Fundamental Biblical Christianity and Fundamental Islam Fundamentally 180% Opposites

I'm talking about the real effects of beliefs and not the apparently intended effects. It seems you are saying that apparently unintended effects of beliefs are not effects of the beliefs, which is a false line of argument.Again, my point was that the content of beliefs is secondary to the extent of influence the beliefs have in determining people's actions. So I have already refuted your (doubtful) point that the content is opposite, by trivializing the content in respect to the measure of influence. With fundamentalists the influence the beliefs have in determining people's action is very large, and this typifies them more then the content does.If some belief says love thy neighbour, and someone was overwhelmingly influenced by such a belief, then that does not mean this person would actually love their neighbour. On the contrary, it is terribly difficult to attach any meaningful emotion to a belief. To love your neighbour solely on account of a few words in a book which say so, is trying to squeeze a lot of emotion through a very small hole. It's emotional depravement which then might lead to physical and psychological violence. This is not to say that the content of beliefs are totally irrellevant of course, but people who have not been taught the commandment might very well love their neighbour more, then someone who is transfixed on the particular commandment.It's understood you regret the loss of life, but a symbol is like a word. Isn't it possible that you omitted to mention the people in favour of a symbol because you are yourself focused on words so much by your religion?As you know equality is in the US declaration of independence, hardly a communist nation. Is your disbelief in equality particularly linked to your belief in your religion as the best, like I said, or is it more linked to your belief in freedom?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

you make a point there about why anyone would place the hadith, which came from man, at the same level as the word of God. Most Muslims do that.

---

This is why I never understood Buz's lack of understanding. Most Xians place the word of RC and Evangelical leaders over the word of God. He says he can reject that and that makes him the true Xian. Does that not make the Muslims who do the same thing, even if a minority, the true Muslims?The Quran is pretty clearly not the manifesto of hate he makes it out to be, and it is the only thing which is claimed to be the Word of God. Enough said as far as I'm concerned.Are there any good sites for differing hadiths, particularly if I need to reference some texts in the future?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I would imagine that all translations, like Biblical translations would be referred to the oldest texts for accuracy. Like the Bible, I suppose some are more literal than others. I don't know which translation my posted quotes came from. Do you? How can you be sure? What supernatural evidence can you produce from it to indicate it is indeed from a supernatural entity? Er, pardon, Andya, but the quote I used in message 73 is as follows:
Buz quoted verse Andya quoted verse: Mine nearly verbatum to yours. "mischief through the land" = anything unacceptable to the prophet, including the practice of another religion."horrendous crimes" and "corruption" Ditto. Saying something derrogatory the god, Allah or practicing another religion would be considered an horrendous crime or corruption. My understanding is that nearly all important scholars and leaders of Islam have for centuries, regarded the authentic Hadiths as equal or near equals to the Quran in importance and in establishing Islamic practice and doctrine. Andya, I didn't say the author of the book was a Muslim. I said he documented the content of his book by scholars and leaders who were Islamic. Where did you get the idea that I was claiming the author to be a Muslim??[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 02-06-2004]

Syamsu, take a good look at most of the 30 or so fundamental Islam nations and tell me that the real effects of the prophet Mohammed and his doctrines as the violence practiced both by him and his closest desciples after his death are not now being practiced by the violent Islamic fundamentalists of our day. Ben Ladin and Mohammed would have been closely allied, their practice and beliefs both reflecting the same mindset. The difference is that Ben Ladin has much more firepower at his hands for global action. "Overwhemingly influenced by such a belief"?? "Terribly difficult to attach any meaningful emotion to a belief"?? I'm afraid that just doesn't make sense, Syamsu. To overwhelmingly believe in something means just that, and it's gona affect one's life. The 9/11 nineteen overwhelmingly believed the tennants of Mohammed and his desciples who wrote the Hadiths and acted accordingly with their very lives to destroy the thousands of "infidels" and weaken the US "great satan" nation.Take a good look at the history of most fundamentalist Muslim nations, and for that matter, Roman Catholic nations south of our border. Then take a look at the history of our own, largely protestant Christian. Which has been the benevolent people who have traditionally provided aid to other nations in times of disaster and need? Which has been the nation so many have dreamed of migrating to? The golden rule book has been the influence that has made this nation great, because of the influence it has had on people. Again, which book, the Quran or the Bible has influenced better as attested by history?? The difference is that equality has never been enforced in the US.........that is until "equal rights" legislation has been introduced in recent decades, essentially reducing the rights of many as to who they rent to, who they hire, who they live near, where their children are taught, etc, etc. So to answer your question, it's about freedom. Equality was not practiced by some of those who signed the D of I who had slaves.Having said that, I hope this thread will not be derailed on the subject of equality.

