Islam, What is it? Options

[BasharTeg6]

It's fine if this is your belief, you are entitled to it, but from my perspective there are no contradictions, only failures to comprehend. This is why I brought up the question in the first place regarding Islam. I want to see these "contradictions" defended by a Muslim, because only then will there be a balanced perspective in this thread.

In case you didn't notice, the only Muslim that posted in this thread, Amaro, agreed with me.

Not sure why I skipped over that. My mistake. Though he did qualify it by saying, "...the Quran itself cannot be perfectly translated in anyway. We believe it is Allah's word and only he knows the true meaning."

Which I personally find a bit confusing. Why would Allah give his word to man if it is impossible to understand? Theologically, it is difficult to reconcile... at least for me.

And currently you are contradicting what you said earlier:

I can rationally explain many perceived contradictions of the Christian bible - which typically end up being caused by mistranslations or undue fundamentalism.

If you read carefully, it's how I explained Islam contradictions - and this explanation is valid for other religions.

No, I'm saying the same thing. Note the word "perceived." In the absence of mistranslations, undue fundamentalism, etc., there are no contradictions in the Bible. What the bible means is not contradictory.

We also owe a big part of our science and technology to the Christian church. You make an overstatement when you say Christians "crushed" scientific development. There's a difference between the proper moral guidance of scientific inquiry and a fearful book-burning.

That's false. We owe to the Church in artistic departements, but not science - Middle-age europe was underdevelopped. Although my point was not to bash the Christian Church, but emphasize how Islam used to be a religion of knowledge, as opposed to today's fundamentalism.

It seems as if you're saying "Christianity is anti-science" or "Christianity destroys science." This is false. And it's true that there was a point in history when an Islamic group had a power majority in Muslim society which emphasized open-mindedness and scientific inquiry, but this period was short-lived. I think it was around the 9th century. The group was thrown out because, politics aside, their fundamentalist competitors made a better case that in true Islam, open-mindedness and scientific inquiry were against Muslim interests. There were, of course, other discoveries made by Muslims, but to say this fundamentalism is a recent phenomenon is either a complete fabrication or the result of ignorance.

I think that until we get fresh perspective here this thread won't get very far intellectually. And I'd rather not be discussing the pros and cons of Christianity - we already made threads for that. So please don't use this thread as an excuse to attack another religion... ._.

Come on Bashar, I'm not attacking your religion. *sigh*

"Attack" may have been too strong of a word. My apologies. I suppose "criticize" would be more appropriate. In any case, I would prefer to focus on Islam here, and I would be more than happy to contend about other subjects in their proper threads.

I'm one of the few that actually defended it from Seroken's bullshit. You should know my point, by now.

Kread, I'm always grateful for your well-informed and unbiased responses! Please, don't think I'm upset. I can take a few punches with a smile

[Kread-EX]

Not sure why I skipped over that. My mistake. Though he did qualify it by saying, "...the Quran itself cannot be perfectly translated in anyway. We believe it is Allah's word and only he knows the true meaning."

Which I personally find a bit confusing. Why would Allah give his word to man if it is impossible to understand? Theologically, it is difficult to reconcile... at least for me.

Yes I can't say I really understand that part either. But then again, I know history of religions not the doctrine itself.

It seems as if you're saying "Christianity is anti-science" or "Christianity destroys science." This is false. And it's true that there was a point in history when an Islamic group had a power majority in Muslim society which emphasized open-mindedness and scientific inquiry, but this period was short-lived. I think it was around the 9th century. The group was thrown out because, politics aside, their fundamentalist competitors made a better case that in true Islam, open-mindedness and scientific inquiry were against Muslim interests. There were, of course, other discoveries made by Muslims, but to say this fundamentalism is a recent phenomenon is either a complete fabrication or the result of ignorance.

I've been unclear. I'm not saying "Christianity is anti-science" and I'm not saying "Islam is pro-science". I don't think the opposite is true as well. I was pointing how a religion is displayed can vary over the course of history.
Fundamentalism always existed and will exist as long as there are religions (unfortunately fundamentalism is not limited to religions either).
As for the specific Islamic Golden Age, it started in the 7th century, until the 13th. There was obviously fundamentalists groups back then, but generally, fundamentalism tend to prosper better when the social and economic level degrades.
As for the good side of Christianity, the Renaissance speaks for itself.
This whole part of my argument was to be added to my answer to Fetz about the personal interpretation of Islam.

I suppose "criticize" would be more appropriate. In any case, I would prefer to focus on Islam here, and I would be more than happy to contend about other subjects in their proper threads.

I see. I thought your initial post was to determine if Islam was a "religion of peace and love". I gave my opinion based on historical facts but for a debate on pure doctrine, only Muslims would really be able to answer, and there aren't many of them here...
There are specialized forums which may be able to provide a real theological debate, though.

That said, my point has been made so I don't see any reason to continue on the "external" point of view of an atheist.

[literarygoth]

It's fine if this is your belief, you are entitled to it, but from my perspective there are no contradictions, only failures to comprehend. This is why I brought up the question in the first place regarding Islam. I want to see these "contradictions" defended by a Muslim, because only then will there be a balanced perspective in this thread.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not trying to sound like I'm verbally attacking you - so please just read what I have to say without taking it personally. Your perspective isn't that of the author's - the one who wrote the Bible. There are several cases where the Bible states one thing clearly, and later on, states something else entirely. This is a contradiction. Whether you perceive it to be or not, doesn't matter. Take the verse for what it is and in it's context, it's still a contradiction.

As we've hashed out in many other threads, you can't take the Bible literally. Neither can one with the Quran. You open a thread asking Muslims or defenders of Islam to stand up and account for the contradictions in their holy text, yet at the same time try to deny the very same in your own? That in itself is a contradiction, and hypocrisy. (Again this isn't meant as an attack, I'm merely trying to find a level 'playing field')
You clearly state it here:

....This is why I brought up the question in the first place regarding Islam. I want to see these "contradictions" defended by a Muslim, because only then will there be a balanced perspective in this thread.

Now here's something interesting that you've stated as well:

Not sure why I skipped over that. My mistake. Though he did qualify it by saying, "...the Quran itself cannot be perfectly translated in anyway. We believe it is Allah's word and only he knows the true meaning."

