S
Shenango
Guest
I skimmed it. I don’t have time to read it all now, and it is not new to me. I’ve seen ones like it dozens of times. What are you getting at?Did you read what was presented as a link on the thread starter?
- Status
S
Shenango
Guest
My friend, God does not deliberately misguide people. These verses are interpreted to mean that God merely allows people to stray as far as they wish, even far enough to the point of no return, the point to which they are totally blind.
God didn’t literally set seals on their hearts to prevent them from coming back into a state of guidance. God is merely saying that He let them lead themselves astray, so far that He informs us they’ll never find a way back. God certainly wants them to, but He knows they won’t. That’s all.
E
ElizabethJoy
Guest
Why must waiters be smooth boys, eternally young and sweet as almond? Why would a supposed holy book describe mere servants thusly?
Servants exist at all age levels, both genders and all races.
I actually bought a copy of the Qu’ran - after 9-11, I really wanted to understand what was driving the hatred toward the US.
I found out.
It’s a very carnal “religion” for good reason. Islam was founded by an illiterate man who was suddenly flooded with riches after having grown up poor. When his rich wife died, he proved himself a licentious libertine, taking a wife as young as six years old, one fifth of the slaves captured in the conquering of a city, and at least 16 wives officially “recognized” by Allah. (these wives were actually “given” to Mohammed directly by Allah in appreciation for his dedication)
Muslims say that they worship the same God of Abraham as do the Jewish and the Christian.
Well, that is either patently untrue or God conveniently changed during the life of Mohammed, becoming an advocate of the pursuit of earthly pleasures including homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality and a champion of carnally lustful libertines.
I guess you can probably tell which one of those I believe to be most likely.
A Muslim can work all of his life, doing good works, obeying all the laws, giving away everything to feed the poor, etc and still not know if he is saved or where he stands with the petulant Allah. There are no guarantees except one.
There is one sure way of salvation and Paradise and that is to martyr yourself in the cause of bringing Earth to Allah. You can guarantee yourself Paradise in only this way.
So, go ahead, crash a 767 into a building or blow yourself up in some other act of jihad and poof you will never feel a thing - you will instantly be in the Paradise of ever-flowing water and 72 houris per man - eternally virgin, eternally ready - and your restored 30-year-old body will never age, again.
There’s that carnal imagery, again…
Elizabeth
S
Shenango
Guest
And who says the ONLY servants in Paradise are young boys (who are not human by the way, but heavenly creations), just because no other type of servant is mentioned?
What’s even more perplexing to me is the depravity of a society whose first image that comes to mind upon the mention of young boys serving is immediately sexual.
Muhammad (PBUH) was never flooded with riches. He was born a poor man, lived a modest man (even sewing his own clothes), and died a poor man.
The reports of Aisha’s age as being six are incorrect. In fact, she was about age 16.
It’s not true that martyrdom is an absolute guarrantee, regardless of all else. For instance, martyrdom cannot cover financial debt.
E
ElizabethJoy
Guest
Are the writings in the Qu’ran in there by intent, or not? Are they the authentic transcriptions of Mohammed or not?
Nothing perplexing about it if you read the whole Qu’ran. This is a god that **prescribes **homosexuality on Earth - why would he not continue the practice in paradise?
He grew up poor, married a rich woman and inherited her riches upon marriage. He lived in relative luxury.
How would he support a household of 16 wives and all their attendants and slaves and children if he was poor?
That’s not what Aiesha said.
No, but the mosque can.
Elizabeth
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Forgive my ignorance but, if the Qur’an is the word of God directly, how could one interpret it?
S
Shenango
Guest
Yep, and I’m still saying that a mere mention of young servants does not forbid the presence of older ones as well.
Oh, and where does God prescribe homosexuality on earth in the Qur’an? Please cite a chapter and verse for me.
Khadija was well-off, but by no means her own empress. In any case, whatever wealth she had was quickly spent during the three year economic boycott the Muslims endured in Mecca. When Khadija died, she died of starvation, and her husband did not have enough money to even by her a shroud.
Where are you reading your history of Islam? From Jerry Falwell? See this page.
Muhammad (PBUH) never 16 wives, so the question doesn’t really apply.
'Aisha does not speak for herself directly; we are only relying on the narration of Hisham Bin 'Urwah to tell us what she said.
