middle east in particular - and the rest of the people in the west will never reach peace again. I've always heard about us "not saying enough"... "not showing that we condemn these acts"... and to be honest; I don't know what needs to be said and done more that what have already been said and done. The fact that everyone I know has said many times, in many occasions that we do condemn these acts is proof of the matter. If only there was a quantitive way to measure "saying enough". I think this conflict will go on for decades, I've come to peace with the idea that one day I might have to fight my friends and many people I have respected for a reason both me and them will never really understand. Maybe I'm being pissmistic, but I really don't see a way out of this anymore.

-OT

I am very glad to see you chime in on this OT. I had hoped that you would. I know that you are an honorable man (Grizzly told me ).

With regard to Islam in general... I'll try to make my point, forgive me if I ramble. The Bible is a complex group of books documenting the actions of many peoples. But I do not believe that it contradicts itself. Those who believe that it does, do not truly comprehend scripture. To illustrate, the old testament talks about an "eye for an eye", Jesus said "turn the other cheek". This sounds like a contradiction, and technically is. But,until you understand the differences in the civilizations in question, you will not understand why God would allow one maxim at one time and then issue a different directive at a later time. Christians have done terrible things in the name of Christ. But these things were contrary to his teachings and commands. In my opinion the vast majority of Christendom today is not following the example of Christ. But, I've always thought that the beauty of the Christian doctrine, as identified in scripture. Is flexibility. The Mosaic Law is ancient and antiquated. There is no way someone could reasonably follow those commands in modern times. I believe that God knew this. That's at least part of the reason that Christ was the END of the Mosaic Law. Christ provided only 2 commands to replace the old law. Love God, and love your neighbor. That along with the example of Christ is the whole of the Christian obligation. But, back to the point.

It seems to me that Islam never made any allowance for the passage of time. Muslims are still forced to adhere to the equivalent of the pre-Christian, Mosaic Law. An antiquated group of directives that are not reasonable for modern times. A prime example is the stoning that you referred to. Is there no forgiveness? Besides that, no Muslim can practice Islam unless he is in a pro-Islam country. Because most civilized nations outlaw the brutal punishments outlined in the Qur'an (stoning) By the way, I'm not at all impressed with the supposed efforts put forth by the prophet to "save" the stonees.

With regard to the Muslim response to terrorism. I'm not saying that every Muslim has to be pro-American. But I don't see very many Imams condemning the actions of these men. Because people you know disagree, doesn't surprise me at all. I don't associate with psychopaths either. Most reasonable men don't . The very few Imams who have said something. Has been to condemn the slaughter of innocent Muslims along with the infidels. THe way I heard it. They're lives were threatened. Doesn't sound like reasonable muslims are getting much support to me. If you know of some Islamic websites that are condemning these brutal attacks. Please, posts some links. I'd love to be proven wrong on this one.

It is good that you make an articulate defense of your faith. I appreciate the response.

 

[CyniQ]

"That's not the norm in the animal kingdom. Why did we abandon our survival of the fittest instincts (according to your evolution) in favor of "harm none" (I know lots of stuff Weatherlite )???"

Sure it is. For the most part, animals don't harm their own kind. Survival of the fittest refers to he who is the best hunter, the best gatherer, has the strongest genes, is he who survives long enough to beget another generation.

Bears, wolves, lions, tigers, owls, hawk, etc. all live together peacefully. Sure, they get into territorial disputes and fight and sometimes even kill each other. Is that any different than the human animal? No.

How does "harm none" come about? Easy. It's very much like Kant's "Categorical Imperative". You don't want to die. You sure as fuck don't want to be killed by an axe murderer. You don't want your shit to be stolen. These things are common to all humans. So, to that end, we developed rules that say, "YOU will not kill" and "YOU will not steal" to protect the I.

Many animals eat their young. Baby sharks eat each other until they can feed.

 

[Weatherlite]

Many animals eat their young. Baby sharks eat each other until they can feed.

Tis true. But let's look at it from a different perspective. How about taking into account the degree of intelligence that a species has? Sharks...probably fairly unintelligent. Horse...somewhat intelligent. Dogs...fairly intelligent. Humans....fricken stupid but intelligent nonetheless.

When you look at it in this way I think it just makes sense that as a species EVOLVED (and by that I don't mean changed from one species to another but the progress of a species...some call it speciation) they became more intelligent. This intelligence gave them the capability to discern between actions that would get themselves hurt and those that would not. Eventually they began to realize that by hurting others they, in turn, would be hurt so they began to figure out that hurting others was a bad idea. And on and on it goes.