Which I personally find a bit confusing. Why would Allah give his word to man if it is impossible to understand? Theologically, it is difficult to reconcile... at least for me.

Again, the same can be said for the Bible. Most of the accounts portrayed within the Bible are written (as some would say) from a metaphorical point of view. Some believe it to be from a literal point of view. Add to this discrepancy in beliefs the mistranslations, re-translations, multiple authors with varying opinions....you get the point.
Standing where we are now, some 2000 years (give or take) after the fact, it's ridiculous for anyone to find truth in either text without wading through the contradictions.

There are over zealous Christians and Catholics around the world.
There are over zealous Muslims around the world.

Islam, at it's heart - from the people I know personally (work with, go to school with etc) falls along similar lines as what Christianity and Catholicism are at their hearts as well. A belief system meant to bring structure and harmony to a persons life, give them the sense of togetherness (they're not alone), and that there is a 'higher power' that cherishes all life and will be there with open arms when they've passed on.

Personally, I've met people of various religions over my relatively short life. Living in a multicultural nation, and a very multicultural city has given me exposure to many different peoples. The most closed minded persons I've met have been for the most part staunchly religious Catholics, and some Christians.
The majority of Muslims I've met have been very respectful of other people's beliefs and are very interested in hearing, sharing, and learning about other people's beliefs. The only issue with Muslims that I've encountered is a deep rooted anger, near hostility in some, towards those that instantly brand them as terrorists because they're Muslim. Can you blame them really?

Jihad - as Fetz explained (in terms of Islam) - means struggle. Many Muslims interpret this as their own personal struggle, what they must overcome. There are those (Taliban...?) that take it to another level. They believe it to be a holy war for them to go forth and slaughter those that don't believe.

Ask a Muslim in your area about their beliefs - without mentioning 9-11 and you may very well be surprised at what you'll hear. I say without mentioning 9-11 because most westerners have been so polluted by the imagery and everything surrounding 9-11 that blatant ignorance towards Muslims is a direct result.

This post has been edited by literarygoth: Dec 5 2010, 10:11 AM

[amaro57]

All I meant when I said "Allah knows the true meaning" is that not every bit of the Qur'an CAN be translated. There are some Surat that start with the three arabic letters: "Alif Lam Meem", "Those are the verses of the Holy Qur'an." What these three stand for, we don't know (there are numerous speculations), but the rest we can understand (or try to) very normally.

What literary has said is true. We consider our lives as our own personal struggles, our own tests. You can say that based on how we score on this test (Good or Bad), that is how we'll enter Heaven or Hell.

Not saying Islam hasn't created it's flaws as well. A certain era in history after the death of Prophet Muhammad, leaders were appointed (Khulafa') and each one took the position by decision from the people. I'll be brief, after Prophet Muhammad some people believed that Ali was to be pointed the first Khalifa (singular of Khulafa'). Yet, it didn't happen and Abu-Baker took the position instead. The people who believe that Ali was supposed to be first separated themselves from the rest. We now call them Shea'. The rest of us who are on the actual religion are called Sunni (Like the Sunah of the Prophet). Some that live in my area have gone as far as to claim that it was Ali who should have received the Message and not Prophet Muhammad, their strange rituals also creep me out to be honest. ._.

If you want to hear my beliefs, I'll be happy to share. ^-^

[BasharTeg6]

It's fine if this is your belief, you are entitled to it, but from my perspective there are no contradictions, only failures to comprehend. This is why I brought up the question in the first place regarding Islam. I want to see these "contradictions" defended by a Muslim, because only then will there be a balanced perspective in this thread.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not trying to sound like I'm verbally attacking you - so please just read what I have to say without taking it personally. Your perspective isn't that of the author's - the one who wrote the Bible. There are several cases where the Bible states one thing clearly, and later on, states something else entirely. This is a contradiction. Whether you perceive it to be or not, doesn't matter. Take the verse for what it is and in it's context, it's still a contradiction.

How do you know what the perspective of the author is, and how can you judge what he says is contradictory? I'm saying that I think I have a pretty good idea of these things, not just because it's a feeling of mine but because it holds up theologically.

As we've hashed out in many other threads, you can't take the Bible literally. Neither can one with the Quran. You open a thread asking Muslims or defenders of Islam to stand up and account for the contradictions in their holy text, yet at the same time try to deny the very same in your own? That in itself is a contradiction, and hypocrisy. (Again this isn't meant as an attack, I'm merely trying to find a level 'playing field')
You clearly state it here:

....This is why I brought up the question in the first place regarding Islam. I want to see these "contradictions" defended by a Muslim, because only then will there be a balanced perspective in this thread.

I put the word contradictions in quotes to emphasize that I'm not actually sure if they are really contradictions or not. As I've said repeatedly in this thread, I am not very knowledgeable about Islam so I can't pretend to have a better view of the Qu'ran than an actual Muslim, so I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them to explain. I am NOT trying to disprove Islam, only understand it and from there create an informed opinion.

Now here's something interesting that you've stated as well:

Not sure why I skipped over that. My mistake. Though he did qualify it by saying, "...the Quran itself cannot be perfectly translated in anyway. We believe it is Allah's word and only he knows the true meaning."

Which I personally find a bit confusing. Why would Allah give his word to man if it is impossible to understand? Theologically, it is difficult to reconcile... at least for me.

Again, the same can be said for the Bible. Most of the accounts portrayed within the Bible are written (as some would say) from a metaphorical point of view. Some believe it to be from a literal point of view. Add to this discrepancy in beliefs the mistranslations, re-translations, multiple authors with varying opinions....you get the point.
Standing where we are now, some 2000 years (give or take) after the fact, it's ridiculous for anyone to find truth in either text without wading through the contradictions.

"Wading through the contradictions," as you say, is something I've done a great deal of using critical thought and listening to the ideas of well-educated theologians from both the present and times passed. I don't simply sit back and look at everything and say, "well, there's too much here to deal with so I'm not going to bother and just say it's all one big contradiction!" or "well, I don't get how it works but I assume it does so I'm not going to bother with the details." That's like saying physics is too complicated so I'm just going to accept that things fall when I drop them and not bother investigating it further, or deny that things fall at all.

There are over zealous Christians and Catholics around the world.
There are over zealous Muslims around the world.

Define "over-zealous," please.

