Islam - What's your view on it?

[Carbonox]

Why does every thread on these forums need to evolve (no pun intended) into a preaching session?

 

[squadops]

Because when some discover something life changing to them they immediately think no one else knows about it, you gotta try buttered toast! Of course no one with access to modern technology and media have heard the 'good news', and if they have they don't understand it quite yet.

You'd think someone so passionate about Christianity would start a thread about it 💡

 

[GBO Possum]

Just in case this thread inspires you to convert to Islam, consider this. As a kind of insurance policy, you should acquire a Muslim slave. The reason is that should you accidentally kill a believer, say in a car accident, then the Quran requires you to free a believing slave.

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/92/

If you don't already have a slave, or if you're not sure if any of your slaves are believers, then you should get yourself prepared. Being a cautious man, I'd recommend having at least one spare. And don't drive around with these slaves in the back of your truck. If they fell out out and died, you'd have to free an equivalent number of believing slaves. If believing slaves die and you could be deemed responsible, unless you have a big cage full of spare slaves, you could be in trouble.

 

[BobK]

Would wives and children count as slaves in this context?

 

[Carbonox]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/04/...m-students-association-tried-cancel-my-speech

The politically correct kuffar sides with the backwards thinkers. Nothing new, I'd guess.

 

[TenEightyOne]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/04/...m-students-association-tried-cancel-my-speech

The politically correct kuffar sides with the backwards thinkers. Nothing new, I'd guess.

How so?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Would wives and children count as slaves in this context?

I believe wives and daughters can be slaves and/or property, but I could be wrong. Male children of course, walk on water.

 

[KSaiyu]

I think a lot are hamstrung by this religion. One of the most conscientious medics I know is a Muslim, who will give very mature views on the state of whistleblowing in the NHS and weigh up the pros and cons of it thoughtfully and considerably, especially in how it conflicts with a medics desire to "save people".

Yet the religion makes him believe the West are behind ISIS....

 

[townha99]

Yet the religion makes him believe the West are behind ISIS....

Would you mind elaborating?

 

[KSaiyu]

Would you mind elaborating?

People will randomly launch into conspiracy theories that ISIS is funded by the West to cause damage to Islam, or that ISIS keeps Western arms makers in business or other such nonsense. It's a product of the religion as it's a deflection tactic taught by quite a few of the Mosques around this part of London, and a common theme of Muslims in that age range. Ironically it's the older Muslims who grew up decades ago who see through it more - but this is more than likely due to the fact that a lot are terrified of losing their sons/daughters to Syria.

 

[townha99]

People will randomly launch into conspiracy theories that ISIS is funded by the West to cause damage to Islam, or that ISIS keeps Western arms makers in business or other such nonsense. It's a product of the religion as it's a deflection tactic taught by quite a few of the Mosques around this part of London, and a common theme of Muslims in that age range. Ironically it's the older Muslims who grew up decades ago who see through it more - but this is more than likely due to the fact that a lot are terrified of losing their sons/daughters to Syria.

Wow, I did not know that, and frankly its quite surprising. I guess there just aren't nearly as many Muslims in my area so I never hear about things like this. I think that its pretty ridiculous for the Mosques to be perpetuating this idea though. I would think that if they wanted the stigma associated with their religion to disappear, they wouldn't be preaching these kinds of things.

 

[KSaiyu]

Wow, I did not know that, and frankly its quite surprising. I guess there just aren't nearly as many Muslims in my area so I never hear about things like this. I think that its pretty ridiculous for the Mosques to be perpetuating this idea though. I would think that if they wanted the stigma associated with their religion to disappear, they wouldn't be preaching these kinds of things.

You would think, but you have to investigate who is behind the Mosques, or rather which branch of Islam for it to make sense. As I've said before the group with the largest group are the Deobandis - a group founded in India who on the outside don't encourage extremism but actually really don't discourage it. They have previous for anti-Western sentiment - they issued a fatwa banning Rushdie entering India, were behind the Silk Road conspiracy and more can be read here:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article2098578.ece

Riyadh ul Haq, who supports armed jihad and preaches contempt for Jews, Christians and Hindus, is in line to become the spiritual leader of the Deobandi sect in Britain. The ultra-conservative movement, which gave birth to the Taleban in Afghanistan, now runs more than 600 of Britain’s 1,350 mosques, according to a police report seen by The Times.

The Times investigation casts serious doubts on government statements that foreign preachers are to blame for spreading the creed of radical Islam in Britain’s mosques and its policy of enouraging the recruitment of more “home-grown” preachers.