Some of whom relied on a considerable number of passages in the Bible, not the Quran, to assure themselves that they were doing the Right Thing by owning other human beings. Our Founding Christian Fathers.....

quote:

---

I would imagine that all translations, like Biblical translations would be referred to the oldest texts for accuracy. Like the Bible, I suppose some are more literal than others. I don't know which translation my posted quotes came from. Do you?

---

Well, you used Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation. I regarded it as somewhat less literal, especialy because he added many words to 'clarify' his translation. I have two Indonesian versions at home, one by a poet and one by a Saudi-approved team, and both add words to the text. But the great thing about the Qur'an is we can always check the actual Arabic text to see which are genuinely the words of God and which are human additions. I prefer to purge out human-added words from my holy book.

quote:

---

How can you be sure? What supernatural evidence can you produce from it to indicate it is indeed from a supernatural entity?

---

It's a matter of faith. How can you be sure that your Bible is true, despite the errors that start from the first page?

quote:

---

mischief through the land" = anything unacceptable to the prophet, including the practice of another religion.

​

"horrendous crimes" and "corruption" Ditto. Saying something derrogatory the god, Allah or practicing another religion would be considered an horrendous crime or corruption.

---

I repost that verse:
5:33 [i]Innama jazao allatheena yuhariboona Allaha warasoolahu {[b]wayasAAawna[b]1} fee al-ardi {fasadan2} an yuqattaloo aw yusallaboo aw tuqattaAAa aydeehim waarjuluhum min khilafin aw yunfaw mina al-ardi thalika lahum khizyun fee alddunya walahum fee al-akhirati AAathabun AAatheemun[/i]
YUSUFALI The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and {strive with might and main1} for {mischief2} through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;Emphasis mine, stressed on 'strive (yasAAwna)' and 'mischief (fasadan)'. The Arabic word fasadan DOES NOT mean practice of different religions. If you think so, back your statement. Remember that the verse befor this verse forbids Muslims to kill anyone without a good reason.Anyway, this sermon makes a good description of 'fasad (mischief)' as Muslims understand it. Quoting from there Next,

quote:

---

My understanding is that nearly all important scholars and leaders of Islam have for centuries, regarded the authentic Hadiths as equal or near equals to the Quran in importance and in establishing Islamic practice and doctrine.

---

Your understanding is wrong on two counts:
1. Hadith is never regarded equal to Qur'an, they were always subordinate. If a hadith contradicts the Qur'an, then the hadith will be regarded as false.
2. Islam does not recognize priesthoods like Christianity, so the imams and scholars can say anything all they want but their words can never establish doctrine. [That is, unfortunately, theoretical. Most Muslims, especially the less educated, still folow their authority as if the religious authority were speaking for God.]Holmes can appreciate that, why can't you, who claim to condemn the authority-heavy RCs?

quote:

---

Andya, I didn't say the author of the book was a Muslim. I said he documented the content of his book by scholars and leaders who were Islamic. Where did you get the idea that I was claiming the author to be a Muslim??

---

Well, the author was not a Muslim but he tried to convince people that he's one by using the name Abd El Schafi. His fake name might not fool Muslims but non-Muslims might think that he was a Muslim, and an authority at that. Maybe you yourself fell for it?

quote:

---

Are there any good sites for differing hadiths, particularly if I need to reference some texts in the future?

---

Try this one: Sunnah and Hadith. But be careful with hadith, because many of them are fake.