Islam, at it's heart - from the people I know personally (work with, go to school with etc) falls along similar lines as what Christianity and Catholicism are at their hearts as well. A belief system meant to bring structure and harmony to a persons life, give them the sense of togetherness (they're not alone), and that there is a 'higher power' that cherishes all life and will be there with open arms when they've passed on.

As far as Christianity goes, this isn't really true. While the teachings of Christ do bring structure, harmony, a sense of togetherness, etc., the heart of Christianity is the Truth of God's existence and how his Love has manifested itself throughout creation.


Jihad - as Fetz explained (in terms of Islam) - means struggle. Many Muslims interpret this as their own personal struggle, what they must overcome. There are those (Taliban...?) that take it to another level. They believe it to be a holy war for them to go forth and slaughter those that don't believe.

I suppose to clarify on this point, I'm interested in what the most devout Muslims believe. This would generally be the most high-ranking religious leaders but could also include prominent religious laity. Saying "most Muslims believe 'x'" is helpful but it doesn't really pin down what I'm looking for.

Ask a Muslim in your area about their beliefs - without mentioning 9-11 and you may very well be surprised at what you'll hear. I say without mentioning 9-11 because most westerners have been so polluted by the imagery and everything surrounding 9-11 that blatant ignorance towards Muslims is a direct result.

Yes, I might, simply because I'm not particularly knowledgeable. Again, I am NOT out to destroy Islam, only to understand it.

@amaro57:

That's very informative, thank you! Please, allow me to continue the conversation...

All I meant when I said "Allah knows the true meaning" is that not every bit of the Qur'an CAN be translated. There are some Surat that start with the three arabic letters: "Alif Lam Meem", "Those are the verses of the Holy Qur'an." What these three stand for, we don't know (there are numerous speculations), but the rest we can understand (or try to) very normally.

Just so I understand, you're saying "Alif Lam Meem" means "Those are the verses of the Holy Qur'an?" If so, that just seems like a figure of speech, sort of a preparation for the coming lesson. It could also denote the importance of the coming passage. That's just my own speculation, though.

What literary has said is true. We consider our lives as our own personal struggles, our own tests. You can say that based on how we score on this test (Good or Bad), that is how we'll enter Heaven or Hell.

So would you say good actions negate bad actions, much like Karma? Or is it a different dynamic? How much "good" do you need to enter Heaven and how much "bad" do you need to enter Hell? Is there a place in between? Is there a concept of forgiveness?

Sorry if it seems like I'm asking a lot of questions, but these will lay some basic groundwork for my understanding.

Not saying Islam hasn't created it's flaws as well. A certain era in history after the death of Prophet Muhammad, leaders were appointed (Khulafa') and each one took the position by decision from the people. I'll be brief, after Prophet Muhammad some people believed that Ali was to be pointed the first Khalifa (singular of Khulafa'). Yet, it didn't happen and Abu-Baker took the position instead. The people who believe that Ali was supposed to be first separated themselves from the rest. We now call them Shea'. The rest of us who are on the actual religion are called Sunni (Like the Sunah of the Prophet). Some that live in my area have gone as far as to claim that it was Ali who should have received the Message and not Prophet Muhammad, their strange rituals also creep me out to be honest.

I wouldn't necessarily call that situation a "flaw." That seems more like internal politics than anything. Any institution, religious or not, will experience the same problem - people will question the heir to a throne so long as it affects them negatively.

Please, if you have anything else you'd like to share it would be most welcome.

[brightcrazystar]

I have a question. I will try and make it as humble and non-condescending as possible, but it is somewhat critical.

I know a good bit about the early history of Islam, and have read the english accepted translation of the Quran. It seems to me, that there are mentions of things from the books the bible is based on, the greatest parts being parts of the Torah. If this book is THE book from God Allah himself, then why would it be written as clearly as a commentary on the books of the Jews and Christians which are not required reading? For example, the "Bible". This is why, channeled work it may be, it seems hardly complete and linearly consistent as one would expect THE book of God Allah himself to be. The story fo Abraham is no exception, as it seems you almost have to have read the story of Abraham elsewhere to even understand the "corrections" the Quran makes to his story. Even moreso with the story of Jesus and Moses.

I read a good bit of ways to deal both harshly and fairly with men, but most of all I couldn't help but feel that lots of this books were commentaries and redactions of other religions that were clearly prominent among early converts. And as the original remnants were destroyed, who is to say the books are the actual intent of the Prophet as it were. Moses was dead before his
Torah was compiled, Jesus was dead before his Testament was written, so much it seems is true of the prophet of Islam.


Forgive any offense which is felt from my asking this, but I don't see where cultural exposure to biblical tales would be learned if not in the bible by these early Muslim converts.

[amaro57]

I have a question. I will try and make it as humble and non-condescending as possible, but it is somewhat critical.

I know a good bit about the early history of Islam, and have read the english accepted translation of the Quran. It seems to me, that there are mentions of things from the books the bible is based on, the greatest parts being parts of the Torah. If this book is THE book from God Allah himself, then why would it be written as clearly as a commentary on the books of the Jews and Christians which are not required reading? For example, the "Bible". This is why, channeled work it may be, it seems hardly complete and linearly consistent as one would expect THE book of God Allah himself to be. The story fo Abraham is no exception, as it seems you almost have to have read the story of Abraham elsewhere to even understand the "corrections" the Quran makes to his story. Even moreso with the story of Jesus and Moses.

I read a good bit of ways to deal both harshly and fairly with men, but most of all I couldn't help but feel that lots of this books were commentaries and redactions of other religions that were clearly prominent among early converts. And as the original remnants were destroyed, who is to say the books are the actual intent of the Prophet as it were. Moses was dead before his
Torah was compiled, Jesus was dead before his Testament was written, so much it seems is true of the prophet of Islam.


Forgive any offense which is felt from my asking this, but I don't see where cultural exposure to biblical tales would be learned if not in the bible by these early Muslim converts.

These commentaries made in the Qur'an about the Bible and the Torah are meant for the Christians and Jews to read from in order to know what has been altered in their respective books. Also, to adjust their faith accordingly in order to become the followers of the authentic books that were revealed to Jesus and Moses. As for the Muslims, it is to learn lessons from the previous attempts of altering the Bible and the Torah so as not to fall into the same trap, also to strengthen their belief that Moses, Jesus, and all the Prophets came with the same message from God, the one God, no partners or associates. This message has been reiterated, reinforced, and completed by what has been revealed by this one God onto Mohammad.