Assuming:
A. A mosque knows about it.
B. They care to follow through.
S
Shenango
Guest
What’s meant by “direct” is that it’s the actual, literal word of God, not an inspired composition by a human. It still requires human interpretation.
A
Asking
Guest
What will people with a very low sex drive do in paradise?
F
flameburns623
Guest
I am the one who took the trouble to contact a couple of Islamic forums and invite Muslims to vist CatholicAnswers and andwer some of the questions about Islam which are coming up. I see from the board this evening that some have been gracious enough to stop by.
From what has been posted thus far I am left to conclude that MANY Muslims give to the ‘carnal’ desciptions of Heaven a figurative interpretation–that is, that the delights of Heaven are LIKENED TO physical, earthly delights so that human beings can related to and will covet Heaven. There IS some precedent for this in Biblical literature. The Bible OFTEN speaks of God having body parts–eyes, hands, arms, etcetera, even though we all know that God is a spirit. (Remember that Mormonism–a Christian heresy–loves to proof-text those passages which refer to the physicality of God to prove their contention that God is a physical being). We ought to respectfully accept this explanation UNLESS someone whiches to cite some sort of authoritative source within mainstream Islam which declares clearly that these passages are to be taken literally. Orthodox Islam to the best of my knowledge absolutely condemns homosexuality and there is no reason to assume otherwise.
I remind everyone again–the article cited at the opening of this thread was composed by someone which Internet articles indicate is an apostate from Islam. His citations, his defense of such things as homosexuality, etcetera ought to be accepted in that light. Don’t assume that because one errant Muslim has written about it, it is true. There are professed Catholic ‘theologians’ who have attempted to justify immorality using Catholic tradition–you would not want them cited on Islamic forums as representative of true Catholicism, no matter how extensively they might cite Scripture, tradition, Church documents, etcetera. You would know, instinctively, that those citations are innacurate, out-of-context, or in some other way incompatible with the whole of Christian teaching on the subject.
From what has been posted thus far I am left to conclude that MANY Muslims give to the ‘carnal’ desciptions of Heaven a figurative interpretation–that is, that the delights of Heaven are LIKENED TO physical, earthly delights so that human beings can related to and will covet Heaven. There IS some precedent for this in Biblical literature. The Bible OFTEN speaks of God having body parts–eyes, hands, arms, etcetera, even though we all know that God is a spirit. (Remember that Mormonism–a Christian heresy–loves to proof-text those passages which refer to the physicality of God to prove their contention that God is a physical being). We ought to respectfully accept this explanation UNLESS someone whiches to cite some sort of authoritative source within mainstream Islam which declares clearly that these passages are to be taken literally. Orthodox Islam to the best of my knowledge absolutely condemns homosexuality and there is no reason to assume otherwise.
I remind everyone again–the article cited at the opening of this thread was composed by someone which Internet articles indicate is an apostate from Islam. His citations, his defense of such things as homosexuality, etcetera ought to be accepted in that light. Don’t assume that because one errant Muslim has written about it, it is true. There are professed Catholic ‘theologians’ who have attempted to justify immorality using Catholic tradition–you would not want them cited on Islamic forums as representative of true Catholicism, no matter how extensively they might cite Scripture, tradition, Church documents, etcetera. You would know, instinctively, that those citations are innacurate, out-of-context, or in some other way incompatible with the whole of Christian teaching on the subject.
S
Shinobu
Guest
You make a good point there. I’m sure we would be very upset if one Catholic posted some garbage against Catholocism and people took it for total truth.
F
flameburns623
Guest
There are sayings known as ‘hadith’, sort of a commentary, which help to apply the Qur’an, if this is what you mean. Believers are expected to learn the Qur’an in Arabic if possible; if not, translations to vernacular language exist. The Bible is the Word of God to Christians–we understand the Bible, generally speaking. There is argument over whether or not we need an infallible guide to help us with particular difficult passages of Scripture, but Islam–like Protestantism–doesn’t feel such an infallible guide is generally needful. In Islam, which is usually less centered upon theology and more upon practice, theological debates and divisions are much less common anyhow. They DO happen of course–Shi’a versus Sunni being the best well-known such division.