If you look at sharks they obviously don't give a rats ass about each other. I have seen episodes on TV in which the weakest shark got attacked because the rest could find no food.

Horses....can't say that I've ever seen a horse kill another. I've seen fights but no killing. Dogs are almost the same. Lots of fights but they always back off before the other gets killed. The only time one is killed is when it's a fight for the alpha male position in a wild pack (wild dogs, coyotes, wolves). There is an exception to that...dogs which have been trained to fight by idot humans.

Now frogs I would say are REALLY stupid yet I have never heard of them fighting each other. Never. But that proves nothing. I just wanted to say it!!

 

[Weatherlite]

BTW weatherlite. WRT the whole pagan religion predates everything else idea. Do you have any thoughts on the origin of the crucifix (aka sign of the cross)?? OR the Holy Trinity??

That's an interesting one. There are several "ideas" as to the origin of the cross (some call it a Celtic cross) which was actually a cross with a circle around it and each "line" in the cross was of equal length. Some say it is similar to the pentacle in that the four directions the cross points to are the four elements-fire, water, earth, wind- and that the circle around it represnts spirit. Others claim it may be to signify the four major sabbats throughout the year-solstice and equinox- with the circle signifying the wheel of life.

As for how this connects to the Christian cross....well, it's known that the cross was eventually lengthened as they carried it on a pike. This must have stuck in some way. Also, it is known that some civiliations, like the Romans, killed numerous people on a cross because the horrible way in which they died made it a dual punishment. And of course we know that Christ dies on a cross.

As for the holy trinity...well, it has existed in pagan cultures for a long time. Today some call it Mother, Maiden, Crone to dignify a single deity (the Goddess) existing as three separate deities. This is represented in the phases of the moon...the Maiden being the waxing phase, Mother the full moon and Crone being the waning phase.

Another is the Goddess, the God and the Spirit. Basically the spirit is just the lifeforce which surrounds us all and binds the universe together.

I know you're going to say something like...many religions covering a wide area of land have the same holy trinity belief so it must have come from a supreme being and that supreme being is the Christian God. Something like that, right? I don't disagree with that entirely. You see, I feel that ultimately we all worship the same God regardless of which religion we choose to follow. This same god has influenced us all since the beginning of time. Over the years MAN has invented religions to create a common means of worship. Unfortunately all organized religions have become tainted and mainly serve those who preside over them.

My belief is that as long as you serve God in the best way possible along your particular belief structure then you are doing what is right. Kinda like the Dead Sea Scrolls.....you don't need a church to worship. You don't need an organization. You don't need to say daily prayers at dawn, noon, dusk etc. You simply need to live your life right, keep him/her in your thoughts and believe.

 

[Weatherlite]

Back to the original question for a minute. If I understand Islam correctly then the terrorists are among those who have bastardized their religion in the name of their own personal goals. Yes or no?

If yes then I have to ask why do some of the Imams still support these terrorists? Why do some countries which are ruled, pretty much, by religious sects support terrorism (such as Saudi Arabia-they do but they do it quietly)? If terrorism is so against Islam then why do so many do it and so few disavow it?

BTW, does anyone know much about the particular breed of Islam that Malcom X created?

 

[Weatherlite]

And finally, I have to wonder what religions are represented here. It seems to me that CyniQ is a non-Catholic Christian. Grizz is either Atheist or Agnostic. Swing and Old Timer are Muslim and I'm a Pagan. Is this right?

 

[oldtimer]

I am very glad to see you chime in on this OT. I had hoped that you would. I know that you are an honorable man (Grizzly told me ).

With regard to Islam in general... I'll try to make my point, forgive me if I ramble. The Bible is a complex group of books documenting the actions of many peoples. But I do not believe that it contradicts itself. Those who believe that it does, do not truly comprehend scripture. To illustrate, the old testament talks about an "eye for an eye", Jesus said "turn the other cheek". This sounds like a contradiction, and technically is. But,until you understand the differences in the civilizations in question, you will not understand why God would allow one maxim at one time and then issue a different directive at a later time. Christians have done terrible things in the name of Christ. But these things were contrary to his teachings and commands. In my opinion the vast majority of Christendom today is not following the example of Christ. But, I've always thought that the beauty of the Christian doctrine, as identified in scripture. Is flexibility. The Mosaic Law is ancient and antiquated. There is no way someone could reasonably follow those commands in modern times. I believe that God knew this. That's at least part of the reason that Christ was the END of the Mosaic Law. Christ provided only 2 commands to replace the old law. Love God, and love your neighbor. That along with the example of Christ is the whole of the Christian obligation. But, back to the point.