You've mostly answered yourself on another note, we can't say the compilation of the messages of Jesus and Moses were their actual intent. The Qur'an is different from the Bibal and Torah, it's style and such cannot be replicated (the original classic arabic text, not the translations) and thus, altered (people before have tried like the challengers of Prophet Muhammad but none succeeded). If an alteration was ever made it would be painfully obvious compared to the rest of the Qur'an.

[theBreadSultan]

before i answer i want to make one thing clear -

I am not a hippy, I hate Hippies (and communists)

All religions are the same - you are simply debating the different sides of the same Dice. - regardless of your religion - if the overruling message you take away cannot be summed up in a single word - LOVE - then you have read it wrong.

Christopher Haffner's own explanation of how the Masonic concept of a Great Architect of the Universe, as a placeholder for the Supreme Being of one's choice, is given in Workman Unashamed:

"Now imagine me standing in lodge with my head bowed in prayer between Brother Mohammed Bokhary and Brother Arjun Melwani. To neither of them is the Great Architect of the Universe perceived as the Holy Trinity. To Brother Bokhary He has been revealed as Allah; to Brother Melwani He is probably perceived as Vishnu. Since I believe that there is only one God, I am confronted with three possibilities:
They are praying to the devil whilst I am praying to God;
They are praying to nothing, as their Gods do not exist;
They are praying to the same God as I, yet their understanding of His nature is partly incomplete (as indeed is mine — 1 Cor 13:12)
It is without hesitation that I accept the third possibility."[6]

[BasharTeg6]

before i answer i want to make one thing clear -

I am not a hippy, I hate Hippies (and communists)

All religions are the same - you are simply debating the different sides of the same Dice. - regardless of your religion - if the overruling message you take away cannot be summed up in a single word - LOVE - then you have read it wrong.

Christopher Haffner's own explanation of how the Masonic concept of a Great Architect of the Universe, as a placeholder for the Supreme Being of one's choice, is given in Workman Unashamed:

"Now imagine me standing in lodge with my head bowed in prayer between Brother Mohammed Bokhary and Brother Arjun Melwani. To neither of them is the Great Architect of the Universe perceived as the Holy Trinity. To Brother Bokhary He has been revealed as Allah; to Brother Melwani He is probably perceived as Vishnu. Since I believe that there is only one God, I am confronted with three possibilities:
They are praying to the devil whilst I am praying to God;
They are praying to nothing, as their Gods do not exist;
They are praying to the same God as I, yet their understanding of His nature is partly incomplete (as indeed is mine �€� 1 Cor 13:12)
It is without hesitation that I accept the third possibility."[6]

All religions are not the same. And you definitely sound like a hippy. Furthermore, you fail to explain what LOVE is, essentially making it an empty word with no meaning to any outside observer. Simply saying that the message of all religions is "love" is totally off base. If I walked up to you one day and just said, "Love," you would get nothing out of it. You can add your own connotations to what I say, such as, "You should love," or "Love is great," or "Love is the meaning of everything," but then that's saying more than just "Love."

If you try and simplify religions down to a common denominator it's the same thing as saying "the message of all sports is exercise, therefore all sports are the same." But not all sports require exercise. Golf, for example. When you go around with the thought that all religions are the same, you stop thinking about religion.

[seliphail]

Woohoo Religious discussion!

Seems a lil late but I'll try to clam the waters a bit. I am a proud Catholic and I am majoring in Theology, and no I'm not biased. =3

Ultimately, religions are what you take from them. A Catholic might have the same experience, knowledge, understanding, (basically be exactly equal to) a Lutheran, because of a variety of reasons. This could be the community, the country, anything. Point being, religions are what you make of them, they don't magically transform you into another person entirely.

I'd explain a bit about Islam but it's already gone into much deeper detail than I know. xD So, I'll skip this part.

Islam DOES have parts where it (loosely) says 'Kill the non-believers' and elsewhere it says 'Spare them', though it's VERY wrong to say they contradict each other.
The example of The Bible's New Testament vs. Old Testament came in. It's not really a fair comparison. The Old Testament was written down by scribes inspired by God (if you swing with the theology thing) over a HUNDRED years after the events took place. The only exception being with the prophets, who sometimes recorded their works. You absolutely CANNOT take the Old Testament literally. otherwise there would be two Earths (Genesis 1:1 and 1:2-3), and an Angel guarding some garden with a flaming sword. Before any Christians jump on me, yes I know I'm using ambiguous terms, but I don't want to cram Christianity down anyone's throats.
The New Testament, however, was written down within 20 years of the occurrences, by either the Apostles themselves or their first apprentices, so it is much more accurate. To say the old and New Testaments contradict each other would be true if you ignore things such as time and culture. In the Old Testament, laws were given by God and through Moses to govern Israel appropriately at that time. The exact date is unsure, but a few hundred years at the least, probably much more. When Jesus came down and all of that good stuff (don't kill me, I know xD) the Law was perfected to what it should be, because all manner of things were now available to us as human beings. Sacraments, primarily.
So think of it this way. We had laws in America that allowed marijuana, cocaine, slaves, etc. but times changed and laws were revised so as to provide justice to a changing culture. Same with Old-New Testament.

Back on topic now (sorry for the semi-rant), the Quran is largely the same fashion. You -HAVE- to take into consideration the time, place, culture, and setting (basically the ENTIRE context) before you go off saying that Islam is one thing or anything. Yes, I'm sure it does say something along the lines of 'Kill the infidels' (no offense, trying to summarize to keep the post short) somewhere in the Quran. Well, the Bible has that too. 'Smite the Samaritans so they might know the wrath of God'. From the laws of the USA 'Shoot to kill'. I can't speak for the Quran's "verse", but in the Bible that was spoken because they were being attacked, overrun, raping, pillaging, etc. The first part of the USA Law is 'In the event of an attacker with murderous intent, shoot to kill.'

Point being, never take the verses for just verses. Read the ENTIRE section, and then make a judgment about it. Not saying people haven't, or whatever, no offense, etc.