Mr ul Haq, 36, was educated and trained at an Islamic seminary in Britain and is part of a new generation of British imams who share a similar radical agenda. He heaps scorn on any Muslims who say they are “proud to be British” and argues that friendship with a Jew or a Christian makes “a mockery of Allah’s religion”.

Indeed these articles caused a bit of hubbub at the time (2007), but Norfolk has gone on to write a lot more about Islam in Britain.

 

[DCP]

I would suggest you-tubing unpacking islam. It's best hearing it from a former muslim, Nabeel.
It's clear they worship a different god, yet aren't taught that.
They believe the quran came down from Allah, yet the book has been changed and confirmed by the scribes chosen by muhammed.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I would suggest you-tubing unpacking islam. It's best hearing it from a former muslim, Nabeel.
It's clear they worship a different god, yet aren't taught that.
They believe the quran came down from Allah, yet the book has been changed and confirmed by the scribes chosen by muhammed.

Well at least it hasn't changed as much as the bible, so it's slightly more credible.

 

[DCP]

Well at least it hasn't changed as much as the bible, so it's slightly more credible.

Love to see the facts.
Who changed it, how was it changed, what can we compare the changes to, why it was changed etc.
When you google it, I suggest immediately googling the rebuttal.

 

[KSaiyu]

Oh, and I'd also like the add that the progressive Muslim medic I was talking about is actually like me (half Caribbean half something else). Am I allowed to speculate that genetic evolution is the cure for Islam? It sure would be the cure for the fact that Muslims have the highest (at last count, the ONS don't publish disibility by religion or ethnicity any more) claim on disability: 24% men, 21% women.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Love to see the facts.
Who changed it, how was it changed, what can we compare the changes to, why it was changed etc.
When you google it, I suggest immediately googling the rebuttal.

Well considering the number of times it's been copied and translated, and the number of different versions that have been made as a result, I think it's safe to say that it's been changed. Also worth noting that I use the word credible very loosely when referring to religious texts

 

[DCP]

Well considering the number of times it's been copied and translated, and the number of different versions that have been made as a result, I think it's safe to say that it's been changed. Also worth noting that I use the word credible very loosely when referring to religious texts

You know, my sister just recently learnt Spanish, because she is married to a spanish guy.
He said something to her in spanish, and she responded to him, looked at me and laughed.
I asked her what was so funny, and she told me in english. I'm pretty sure the translation wasn't lost, because he laughed back at me when I laughed as well. If my sister could do it, I can't see how bilingual people in those days who wrote all their lives, could translate things wrong. Perhaps maybe scribal errors, but still, what you are referring to is again your assumption or world view. There is no proof whatsoever.

 

[Famine]

You know, my sister just recently learnt Spanish, because she is married to a spanish guy.
He said something to her in spanish, and she responded to him, looked at me and laughed.
I asked her what was so funny, and she told me in english. I'm pretty sure the translation wasn't lost, because he laughed back at me when I laughed as well. If my sister could do it, I can't see how bilingual people in those days who wrote all their lives, could translate things wrong. Perhaps maybe scribal errors, but still, what you are referring to is again your assumption or world view. There is no proof whatsoever.

The 'proof' (oh the ironing of someone who argues until puce about the meaninglessness of science demanding proof of anything) is that there are literally hundreds of English language 'versions' of the Bible, no two of which carry identical wording.

Whichever version you read - whatever language it is in - it is not a verbatim translation. Concessions have to be made for the different languages when translating because not only are there words that cannot be directly translated (merely interpreted), there are tones and intent that require changing the word order. And that's before you get to languages that use different alphabets than the Romanised one we use - like Greek, Hebrew and Sanskrit. Or the 5th Century Council of Nicaea which decided what books should be in the Bible and in what order...

The 'version' of the Bible that you read is absolutely one which has been changed from that 5th Century original - and it would be totally alien to Jesus, a Middle Eastern man who would exclusively have spoken Hebrew (with some knowledge of Latin) and lived 1200 years before the modern English language. The wording in parts would make no sense to him.

 

[KSaiyu]

You know, my sister just recently learnt Spanish, because she is married to a spanish guy.
He said something to her in spanish, and she responded to him, looked at me and laughed.
I asked her what was so funny, and she told me in english. I'm pretty sure the translation wasn't lost, because he laughed back at me when I laughed as well. If my sister could do it, I can't see how bilingual people in those days who wrote all their lives, could translate things wrong. Perhaps maybe scribal errors, but still, what you are referring to is again your assumption or world view. There is no proof whatsoever.

You have to realise that Muslims don't view anything but the Arabic version of the Quran as the literal Word of God. This is why it is encouraged for a Muslim to learn Arabic, as they don't believe that they are reading the actual word of God in any translated version.