It seems to me that Islam never made any allowance for the passage of time. Muslims are still forced to adhere to the equivalent of the pre-Christian, Mosaic Law. An antiquated group of directives that are not reasonable for modern times. A prime example is the stoning that you referred to. Is there no forgiveness? Besides that, no Muslim can practice Islam unless he is in a pro-Islam country. Because most civilized nations outlaw the brutal punishments outlined in the Qur'an (stoning) By the way, I'm not at all impressed with the supposed efforts put forth by the prophet to "save" the stonees.

With regard to the Muslim response to terrorism. I'm not saying that every Muslim has to be pro-American. But I don't see very many Imams condemning the actions of these men. Because people you know disagree, doesn't surprise me at all. I don't associate with psychopaths either. Most reasonable men don't . The very few Imams who have said something. Has been to condemn the slaughter of innocent Muslims along with the infidels. THe way I heard it. They're lives were threatened. Doesn't sound like reasonable muslims are getting much support to me. If you know of some Islamic websites that are condemning these brutal attacks. Please, posts some links. I'd love to be proven wrong on this one.

It is good that you make an articulate defense of your faith. I appreciate the response.

The Imam near my house has spoken agains it many times, and he once cried when he talked about the bloodshed and the innocent dying. I have also asked a few friends and they all said the same things about Imam's near their houses. The imams of the Haram in Mecca (Mecca is the ultimate holy city) have spoken against it since 9/11.

Right now, if an Imam speaks in good regard about the terrorists he gets arrested and questioned. If he does it again he is never allowed to speak in public again (I do not support this as this is a form of opperssion but that's a whole different matter).

People always say this to me and how Ima's here speak highly of terrorists, I simply don't know who they are talking about it. The only Imams who were free in their speech are the ones in UK. It seems that the UK government is doing something about it now after the bombings in London.

Having said the above, people in here are allowed to speak against the opperssion in Israel and Russia, and to pray for Muslims there. They are not allowed to encourage killing or bombing though.

 

[CyniQ]

Back to the original question for a minute. If I understand Islam correctly then the terrorists are among those who have bastardized their religion in the name of their own personal goals. Yes or no?

If yes then I have to ask why do some of the Imams still support these terrorists? Why do some countries which are ruled, pretty much, by religious sects support terrorism (such as Saudi Arabia-they do but they do it quietly)? If terrorism is so against Islam then why do so many do it and so few disavow it?

BTW, does anyone know much about the particular breed of Islam that Malcom X created?

This was really the point of my original question. As of yet, it has not been answered. I have the impression, based on conversations I've had with ex-muslims, and information from certain secular authorities, that the Qur'an supports the violent doctrine of the terrorist sects. And that those who disagree are largely, progressive muslims who want to support their faith but choose to interpret it in a more modern, and forgiving light.

I am of the definite opinion that in virtually every religion, the majority practice some bastardized or watered down version, and a minority holds close to the original tenets of the faith. This belief leads me to the conclusion that Catholics have Christianity all wrong and mainstream Islam, probably has it all wrong too. This is, as swing said, a wild and unsupported assertion. But... if the shoe fits.

 

[oldtimer]

Back to the original question for a minute. If I understand Islam correctly then the terrorists are among those who have bastardized their religion in the name of their own personal goals. Yes or no?

Yes

If yes then I have to ask why do some of the Imams still support these terrorists? Why do some countries which are ruled, pretty much, by religious sects support terrorism (such as Saudi Arabia-they do but they do it quietly)? If terrorism is so against Islam then why do so many do it and so few disavow it?

The Saudi government is is against it since one of the objectives of these terrorists is to actually topple the government. The Saudi government made a big mistake when it tried to deal with people who came back from Afghanistan. The Saudi governement used to portray them as heroes and pay for their travel etc. when they were fighting the Russians. When these people came back, the government tortured them and put them in prison because they were afraid that these people wanted to overthrow them. It then turned into an internal war between them and the government, which is mainly fueled by revenge.

BTW, does anyone know much about the particular breed of Islam that Malcom X created

The Islam that he preached at the beginning was wrong (the black Islam), the Islam that he preached at the end of his life (which got him killed) was the true Islam (equality etc.).