Finally back to my original point, religion is what you make from it. I know several Muslims that I used to work with that are some of the nicest people you could ever meet. They knew their faith, and they really opened my eyes to the inner workings of Islam, which was incredibly similar to Christianity. I also know some Muslims who say that women should be stoned to death for not wearing a burca properly.
Likewise, I know some Catholics who are very nice, passive, and charitable. I also know some who said we should have burned more Protestants at the stake 400 years ago.

Religions are what you make of them. Almost all of them are aimed at realizing and understanding the truth, and all of them have their reasons for being the real truth. In the end, it's your choice.

[Sparrowsmith]

Islam is not my strong point, so I can't say much on it. I will however correct/infer some points.

before i answer i want to make one thing clear -

I am not a hippy, I hate Hippies (and communists)

All religions are the same - you are simply debating the different sides of the same Dice. - regardless of your religion - if the overruling message you take away cannot be summed up in a single word - LOVE - then you have read it wrong.

Christopher Haffner's own explanation of how the Masonic concept of a Great Architect of the Universe, as a placeholder for the Supreme Being of one's choice, is given in Workman Unashamed:

"Now imagine me standing in lodge with my head bowed in prayer between Brother Mohammed Bokhary and Brother Arjun Melwani. To neither of them is the Great Architect of the Universe perceived as the Holy Trinity. To Brother Bokhary He has been revealed as Allah; to Brother Melwani He is probably perceived as Vishnu. Since I believe that there is only one God, I am confronted with three possibilities:
They are praying to the devil whilst I am praying to God;
They are praying to nothing, as their Gods do not exist;
They are praying to the same God as I, yet their understanding of His nature is partly incomplete (as indeed is mine �€� 1 Cor 13:12)
It is without hesitation that I accept the third possibility."[6]

All religions are not the same. And you definitely sound like a hippy. Furthermore, you fail to explain what LOVE is, essentially making it an empty word with no meaning to any outside observer. Simply saying that the message of all religions is "love" is totally off base. If I walked up to you one day and just said, "Love," you would get nothing out of it. You can add your own connotations to what I say, such as, "You should love," or "Love is great," or "Love is the meaning of everything," but then that's saying more than just "Love."

If you try and simplify religions down to a common denominator it's the same thing as saying "the message of all sports is exercise, therefore all sports are the same." But not all sports require exercise. Golf, for example. When you go around with the thought that all religions are the same, you stop thinking about religion.

Love is an empty word, but so is god.
This is why more theists convert (or de-convert) than atheists.
It's important to point out that most religious people will say that god is love, which I guess only makes what I'm saying more true. Regardless, if you believe your god is defensible on name alone, then love must also be defensible in name alone, and so Sultan's argument becomes valid again.
Hume originally came up with this concept (empty words, or meaningless ideas)

Woohoo Religious discussion!

Seems a lil late but I'll try to clam the waters a bit. I am a proud Catholic and I am majoring in Theology, and no I'm not biased. =3

Ultimately, religions are what you take from them. A Catholic might have the same experience, knowledge, understanding, (basically be exactly equal to) a Lutheran, because of a variety of reasons. This could be the community, the country, anything. Point being, religions are what you make of them, they don't magically transform you into another person entirely.

I'd explain a bit about Islam but it's already gone into much deeper detail than I know. xD So, I'll skip this part.

Islam DOES have parts where it (loosely) says 'Kill the non-believers' and elsewhere it says 'Spare them', though it's VERY wrong to say they contradict each other.
The example of The Bible's New Testament vs. Old Testament came in. It's not really a fair comparison. The Old Testament was written down by scribes inspired by God (if you swing with the theology thing) over a HUNDRED years after the events took place. The only exception being with the prophets, who sometimes recorded their works. You absolutely CANNOT take the Old Testament literally. otherwise there would be two Earths (Genesis 1:1 and 1:2-3), and an Angel guarding some garden with a flaming sword. Before any Christians jump on me, yes I know I'm using ambiguous terms, but I don't want to cram Christianity down anyone's throats.
The New Testament, however, was written down within 20 years of the occurrences, by either the Apostles themselves or their first apprentices, so it is much more accurate. To say the old and New Testaments contradict each other would be true if you ignore things such as time and culture. In the Old Testament, laws were given by God and through Moses to govern Israel appropriately at that time. The exact date is unsure, but a few hundred years at the least, probably much more. When Jesus came down and all of that good stuff (don't kill me, I know xD) the Law was perfected to what it should be, because all manner of things were now available to us as human beings. Sacraments, primarily.
So think of it this way. We had laws in America that allowed marijuana, cocaine, slaves, etc. but times changed and laws were revised so as to provide justice to a changing culture. Same with Old-New Testament.

Back on topic now (sorry for the semi-rant), the Quran is largely the same fashion. You -HAVE- to take into consideration the time, place, culture, and setting (basically the ENTIRE context) before you go off saying that Islam is one thing or anything. Yes, I'm sure it does say something along the lines of 'Kill the infidels' (no offense, trying to summarize to keep the post short) somewhere in the Quran. Well, the Bible has that too. 'Smite the Samaritans so they might know the wrath of God'. From the laws of the USA 'Shoot to kill'. I can't speak for the Quran's "verse", but in the Bible that was spoken because they were being attacked, overrun, raping, pillaging, etc. The first part of the USA Law is 'In the event of an attacker with murderous intent, shoot to kill.'

Point being, never take the verses for just verses. Read the ENTIRE section, and then make a judgment about it. Not saying people haven't, or whatever, no offense, etc.

Finally back to my original point, religion is what you make from it. I know several Muslims that I used to work with that are some of the nicest people you could ever meet. They knew their faith, and they really opened my eyes to the inner workings of Islam, which was incredibly similar to Christianity. I also know some Muslims who say that women should be stoned to death for not wearing a burca properly.
Likewise, I know some Catholics who are very nice, passive, and charitable. I also know some who said we should have burned more Protestants at the stake 400 years ago.

Religions are what you make of them. Almost all of them are aimed at realizing and understanding the truth, and all of them have their reasons for being the real truth. In the end, it's your choice.