You are just overestimating the power of a set of words to meaningfully influence anything. The mindset is to give all power to the beliefs, the violence is a result of the emotional depravement that ensues from giving all power to the beliefs, equivocating God with the word of God. Clearly it's ridiculous to entertain the notion that the Bible is the sole or main thing that causes Americans, who are mostly Christians, to love their neighbour.If you think you have the make people equal, then you don't believe they are equal, now do you. It seems that in socialism equality is more considered as an ideal, in stead of as a self-evident reality like it is in the declaration of independence.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

These reasons, off the top of my head:1. Imo, the single most supernatural aspect of the Bible is its scores of fulfilled prophecy of future events from the time the prophecies were given.2. I believe the historical errors of the Quran are more numerous, more important and more verifiable than the alleged errors of the Bible.3. The Bible has a fairly general continuity of thought and purpose though written over a period of around 1400 years by around 40 authors, whereas the Quran's credibility is dependent upon the authority and the word of one man who contradicted his own rules, for example, in the number of wives he had.4. The books of the Bible were all written many centuries before the Quran, so the Bible should trump the Quran where Mideast historical data is contradictory between the two books.5. Those nations who's predominant spiritual guide has been the Bible generally have enjoyed the better life with more personal freedom, personal blessing and prosperity and shown more benevolence to others around the world in need. [qs] I repost that verse:
5:33 [i]Innama jazao allatheena yuhariboona Allaha warasoolahu {[b]wayasAAawna[b]1} fee al-ardi {fasadan2} an yuqattaloo aw yusallaboo aw tuqattaAAa aydeehim waarjuluhum min khilafin aw yunfaw mina al-ardi thalika lahum khizyun fee alddunya walahum fee al-akhirati AAathabun AAatheemun[/i]
YUSUFALI The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and {strive with might and main1} for {mischief2} through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;Emphasis mine, stressed on 'strive (yasAAwna)' and 'mischief (fasadan)'. The Arabic word fasadan DOES NOT mean practice of different religions.If you think so, back your statement. Remember that the verse befor this verse forbids Muslims to kill anyone without a good reason. [/qs]I assume these words have a rather wide definition, relative to the thinking of the speaker. I should think that the prophet's broad use of the word when needed could include the mischievious practice of religion forbidden by the prophet and those who would defend themselves when ordered to submit to the god, Allah or die would be considered by the prophet as striving against the god, Allah and his prophet. Your above quote from the sermon and this, my quote from the same sermon can be very ambiguous: These all from the sermon, both your quotes and mine again, are relative to how one wishes to interpret them for any given occasion. Phrases like twisting the truth, distort facts, rejecting truth and guidence of god, breaking the covenant of Allah all can be relative terms for occasions when one wishes to justify violence to those considered to be guilty of Al-Fassad. For example, "breaking the covenant of Allah" would be considered heretical and worthy of death as Mohammed himself demonstrated on several occasions and as his desciples demonstrated on many, many occasions subsequent to his death according to the historical record. But as I clearly stated, I'm not referring to the ones regarded as false by the majority of Islamic scholars. I'm sure certain ones are likely to be more reliable by one sect of Islam than the other.I believe it is fairly unanimously believed and taught by contemporary Islamic scholars that valid Islam doctrine is not only based on the Quran, but on Precept (Sunah) in reliable hadiths since as with the apostles of Jesus, those close to the prophet quoted him often in these Precepts. My understanding is that anyone who would reject these Precepts would be contending against Mohammed and the god Allah in the same sense as if they rejected the Quran. Nothing about the author is said about him as to nationality ect, except that it is obvious he is a Christian. However, one website I found on google stated that he had converted from Islam to Christianity. It is possible he modified his name somewhat so as to reflect a less Muslim identity, but I did find that a rendering of this name was used by a noted Muslim cleric or scholar. Page not found As-Sunnah Foundation of AmericaAs I stated, the converted Muslim who wrote the book may have modified his name somewhat, for example, dropping the "'i" from "Shafi" or abreviating it from the given Muslim name before conversion. Muslims often change their name when the convert to Islam so it would not be unusual to do so when renouncing same, especially when there is an automatic death sencence on heretics who convert out of Islam according to the Precepts and according to the law and practice of Mohammed himself as well as those close to him.

