I disagree that the west's incursions into the middle east are for delivering democracy and feminism although that may be one of the supposed pretexts.

You know how the Aztecs used to sacrifice people to the gods? Well, that wasn't the real Aztecism. Aztecism is a religion of peace.

I disagree that the west's incursions into the middle east are for delivering democracy and feminism although that may be one of the supposed pretexts.

I thought the point was to remove a government that was rightly or wrongly considered a threat to our nation's security and economic prospects.

A good reason to go to war for me - though kind of looked down on in modern times when done pre-emptively.


You know how the Aztecs used to sacrifice people to the gods? Well, that wasn't the real Aztecism. Aztecism is a religion of peace.
An unfortunate necessity. The sun wasn't going to rise and set all by itself, and until we figure out an alternative power source for it, we'll just have to keep using human hearts. Besides, all we need to do is stop looking for foreign hearts and tap into the Latin American Reserve Population (or LARP) to boost heart production.

I disagree that the west's incursions into the middle east are for delivering democracy and feminism although that may be one of the supposed pretexts.

You know how the Aztecs used to sacrifice people to the gods? Well, that wasn't the real Aztecism. Aztecism is a religion of peace.

Your right the west's incursions in the middle east are most likely more economically motivated, in my opinion atleast. But still there are those in the west that are who using our incursions into that area as oppurtunities to spread these ideas. I'll say that while I agree with feminism and democracy on an ideological level I can't say I like the west constantly jumping in other countries' affairs.We've got enough problems of our own that we need to fix.

I'd imagine that this is why people like virus hold their opinion.
.

Arjuna, I was agreeing with a similar statement that was posted earlier.

You know how the Aztecs used to sacrifice people to the gods? Well, that wasn't the real Aztecism. Aztecism is a religion of peace.

What!?! pure nonsense

Everybody knows that the sun travels around the earth so it won't be eaten by a big sky wolf.

Already covered this.
I am not part of any sect and neither do I reject hadith... I am muslim and for a muslim the ultimate book of law is the Quran, So I base my life around the Quran and I follow the example the prophet set. Given that veryfying the accuracy of the hadith is very difficult as most of the quotes are 3rd and 4th hand quotes, I would not deem it wise to base decisions of law and human life based on what could be distorted hadith. For example... no where in the Quran does it say that apostates should be killed, but there is a ahadith which says so... taking a human life is an extreme act, and I would not follow it based on something that could be potentially faulty. Where do I follow the hadith? Where it speaks about kindness, compassion, general conduct etc. Call it being selective if you want, I call it a judgement call.


How can YOU a HUMAN make a judgement call on the WORD OF GOD? Don't you think that is massively exceeding your authority? I mean if you are going to selectively make judgement calls about the very book you religion revolves around, What is the point in following it at all. Either God knew what he wanted written or he didnt. What makes you think you can follow some parts and ingnore or reinterprate others? Cant you not see the massive hypocrasy here?

How can YOU a HUMAN make a judgement call on the WORD OF GOD? Don't you think that is massively exceeding your authority? I mean if you are going to selectively make judgement calls about the very book you religion revolves around, What is the point in following it at all. Either God knew what he wanted written or he didnt. What makes you think you can follow some parts and ingnore or reinterprate others? Cant you not see the massive hypocrasy here?

Er... I said I make a judgement call on the hadith... which are quotes from the prophet which are fallible because the prophet was after all, human. The hadith were compiled many years after the prophets death... so there is the issue of faulty transmission of facts as well as external influence.

Never once did I say I question the Quran.

Either way... I now officially remove myself from this thread... if anyone wants to have a constructive, intelligent discussion please PM me by all means. There are too many people here on a hair trigger waiting to bash Islam over facts which they have little to no understanding. I tried to explain it, some choose to overlook what I say and some choose to ignore it completely so me trying to say anything in here is futile.

Peace

Very true. Islamic apologists like Daanish to say that the koran must be interpreted according to historical context. But they do this entirely on the basis of cherry-picking. Which bits of the koran need to be historically re-interpreted? Precisely the bits that happen to be revulsive to civilisation. This is why I posted early in the discussion a good verse from the koran and asked if that was an distortion from the "real" koran. Of course, the apologist would say it can be accepted "as is".

Er... I said I make a judgement call on the hadith... which are quotes from the prophet which are fallible because the prophet was after all, human. The hadith were compiled many years after the prophets death... so there is the issue of faulty transmission of facts as well as external influence.

Never once did I say I question the Quran.

Either way... I now officially remove myself from this thread... if anyone wants to have a constructive, intelligent discussion please PM me by all means. There are too many people here on a hair trigger waiting to bash Islam over facts which they have little to no understanding. I tried to explain it, some choose to overlook what I say and some choose to ignore it completely so me trying to say anything in here is futile.

Peace


Sorry FAIL again. If the prophet cant get a consistant story going why should anyone listen to him? You do not know which bits have been changed or altered. You do not know the will of God. Only God Knows the will of God. How can you a human judge accurately on what God may or may not have meant/wanted/intended. This is one of the any hypocrasys of religion, of what people like Virus and myself do not understand. If God wanted his writings modified Would he want you making up or ignoring parts of it? I am pretty damn sure he would correct it himself or at the very least send another prophet to do it again. Plus I am sure he would be very mad at the people who couldnt or refused to get it right the first time even with the help of his divine inspiration.