Considering you are studying theology I find it confusing how you think this:

The New Testament, however, was written down within 20 years of the occurrences,

The first gospel was not mentioned anywhere in recorded history until around seventy years after the events, and all four gospels were not mentioned together until roughly 170 years after.
However, christianity was growing during this time through word of mouth, not through the gospels, which makes it as reliable as the old testament. Furthermore, reading laterally the gospels completely fail to compliment each other, and it becomes obvious that they were written one after the other with embellishments and inconsistencies added.
The problem is that the writers were all (as with the old testament) misunderstanding each other's texts, and so you end up with four very different stories - Which amount to chinese whispers.

We had laws in America that allowed marijuana, cocaine, slaves, etc. but times changed and laws were revised so as to provide justice to a changing culture. Same with Old-New Testament.

Also feel I should point out that marijuana was banned to control mexican immigrants... Which IS slavery.
This didn't go down so well, so alcohol and having a good time were banned and marijuana was tagged on. Because marijuana is not addictive, people didn't care as much, and it stayed banned


Anyway, this post has been very off topic so I'll attempt to pull it back, I just felt like correcting some factual errors I saw.
I would also like to stress that while I believe no religious text has any weight at all, the gods they preach of may still exist. I think the bible should be burned for its messages, but the Judeo-Christian god is (if he exists) a good god and should be praised. I believe the bible paints him as evil thanks to incompetent writers...
Same goes for Allah really.


The problem with Islam, the real problem, is the same problem that pretty much every religion has:
1 - God is Loving
2 - God has a plan
3 - Anything that happens is part of god's plan
4 - Unless the thing that happens is bad, then it wasn't god's plan at all.
5 - If the thing was really bad then you should kill the person that did it.
6 - That's god's plan.

The difference in behavior of the religious (namely the islamic) is point 5. Most muslims say that few things are bad enough that people should die for them, however, some believe that anything is worth killing over.
That is it.
There are other flaws that stem from the same philosophy but for other religions (Until death do us part? But the afterlife is eternal and so is love. Ergo, no one believes in heaven) but I'll save those arguments for another time.

For now enjoy that extremism is all in the measure of 5, at what point is it ok to kill. For some, it is the colour of your skin, for others it is what you ate for breakfast, for others it is for the country you were born in, for others it is only if you have killed.
If 5, then 6.

[seliphail]

The first gospel was not mentioned anywhere in recorded history until around seventy years after the events, and all four gospels were not mentioned together until roughly 170 years after.

You're right, the first evidence of anything being distributed and such didn't happen for another 70-ish years. The first Public Christian Bible in recorded history was in the early 1400's, which is obviously 1400 years after the events.

They -were- recorded within 20-30 years, but they weren't distributed until Christianity really spread. The multiple letters are trusted to be word for word what they wrote. The letters were written either immediately before or immediately after/concurrently (depending on which apostle you're referring to) their gospel was transcribed from memory to pages.


The steps you listed is actually exactly why you can't lump religions together. Catholics believe only the first 3 steps. God has a plan for us, if we stray from it he adjusts His plan. Nothing ever truly defies it. Certain Protestant denominations, however, believe in #'s 1-5, but not 6. Heck, some Protestants deny all 6. Some deny only #2, etc. etc.

Islam declares Jesus as merely a Prophet, wheras in Catholocism He is the Messiah. There's a huuuuuuge difference, so I don't know how you can say Islam only differs in point 5. Repeat ad infinitum for other religions, many of them accept Jesus but as a different person or role, all of which are major changes.

If you'd like to discuss the 'Death do us part' thing in PMs or elsewhere I'd be happy to. =3

[Mcoot]

The first gospel was not mentioned anywhere in recorded history until around seventy years after the events, and all four gospels were not mentioned together until roughly 170 years after.
However, christianity was growing during this time through word of mouth, not through the gospels, which makes it as reliable as the old testament. Furthermore, reading laterally the gospels completely fail to compliment each other, and it becomes obvious that they were written one after the other with embellishments and inconsistencies added.
The problem is that the writers were all (as with the old testament) misunderstanding each other's texts, and so you end up with four very different stories - Which amount to chinese whispers.

Exactly.

And then you've got the problem of canon. There aren't just four gospels. There are approximately 18 books... but some aren't included in the biblical canon. What about what's said in these? Are they infallibly accurate too?


Thing is, 'Allah' (which is the arabic word meaning 'god') is the same god as the Judeo-Christian god - the Abrahamic God, that is. Most Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet. It shares the same basic roots as Judaism and Christianity.

[BasharTeg6]

Love is an empty word, but so is god.
This is why more theists convert (or de-convert) than atheists.
It's important to point out that most religious people will say that god is love, which I guess only makes what I'm saying more true. Regardless, if you believe your god is defensible on name alone, then love must also be defensible in name alone, and so Sultan's argument becomes valid again.
Hume originally came up with this concept (empty words, or meaningless ideas)

It's only an empty word in the way he's using it. But perhaps empty isn't the right way to describe it - ambiguous might be more appropriate. It amounts to saying all things that are green are the same because of their color.

Woohoo Religious discussion!

Seems a lil late but I'll try to clam the waters a bit. I am a proud Catholic and I am majoring in Theology, and no I'm not biased. =3

Ultimately, religions are what you take from them. A Catholic might have the same experience, knowledge, understanding, (basically be exactly equal to) a Lutheran, because of a variety of reasons. This could be the community, the country, anything. Point being, religions are what you make of them, they don't magically transform you into another person entirely.

I'm not sure about that. I agree that people are influenced differently by religion, but when these influences directly contradict each other it's hard to say that the over-arching "message" of a religion applies equally to both.

What I'm trying to understand in this thread is the core of Islam - basically, how Islam influences a person's life if they invest themselves totally to its true meaning, or what the "true meaning" actually is.

Back on topic now (sorry for the semi-rant), the Quran is largely the same fashion. You -HAVE- to take into consideration the time, place, culture, and setting (basically the ENTIRE context) before you go off saying that Islam is one thing or anything. Yes, I'm sure it does say something along the lines of 'Kill the infidels' (no offense, trying to summarize to keep the post short) somewhere in the Quran. Well, the Bible has that too. 'Smite the Samaritans so they might know the wrath of God'. From the laws of the USA 'Shoot to kill'. I can't speak for the Quran's "verse", but in the Bible that was spoken because they were being attacked, overrun, raping, pillaging, etc. The first part of the USA Law is 'In the event of an attacker with murderous intent, shoot to kill.'