I'm not about to argue that you should think Islam and the Quran is more true than Xianity and the Bible. That is all about faith.However...

quote:

---

5. Those nations who's predominant spiritual guide has been the Bible generally have enjoyed the better life with more personal freedom, personal blessing and prosperity and shown more benevolence to others around the world in need.

---

This is not a true statement, or true with only a selective vision. The Muslim world enjoyed a better prosperity and benevolence during the times that Xianity was rising in violence. They delivered great amounts of science at a time when Xianity was busy purging Europe, based on bigoted and backward beliefs.While the United States and Europe went on to great accomplishments and wealth, and some measure of benevolence, you continually dodge the fact that this great power was a result of greats amount of violence, especially in the US. We enacted a purge against the Native Americans that has rarely been seen as successful in history. Without that we would not have the standing we have today.Much of the Arabic region has until this last century, been at the mercy of Britain and in some cases the US. We have set nations at war with each other and inflamed teaching of the very Islamic beliefs you say are bad. Remember that less than 20 years ago people like Bin laden were said to be our friends. None of this was benevolence.You are correct in assessing that there are dangers posed by most of the Islamic states today. They tend to theocracies which mirror the same level of bigoted backwardness seen in Xian nations of the middle ages. They are authoritarian driven, and contrary to human rights.But this is as much the result of Islam as a religion, as Xianity as a religion was at fault for the abuses of the Roman Catholic church when it held sway.

quote:

---

I assume these words have a rather wide definition, relative to the thinking of the speaker.

---

Following the above statement you keep mentioning a sort of ambiguity which could allow for violent readings of the Quran. Unfortunately those readings are in direct conflict with the exact reading of other passages in the Quran which have NO AMBIGUITY.Why have you never compared these passages when put in context with the nonambiguous statements regarding freedom of religion? Why do you not mention what those nonambiguous passages mean at all?

quote:

---

I believe it is fairly unanimously believed...

---

It is not unanimous at all. You obviously did not go to the website link he had posted which represented his faith.While Sunni and Shia do use the other "texts", there are others who do not fit into this scheme just as you proclaim yourself separate from the RC and Evangelicals. Is it fair to say that your beliefs could not be Xian because you are a minority?And even within Sunni and Shia, there are different levels of acceptance and interpretation. Kind of like the varying denominations within Xianity.You are right when you point out the dangers of militant Islamic ideology. You are incorrect in saying that all of Islam is that or must be that.Just like you, there are Muslims who say that the Word of God is the whole of the law. And the Quran is unmistakable in declaring freedom of religion.Is there a logical reason that NO Muslim could believe the Quran is the whole of the law, just as you view Christ's teachings as the whole of the law?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I read this link and have a response to the following in it: Without posting the whole thing, I've posted the above introductive statements to the message of the link.The description you've given to "Islam" is particularly interesting; "{the unknown and unpracticed system)".So nobody in Islamland knows or practices Islam is what is implied. In fact the prophet Mohammed did not himself practice the long list of the "Islam" system as put forth in this link, nor did he teach it exclusively in his Quran. Neither the Sunnas or the Quran or the authors of either taught or practiced what this link states. For example Mohammed had many wives, while restricting others to four and advocated the cutting off of limbs for crimes, etc, etc. The link denounces both as not Islam. It appears that the sole purpose of this link is to recruit people into Islam, and to become Muslims by declaring Allah to be the true god and Mohammed his prophet. Once this is accomplished, they become officially Muslims and to depart or change the mind requires death as a heretic, as stated in the authorized Precept Hadiths and the Quran.This link appears to be designed for recruiting gullible converts into something depicted in the link that does not actually exist in practice anywhere in Islamland where the real doctrines of the Quran and the Sunnas are taught and practiced. After all Americans could comfortably accept the "Islam" depicted in the link and they do by the thousands, but once a substantial percentage of a nation become Muslims, then comes out the wolf under the sheepskin with what is really taught and practiced in real Islamland and what the prophet himself taught and practiced. Granted some of the virtuous aspects of the link are included in the Quran, but much of the not so pretty stuff taught and practiced in real Islamland by the vast majority Suni and Shia as also taught in both the Quran an the Sunnas comes out.

quote:

---

1. Imo, the single most supernatural aspect of the Bible is its scores of fulfilled prophecy of future events from the time the prophecies were given.