 

[DCP]

The 'proof' (oh the ironing of someone who argues until puce about the meaninglessness of science demanding proof of anything) is that there are literally hundreds of English language 'versions' of the Bible, no two of which carry identical wording.

Whichever version you read - whatever language it is in - it is not a verbatim translation. Concessions have to be made for the different languages when translating because not only are there words that cannot be directly translated (merely interpreted), there are tones and intent that require changing the word order. And that's before you get to languages that use different alphabets than the Romanised one we use - like Greek, Hebrew and Sanskrit. Or the 5th Century Council of Nicaea which decided what books should be in the Bible and in what order...

The 'version' of the Bible that you read is absolutely one which has been changed from that 5th Century original - and it would be totally alien to Jesus, a Middle Eastern man who would exclusively have spoken Hebrew (with some knowledge of Latin) and lived 1200 years before the modern English language. The wording in parts would make no sense to him.

Every version of the Bible will and always give you the core message of Christianity.
If in doubt, go and read the Hebrew bible, and see that it fits perfectly, the Bible we read today. Here, this might help.

http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-2.htm

There may be different wording, but the verse still means exactly what it is saying.
Each to his own opinion, but the fact is, no one can prove it's been changed. Like I asked, what can you compare to what it has been changed from, to know that it's been changed?

I prefer the NKJV, although I like it when prophecy teachers use the Hebrew translations.

You have to realise that Muslims don't view anything but the Arabic version of the Quran as the literal Word of God. This is why it is encouraged for a Muslim to learn Arabic, as they don't believe that they are reading the actual word of God in any translated version.

Well their prophet says that they must read it in classical arabic to understand allah. I doubt even muslims know how to read in "classic" arabic.
They say islam is to be taught to the world, but how can that be possible if we all have to first learn classic arabic, to understand the literal word of allah?

 

[Scaff]

Every version of the Bible will and always give you the core message of Christianity.
If in doubt, go and read the Hebrew bible, and see that it fits perfectly, the Bible we read today. Here, this might help.

http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-2.htm

There may be different wording, but the verse still means exactly what it is saying.
Each to his own opinion, but the fact is, no one can prove it's been changed. Like I asked, what can you compare to what it has been changed from, to know that it's been changed?

I prefer the NKJV, although I like it when prophecy teachers use the Hebrew translations.




Well their prophet says that they must read it in classical arabic to understand allah. I doubt even muslims know how to read in "classic" arabic.
They say islam is to be taught to the world, but how can that be possible if we all have to first learn classic arabic, to understand the literal word of allah?

Then please explain why the oldest know Bible has numerous books in both the Old and New Testament that no longer exist in any contemporary Bible?

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...t-does-it-reveal-about-the-bible-1734439.html

"The version of the New Testament has some few interesting differences. It includes two works which have since been dropped from both Catholic and Protestant Bibles – "The Shepherd of Hermas", a heavily allegorical work full of visions and parables and "The Epistle of Barnabas", which contains highly-charged language about the Jews as the killers of Christ. It also includes entire books which, after the Reformation, Protestants decided to drop from their Bibles: the Old Testament books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Maccabbees 1&2 and large chunks of Esther and Daniel. And the running order of the books is different, reflecting subtle shifts in the priorities of the believers over the ages. The Codex omits the words which Protestants add to the end of The Lord's Prayer, and Catholics omit: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever (Matthew 6:13).

Other differences include it saying that Jesus was "angry" as he healed a leper, where the modern text says he acted with "compassion". The story of the stoning of the adulterous woman – "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is not there. Nor are Christ's words about his executioners from the cross: "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". And its Gospel of Mark ends abruptly after Jesus's disciples discover his empty tomb – omitting the 12 verses on the appearance of the resurrected Christ – and leaving the disciples exiting in fear. The Codex leaves an unusual blank space where the verses should be. "That's a very odd way of ending a Gospel," says Juan Garces, the curator of the Codex Sinaiticus Project."

 

[DCP]

Then please explain why the oldest know Bible has numerous books in both the Old and New Testament that no longer exist in any contemporary Bible?

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...t-does-it-reveal-about-the-bible-1734439.html

"The version of the New Testament has some few interesting differences. It includes two works which have since been dropped from both Catholic and Protestant Bibles – "The Shepherd of Hermas", a heavily allegorical work full of visions and parables and "The Epistle of Barnabas", which contains highly-charged language about the Jews as the killers of Christ. It also includes entire books which, after the Reformation, Protestants decided to drop from their Bibles: the Old Testament books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Maccabbees 1&2 and large chunks of Esther and Daniel. And the running order of the books is different, reflecting subtle shifts in the priorities of the believers over the ages. The Codex omits the words which Protestants add to the end of The Lord's Prayer, and Catholics omit: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever (Matthew 6:13).