Point being, never take the verses for just verses. Read the ENTIRE section, and then make a judgment about it. Not saying people haven't, or whatever, no offense, etc.

Right. I suppose I'll have to read the Qu'ran to reach a better understanding, but I was rather curious about what an actual Muslim thinks.

Finally back to my original point, religion is what you make from it. I know several Muslims that I used to work with that are some of the nicest people you could ever meet. They knew their faith, and they really opened my eyes to the inner workings of Islam, which was incredibly similar to Christianity. I also know some Muslims who say that women should be stoned to death for not wearing a burca properly.
Likewise, I know some Catholics who are very nice, passive, and charitable. I also know some who said we should have burned more Protestants at the stake 400 years ago.

Religions are what you make of them. Almost all of them are aimed at realizing and understanding the truth, and all of them have their reasons for being the real truth. In the end, it's your choice.

It is, indeed, everyone's choice, which is why I'm against "burning Protestants at the stake." But I think religions are more static than what you're giving them credit for. People will interpret them differently and can be either right or wrong, orthodox or unorthodox, but the original "message" doesn't change with interpretation.

The problem is that the writers were all (as with the old testament) misunderstanding each other's texts, and so you end up with four very different stories - Which amount to chinese whispers.

Actually if you line up the first three gospels together, the writings are quite similar. They are, of course, in different styles, and much of the dialogue is different, but the events themselves are largely the same. The fourth gospel omits a few events here and there and describes a few others in more detail in other places, but it's pretty clear that it's the same person being described (Jesus.) There would be no value in all of the gospels being exactly the same - each one was written by different people and for different audiences.

BUT ANYWAY. We're talking about Christianity again. Can we get back to Islam?

Anyway, this post has been very off topic so I'll attempt to pull it back, I just felt like correcting some factual errors I saw.
I would also like to stress that while I believe no religious text has any weight at all, the gods they preach of may still exist. I think the bible should be burned for its messages, but the Judeo-Christian god is (if he exists) a good god and should be praised. I believe the bible paints him as evil thanks to incompetent writers...
Same goes for Allah really.

A religious text shouldn't be "painting" God as anything other than what He is, and I believe the bible is pretty accurate in that respect. But I also don't think it makes God seem "evil." Same goes for Islam - it is inextricably tied to the Qu'ran.

The steps you listed is actually exactly why you can't lump religions together. Catholics believe only the first 3 steps. God has a plan for us, if we stray from it he adjusts His plan. Nothing ever truly defies it. Certain Protestant denominations, however, believe in #'s 1-5, but not 6. Heck, some Protestants deny all 6. Some deny only #2, etc. etc.

I don't think that's entirely accurate. What we're getting into here is kind of a time/power paradox concerning God. It might be best for us to understand it that way, but under scrutiny this belief falls apart and therefore cannot be Truth. But I'm not a theologian, so for me this becomes murky waters.

And then you've got the problem of canon. There aren't just four gospels. There are approximately 18 books... but some aren't included in the biblical canon. What about what's said in these? Are they infallibly accurate too?

A written word cannot be infallible. To be infallible means to be incapable of making a mistake, and ink on a page cannot make mistakes. What the bible IS though is inerrant, or free from error. In other words, the bible is a recording of pure Truth. In order for you to understand pure Truth then, you the reader must read the bible without any mistakes of interpretation. And since you, presumably, are not an infallible person, any inability to reconcile Truth from the bible is undeniably your "mistake."

All of the books in the bible, Old Testament and New, are inerrant. Any spiritual books that were not made part of the bible were not considered to be "inspired by the Holy Spirit" and, while they may describe Truth, they are not necessarily inerrant.

Thing is, 'Allah' (which is the arabic word meaning 'god') is the same god as the Judeo-Christian god - the Abrahamic God, that is. Most Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet. It shares the same basic roots as Judaism and Christianity.

Absolutely not. Allah != God. The word "god" as a root is inconsequential. Allah and God are not the same person - you only need to compare the Bible and the Qu'ran to discover that. And as seliphail pointed out, "prophet" and "Messiah" are completely different. Islam and Christianity share the same root in that Islam is, from what I understand, a blend of Judaism and other religions. But sharing the same root doesn't mean the two are the same any more than a common parent makes siblings the same person.

[Mcoot]

Absolutely not. Allah != God. The word "god" as a root is inconsequential. Allah and God are not the same person - you only need to compare the Bible and the Qu'ran to discover that. And as seliphail pointed out, "prophet" and "Messiah" are completely different. Islam and Christianity share the same root in that Islam is, from what I understand, a blend of Judaism and other religions. But sharing the same root doesn't mean the two are the same any more than a common parent makes siblings the same person.

It does depend on interpretation. Would you say that Jews believe in the 'same god' as Christians? It's the same scenario: the two share the same root (though admittedly more directly than islam).

A written word cannot be infallible. To be infallible means to be incapable of making a mistake, and ink on a page cannot make mistakes. What the bible IS though is inerrant, or free from error. In other words, the bible is a recording of pure Truth. In order for you to understand pure Truth then, you the reader must read the bible without any mistakes of interpretation. And since you, presumably, are not an infallible person, any inability to reconcile Truth from the bible is undeniably your "mistake."

All of the books in the bible, Old Testament and New, are inerrant. Any spiritual books that were not made part of the bible were not considered to be "inspired by the Holy Spirit" and, while they may describe Truth, they are not necessarily inerrant.

Even if you take the bible's 'original' form as inerrant, then you agree that in modern translations there must be some errors in translation. This is what fascinates me most about 'King James Version (KJV) only' Christians. They love to talk about how that particular translation is supposedly inerrant, and yet historically, it is considered by theologians and biblical scholars to be poorly translated, and modified for political reasons.

But I don't think that there actually was such an 'original' form of the bible. Because it (and I'm mostly talking about the Old Testament here) originally comes from an oral tradition, it would have changed over time.

And I should probably get back on topic now...

In my mind, Islam is just as much a religion of hate as Christianity - there are parts of the scriptures that espouse it, but the vast majority of its believers are not violent or extremist.

--

By the way: for those skeptical of religious claims, who want to be able to point out problems from biblical/quran/book of mormon verses, then The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is rather helpful. It's basically just the bible (KJV), with sidebar annotations linking contradictions and so on.