---

And I believe this statement of yours have been refuted in the prophecy threads? Give me a break. I'll go check those threads.

quote:

---

2. I believe the historical errors of the Quran are more numerous, more important and more verifiable than the alleged errors of the Bible.

---

Point it out. Open a new thread.

quote:

---

3. The Bible has a fairly general continuity of thought and purpose though written over a period of around 1400 years by around 40 authors, whereas the Quran's credibility is dependent upon the authority and the word of one man who contradicted his own rules, for example, in the number of wives he had.

---

You don't even have the original text. In those 1400 years+ 2000 years to now, how many errors are there? Thousands I presume?

quote:

---

4. The books of the Bible were all written many centuries before the Quran, so the Bible should trump the Quran where Mideast historical data is contradictory between the two books.

---

Again, show me the contradictory data. Open a new thread.

quote:

---

5. Those nations who's predominant spiritual guide has been the Bible generally have enjoyed the better life with more personal freedom, personal blessing and prosperity and shown more benevolence to others around the world in need.

---

Lets see... Sweden. Secular. France. Secular. Germany. Secular. Singapore. Secular. Japan. Buddhism & Shintoism. South Korea. Buddhism.What nations were you talking about? Weren't USA also secular?

quote:

---

I assume these words have a rather wide definition, relative to the thinking of the speaker. I should think that the prophet's broad use of the word when needed could include the mischievious practice of religion forbidden by the prophet and those who would defend themselves when ordered to submit to the god, Allah or die would be considered by the prophet as striving against the god, Allah and his prophet.

---

I checked the Qur'an again and found no association between 'fasad' and belief in other gods beside God. The word to designate nonbelievers are 'kufr (infidel)' or 'mushrik (those who set up partners beside God' for those who worship pagan idols, humans, etc. I assume Xtians worship a human being?

quote:

---

Phrases like twisting the truth, distort facts, rejecting truth and guidence of god, breaking the covenant of Allah all can be relative terms for occasions when one wishes to justify violence to those considered to be guilty of Al-Fassad. For example, "breaking the covenant of Allah" would be considered heretical and worthy of death as Mohammed himself demonstrated on several occasions and as his desciples demonstrated on many, many occasions subsequent to his death according to the historical record.

---

Then by that definition you can also be guilty of fasad, because I tried so hard to straighten the facts about my religion and you, what do you do, twist them for your own ends.And what's so wrong with punishing the wicked, anyway? The crucifixion and mutilation was for anyone who commit fasad, Muslim or not. Rebellions against a just government, spreading lies and misinformations, creating disorder and terror among people, those are all fasad.And about that author's name... no Muslim would be the 'abd' of Imam al-Shafi'i. So I guess we can regard what he wrote as dubious material, right? If you want to read a more accurate book about Islam, try those by John Esposito or Karen Armstrong.

The website link is miles away from reality. Islam, as taught and practiced by both Mohammed and the authors of the Precept Sunnas regarded by the vast majority of Muslim scholars and clerics for doctrine in Islam is reflected by the Suni and Shia than the nice sounding stuff in the link ascribed to Islam.The link depicts the UNPRACTICED AND UNKNOWN fantasy of Islam, not the practiced and known reality of it as practiced and taught by Mohammed and his desciples. You seem to have bought into the fantasy.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 02-08-2004]

Buzsaw wrote:
"1. Imo, the single most supernatural aspect of the Bible is its scores of fulfilled prophecy of future events from the time the prophecies were given."And what is the most supernatural aspect of the earth, the sun, animals, plants and people in your opinion? These are also all created by God, just like the Bible was.Just arguing again that you seem to place the Bible in a position of enormous importance almost equal to God, detached from the rest of creation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Yeah, such a thing could never happen in Christianity. All the Christians I know give all their worldly goods away and live in communes, like the Epistles say the should.