Other differences include it saying that Jesus was "angry" as he healed a leper, where the modern text says he acted with "compassion". The story of the stoning of the adulterous woman – "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is not there. Nor are Christ's words about his executioners from the cross: "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". And its Gospel of Mark ends abruptly after Jesus's disciples discover his empty tomb – omitting the 12 verses on the appearance of the resurrected Christ – and leaving the disciples exiting in fear. The Codex leaves an unusual blank space where the verses should be. "That's a very odd way of ending a Gospel," says Juan Garces, the curator of the Codex Sinaiticus Project."

Very simple with faith. Without it, you have the problem.
The bible is what we have today, because it's how it's Author wanted it to be.
Thomas, Barnabas, Judas, Enoch etc are not books God wanted to be in His word. Simple.

 

[Scaff]

Very simple with faith. Without it, you have the problem.
The bible is what we have today, because it's how it's Author wanted it to be.

Citation required.

Thomas, Barnabas, Judas, Enoch etc are not books God wanted to be in His word. Simple.

You're God now?

The problem you have is that if God is all powerful and those are not books he wanted in it in the first place then why were they in it? That's not the act of an all powerful being!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If God didn't want them, then how did they get to the point where a decision about their inclusion had to be made? Why were they written at all?

 

[DCP]

"Put all your trust in God, and lean not onto your own understanding."
This is for people like me, who actually do put our trust in God.

 

[Famine]

There may be different wording, but the verse still means exactly what it is saying.

Nope. You're confusing equivalence with translation.

Some translations change the words to try to preserve the original intent of the phrases (changing the word of God... brave) and some change the phrases to try to preserve the original intent of the word (changing the message of God... braver).

It then comes down to what you prefer and how you interpret it - it turns out that you prefer the New King James Version, which makes one wonder what's wrong with the original King James Version...

"Put all your trust in God, and lean not onto your own understanding."
This is for people like me, who actually do put our trust in God.

Which version of the Bible is that in?

 

[DCP]

Nope. You're confusing equivalence with translation.

Some translations change the words to try to preserve the original intent of the phrases (changing the word of God... brave) and some change the phrases to try to preserve the original intent of the word (changing the message of God... braver).

It then comes down to what you prefer and how you interpret it - it turns out that you prefer the New King James Version, which makes one wonder what's wrong with the original King James Version...
Which version of the Bible is that in?

A simple example maybe?

Nothing wrong with the other versions. I prefer the simple english for my 3rd world slow yet blessed brain.

You can decide which version you prefer, they all mean the same thing:

http://biblehub.com/proverbs/3-5.htm

 

[Carbonox]

"Put all your trust in God, and lean not onto your own understanding."
This is for people like me, who actually do put our trust in God.

Great verse for eliminating critical thinking.

 

[Famine]

You can decide which version you prefer, they all mean the same thing

If they mean the same thing, why does preference come into it? How can one prefer one perfect translation of God's word over another?

Of course they don't mean the same thing, because they have different words and different words mean different things. They may be equivalents - that's what synonyms are - but then I literally just said you're confusing translation with equivalence...

Your link amuses me:

Put all your trust in God, and lean not onto your own understanding.

Confide in Jehovah with all thy heart, and lean not unto thine own intelligence.

Have confidence in the Lord with all thy heart, and lean not upon thy own prudence.

Hope in Lord Jehovah from your whole heart and do not trust upon the wisdom of your soul.

The first and last concepts in each line there appear to mean the same, but they are really just equivalents.

Trust and confidence are closely related, but not the same thing and neither are anywhere near hope save for one context - that of thinking something should come to pass without knowing that it will (pretty much "believe"). Meanwhile "confide in" is not even in the same ball park as hope and, while similar to trust it's only close to confidence in some meanings and the word order eliminates those meanings - it should be "Give confidence to", not "Have confidence in" in order to mean the same as "Confide in". "Confide in" means "entrust", not "trust".

Understanding is not prudence, but it's near enough to intelligence to make the two more precisely synonymous. "Wisdom of your soul" is just tripe.

They're four different sentences, with four different meanings. Yours says not to bother learning anything because believing in God is most important. The second says to have no secrets from God rather than keeping on your own counsel (which would be what a confessional is). The third says when in doubt, believe that God will save you. The last says that when knowledge is telling you otherwise, you should not waver from your belief that God exists.