[BasharTeg6]

Absolutely not. Allah != God. The word "god" as a root is inconsequential. Allah and God are not the same person - you only need to compare the Bible and the Qu'ran to discover that. And as seliphail pointed out, "prophet" and "Messiah" are completely different. Islam and Christianity share the same root in that Islam is, from what I understand, a blend of Judaism and other religions. But sharing the same root doesn't mean the two are the same any more than a common parent makes siblings the same person.

It does depend on interpretation. Would you say that Jews believe in the 'same god' as Christians? It's the same scenario: the two share the same root (though admittedly more directly than islam).

The Jews don't exactly believe in the same God because they don't accept the divinity of Christ (with the exception of Messianic Jews, but they are a special case.) However, "God the Father" is the same entity between both Judaism and Christianity. Theologically, they would be the same. Allah, however, is a different person - theologians from both Christianity and Islam would agree. The Qu'ran itself asserts this difference by excluding the Christian concept of the Holy Trinity: "Say God, is one God, the eternal God, he begetteth not, neither is he begotten and there is not any one like unto him."

All of the books in the bible, Old Testament and New, are inerrant. Any spiritual books that were not made part of the bible were not considered to be "inspired by the Holy Spirit" and, while they may describe Truth, they are not necessarily inerrant.

Even if you take the bible's 'original' form as inerrant, then you agree that in modern translations there must be some errors in translation. This is what fascinates me most about 'King James Version (KJV) only' Christians. They love to talk about how that particular translation is supposedly inerrant, and yet historically, it is considered by theologians and biblical scholars to be poorly translated, and modified for political reasons.

Errors caused by translation and politically motivated modifications are completely different. There are differences in the languages themselves that can make pure translation impossible. But these differences are often inconsequential to the meaning of the text as a whole. Politically motivated changes, however, such as the removal of certain books in the bible in order to assert that there is no Purgatory, carry more sweeping changes to the religion.

It's for these reasons why the Catholic Church in particular studies new translations of the bible before giving them a seal of approval, which is basically a sign to Catholics that "this Bible teaches Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth." If you look on the inside cover of any Catholic bible, you will see this seal. You might also note that KJV bibles do not carry this seal.

Whether the bibles actually ARE inerrant or not is, of course, a matter of faith.

But I don't think that there actually was such an 'original' form of the bible. Because it (and I'm mostly talking about the Old Testament here) originally comes from an oral tradition, it would have changed over time.

It's true that it came from an oral tradition, but in those days all people HAD was an oral tradition. Religion existed before the written word. People in those days would have memorized the stories down to every word and expression. What ends up written in the Bible was written, Christians believe, because the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so and without error. Furthermore, God is timeless and all-powerful, and can influence the writings of the Bible so as to be inerrant. He is not limited in power to influence only the original version.

[Sparrowsmith]

By the way: for those skeptical of religious claims, who want to be able to point out problems from biblical/quran/book of mormon verses, then The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is rather helpful. It's basically just the bible (KJV), with sidebar annotations linking contradictions and so on.

I found this particularly relevant:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

Let's focus on Islam and see how much cruelty is there...

On a side note, Bashar, it is written in revelations that any word changed shall bring upon the plagues, and any word omitted shall bring upon death (it's write there in my signature in the god section)
Therefore ANY translation for which the authors have not 'been removed from the book of life' has GOD'S seal of approval.

However, I've derailed this topic somewhat and it is time to focus on Allah, the god who chose a pedophile to be his prophet...

[BasharTeg6]

By the way: for those skeptical of religious claims, who want to be able to point out problems from biblical/quran/book of mormon verses, then The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is rather helpful. It's basically just the bible (KJV), with sidebar annotations linking contradictions and so on.

I found this particularly relevant:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

Let's focus on Islam and see how much cruelty is there...

On a side note, Bashar, it is written in revelations that any word changed shall bring upon the plagues, and any word omitted shall bring upon death (it's write there in my signature in the god section)
Therefore ANY translation for which the authors have not 'been removed from the book of life' has GOD'S seal of approval.

Just because the plagues and death haven't happened YET doesn't mean they won't. It also doesn't mean the plagues will be diseases and insects like in the Old Testament. It could already be happening in a way we don't quite recognize. Or it may come in the future. You can interpret Revelation any way you want, but it's not meant to be a fortune-telling. Revelation is an indicator that something will happen as part of God's greater plan. Christians shouldn't worry too much about the details since we're called to follow God's will anyway.

However, I've derailed this topic somewhat and it is time to focus on Allah, the god who chose a pedophile to be his prophet...

God chose sinners to be his prophets apostles too. In Christianity, sin does not expel you from God's plan. I suppose it could be likewise for Islam. I could be wrong, though.

[Sparrowsmith]

well being a pedophile was not a sin in those days. I believe he had a 12 year old wife, or younger even. I'm not too sure.

also, removing a word from revelation takes your name away from the book of life... Surely that means I should be dead. It's just one of many inconsistencies/absurdities you can find in the website that Mcoot posted.

[theBreadSultan]

Love is universal - if you were to ask everyone in the world : what is Love, what does it mean to you.

not two people would give answers that contradict each other. Yea you would get lots of different answers, but they would be able to sit side by side.

the same cannot be said for religion as YOU would have it.

However - God is your attempt to understand an infinite force within the universe -
How can God be infinite and NOT be Allah, and Vishnu?

How can the knowledge requiring one to understand something infinite be contained in a single book?

to understand 1% of the plant life in this world would require 100 books more than 100 times bigger than the Bible or Koran,
to understand 1% of the plant life on this planet would in fact be a Life's Work.

and even after dedicating your life to such a thing, you would still be unable to answer a simple question such as,
why does this tree have 17 leaves left and the same one next to it only 5?

yes all religions are different - yet they do have some universal idea's

take for example - a God can take any form he chooses (be it burning bush, golden bull etc.)
so why would this infinite force you pray to not be able to take the form of God, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus etc?

second point - the mainstay of every religion is - Love -
even Satanism is based on a message of Love

tell me - which religion does this NOT describe
"I believe that an infinite Force exists, that i must be a good person, and that when i die i will be judged"

damn that even apply's to Buddhism and they don't have a god.