 

[CyniQ]

The Imam near my house has spoken agains it many times, and he once cried when he talked about the bloodshed and the innocent dying. I have also asked a few friends and they all said the same things about Imam's near their houses. The imams of the Haram in Mecca (Mecca is the ultimate holy city) have spoken against it since 9/11.

Right now, if an Imam speaks in good regard about the terrorists he gets arrested and questioned. If he does it again he is never allowed to speak in public again (I do not support this as this is a form of opperssion but that's a whole different matter).

People always say this to me and how Ima's here speak highly of terrorists, I simply don't know who they are talking about it. The only Imams who were free in their speech are the ones in UK. It seems that the UK government is doing something about it now after the bombings in London.

Having said the above, people in here are allowed to speak against the opperssion in Israel and Russia, and to pray for Muslims there. They are not allowed to encourage killing or bombing though.

I am very happy to hear that so many muslims have the courage to denounce the despicable acts committed by these cowards. However, I have to ask myself. "Why aren't they being heard?", "Why aren't they on the news?" Don't tell me that the American media wants to portray the image that Islamic fundamentalists are all evil terrorists. That just doesn't fit. Consider, for example, the fact that the mainstream American media doesn't even call them terrorists any more. They're either insurgents, or resistance fighters. These titles, IMO, elevate these men to a status that they do not deserve.

 

[CyniQ]

Yes



The Saudi government is is against it since one of the objectives of these terrorists is to actually topple the government. The Saudi government made a big mistake when it tried to deal with people who came back from Afghanistan. The Saudi governement used to portray them as heroes and pay for their travel etc. when they were fighting the Russians. When these people came back, the government tortured them and put them in prison because they were afraid that these people wanted to overthrow them. It then turned into an internal war between them and the government, which is mainly fueled by revenge.



The Islam that he preached at the beginning was wrong (the black Islam), the Islam that he preached at the end of his life (which got him killed) was the true Islam (equality etc.).

Very few people understand this fact. People tend to hone in on the whole, "blue-eyed devil" bit. thank you.

 

[oldtimer]

It seems to me that Islam never made any allowance for the passage of time. Muslims are still forced to adhere to the equivalent of the pre-Christian, Mosaic Law. An antiquated group of directives that are not reasonable for modern times. A prime example is the stoning that you referred to. Is there no forgiveness? Besides that, no Muslim can practice Islam unless he is in a pro-Islam country. Because most civilized nations outlaw the brutal punishments outlined in the Qur'an (stoning) By the way, I'm not at all impressed with the supposed efforts put forth by the prophet to "save" the stonees.

Islam is allowed to change overtime, but the problem is with how much change. For example, Omar (the third Khalifa [ruler] after the prophet) has removed the chopping of hands for thieves. The reason was that during his time proverty has spread and people were poor, so it made no sense to chop off their hands if they were stealing to eat and to feed their children.

Another example is stoning, I know that here in Saudi Arabia this is not practiced anymore for a long time now (I even think that it has been stopped before I was born but I'm not really sure when it was stopped).

-OT

 

[oldtimer]

You sure as fuck don't want to be killed by an axe murderer.

I know that a guy called Ricardo Arona will be killed by him.

 

[CyniQ]

I know that a guy called Ricardo Arona will be killed by him.

LMAO. See. This is what I meant when I called you an honorable man, oldtimer. A man who can be trusted with secrets. I too have faith that our good friend with do away with Mr. Arona. Good luck my friend.

 

[Grizzly]

Woah! Looks like I missed a bunch. My brain isn't working yet, so I'll just throw out what I was thinking this weekend.

Cyniq- Your theory about Pangea being the method by which "god scattered the peoples of the world" doesn't hold water. The super continent separated hundreds of thousands, if not hundreds of millions, of years before humans even existed; particularly according to the Bible.

Weatherlite- I can buy your idea of a god. When I was a young'n' I tinkered with the Pagan religions. I wore a hammer of thor for several years. In fact, my password is still related to a pagan god.

To answer your recently posed question, I guess you'd call me agnostic. Though I don't know for certain whether there is or isn't a god, what I can say is that the Judeo-Christian religions are total falsehoods. They are wrong, wrong, wrong and THEIR god most certainly, 100%, absotively does not exist. Of course, that's really pretty hard to prove, so just call it a logical conclusion.

You want some chaotic mass of energy to be called god? Ok, I can buy that. An OOOG? Nope, no siree, that's bullshit.