I am sorry you will not be contributing to this thread anymore. This could be a great educational opportunity for the both of us.

Sorry FAIL again. If the prophet cant get a consistant story going why should anyone listen to him? You do not know which bits have been changed or altered. You do not know the will of God. Only God Knows the will of God. How can you a human judge accurately on what God may or may not have meant/wanted/intended. This is one of the any hypocrasys of religion, of what people like Virus and myself do not understand. If God wanted his writings modified Would he want you making up or ignoring parts of it? I am pretty damn sure he would correct it himself or at the very least send another prophet to do it again. Plus I am sure he would be very mad at the people who couldnt or refused to get it right the first time even with the help of his divine inspiration.

I am sorry you will not be contributing to this thread anymore. This could be a great educational opportunity for the both of us.

LOL c'mon you dont want to learn...hell even your style field tells us that.

Sorry FAIL again. If the prophet cant get a consistant story going why should anyone listen to him? You do not know which bits have been changed or altered. You do not know the will of God. Only God Knows the will of God. How can you a human judge accurately on what God may or may not have meant/wanted/intended. This is one of the any hypocrasys of religion, of what people like Virus and myself do not understand. If God wanted his writings modified Would he want you making up or ignoring parts of it? I am pretty damn sure he would correct it himself or at the very least send another prophet to do it again. Plus I am sure he would be very mad at the people who couldnt or refused to get it right the first time even with the help of his divine inspiration.

I am sorry you will not be contributing to this thread anymore. This could be a great educational opportunity for the both of us.

Once again you missed the point completely...

Consistant story? WHat are you talking about man? DO you even know what a hadith is? A hadith is a saying of the prophet... basically a quotebook of the prophets. However these were written and transcribed almost a 150 years after the death of the prophet from 2nd and 3rd hand sources. These were not revelations from God.

The Quran on the other hand contains revelations from God. And how do I claim to know what God could have wanted us to know from the Quran? Because there have been thousands of books written on the issue by scholars from the actual life and times of the prophet. They are called Quranic ocmmentaries or tafsirs. The Quran has never been modified/corrected, it can be translated into many different languages in which is loses some its original essence (once again... read my earlier posts). However the Arabic text has not since the moment it was compiled. You could burn every single Quran in the entire world and there would be people who could recite it for you... word for word and every single account would be the same.

So I'l say it once again:

THE QURAN IS THE WORD OF GOD AND IT IS UNCHANGED

THE HADITH ARE MANMADE AND THEREFORE USING JUDGEMENT IS REQUIRED.

THE QURAN IS THE WORD OF GOD AND IT IS UNCHANGEDOne of these statements you can prove, the other is pure speculation.

One of these statements you can prove, the other is pure speculation.

Bullshit you can't prove either as far as I know .

I need proof it is unchanged . Unchanged since when ?

Bullshit you can't prove either as far as I know .

I need proof it is unchanged . Unchanged since when ?

I suppose you'd prove it the same way we would prove any ancient literature is accurate to the original account. How would we go about it if this were the Illiad or the story of Gilgamesh?

Bullshit you can't prove either as far as I know .

I need proof it is unchanged . Unchanged since when ?

THE HADITH ARE MANMADE AND THEREFORE USING JUDGEMENT IS REQUIRED.

thats provable.

Very true. Islamic apologists like Daanish to say that the koran must be interpreted according to historical context. But they do this entirely on the basis of cherry-picking. Which bits of the koran need to be historically re-interpreted? Precisely the bits that happen to be revulsive to civilisation. This is why I posted early in the discussion a good verse from the koran and asked if that was an distortion from the "real" koran. Of course, the apologist would say it can be accepted "as is".

No not historical context... you are not understanding. You have to understand the situation with regards to which the verse was revealed. The Quran is not simply a book of rules... it is also a semi autobiographical account of the prophets life. SO alot of the verses that seem arbitrary were actually related to something that had just happened. That is why you have to understand what the situation was when the verse was sent. This has to be done for every verse so that you understand properly. Im not cherry picking at all and no muslim should either.

For example... the most common verse quoted by Muslim bashers is the 'smite the neck of the unbelievers verse' also popularly known as the verse as the sword. Ive already explained it but Il explain it again:

THAT PARTICULAR VERSE WAS SENT DOWN FOR A PARTICULAR SITUATION.

SITUATION:

QURAYSH BROKE THE PEACE TREATY WITH THE PROPHET.

OUTCOME:

MUHAMMAD INVADED MECCAH, ONLY 14 PEOPLE DIED, MOSTLY QURAYSH WHO ATTACKED MUHAMMAD AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.


So how does a muslim apply this verse? Does he go around killing all so called unbelievers? No he doesnt... this verse was with regards to a particular situation and therefore is only applicable in such a situation.

However, because suicide bombers and such do not understand the full context... they go killing themselves because 'the Quran says so'.

But that is not the case.

I cherry pick with the hadith... because that is the rational thing to do.

[quote]

Bullshit you can't prove either as far as I know .

I need proof it is unchanged . Unchanged since when ?

[quote/]

Millions of muslims every generation since the Quran was compiled memorised every single word of the Quran. You wouldnt be able to change it without there being a massive issue made about it. Many eclectic sects of islam (once again there should be no sects in Islam) claim that the Quran was changed, but the beginnings of these political sects were largely motivated by need for political support.