E
Eden
Guest
This is all very interesting from an intellectual point of view, but I don’t accept the Koran as the inspired word of God. Muslims reject that Jesus Christ was the Son of God (downgrading Him to one of three prophets sent by God - the other two being Moses and Muhammed). They also reject that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our Salvation. This is not a theology that I can ever personally accept although I do appreciate the education.
E
ElizabethJoy
Guest
If only it were “just one” or even just a handful of disgruntled individuals, I probably wouldn’t pay them much attention. If I hadn’t read the Qu’ran and the Hadiths for myself, I probably wouldn’t pay them much attention. If people who I trust hadn’t warned us about what is going on under the “peaceful” face of Islam, I probably wouldn’t pay much attention.
And just so you know - after 9-11, when it was feared that there would be backlash against Muslims in public, I offered to escort Muslim women to stores and such to do their shopping if they were afraid. I’m no bigot. But I am educated on this matter.
Remember, it’s not a sin to lie to infidels - in fact, it’s required to lie to infidels if you are lying to promote or protect jihad. *And nearly everything can fall under that broad umbrella. *
There are hundreds who have left Islam to set up web sites or contributed to web sites or books or articles in order to alert us to the truth and a few brave souls who have written books, trying to warn us. At least one fatwa generally ensues for the death of such authors - it can be a fatal mistake to leave Islam, much less leave Islam and then speak out against it. According to Islamic law, a Father is required and entitled to kill his child that renounces Islam!
We have made a very serious error in this county of putting Islam on equal footing with Judaism and Christianity. We need to open our eyes before it is too late.
The fanaticists are bent on the Third Great Jihad - most of us do not recognize the import of this particular jihad. By the imams’ and ayatollahs’ own estimates, the radicals account for “only” 10-30% of all Muslims. Even if it’s only 1%, we’re still looking at quite a formidable-sized army, should they organize - much bigger than our own armed forces.
Most so-called “moderate” Muslims supply explicit and implicit support or financing for the fascisti among them - as one columnist noted, “Behind closed doors, there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.” They support the jihadi by commission or omission. Their lives depend upon it - to speak against an imam can be punishable by death.
Read American Jihad by Steven Emerson, Militant Islam by Daniel Pipes, (actually anything by either of those two authors) The Trouble with Islam by Irshad Manji, Terrorist Hunter : The Extraordinary Story of a Woman Who Went Undercover to Infiltrate the Radical Islamic Groups Operating in America by Anonymous.
There are many, many more, but those are the most concise and authoritative sources and easiest to read and understand.
On the web, you can start with anti-CAIR - a site started to watchdog the misnamed “Council on American-Islamic Relations”
anti-cair-net.org/
A bigot? No. Everything in my life has taught me acceptance of other cultures, ethnicities and religious practices.
But, I am on watch.
If we do not prevail in this jihad and the fascisti have their way, then our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see Sha’ria law imposed within our own borders. I’d rather fight the jihad now on their soil than to pass it along to our grandchildren.
Please do not misunderestimate this - the militants consider that the Third Great Jihad (the one for all time) is underway - our only immediate choices in this regard are which generation will fight them and where.
Elizabeth
S
stillsmallvoice
Guest
Hi all!
Munawar, you posted above:
It says in the Talmud:
Munawar, you posted above:
I focus on the underlined portions. Are you saying that the Quran is telling Muslims to be good so that they might receive various and sundry rewards and is, in effect, waving these rewards at them in an effort to motivate them to be virtuous?
It says in the Talmud:
Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld comments on this as follows:
S
stillsmallvoice
Guest
Link: torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter1-3.html(cont.)
Thus, the mitzvos [precepts; commandments] are not actions and restrictions alone. Often the Torah tells us the bare minimum: “Don’t kill.” But the meaning was never simply “don’t do this action.” It was “appreciate the value of a human life.” Human beings are precious and are in the image of G-d. We must respect the value of our fellow human being: his life, his health, his self-respect, and his feelings. The Talmud writes that one should allow himself to be killed rather than embarrass his fellow - just as one must die rather than kill another (Sotah 10b). Making someone else feel he wishes he were dead is - according to G-d’s values - tantamount to killing him. And we, who are not simply enslaving ourselves to our G-d but are forging a relationship with Him, must obey His commandments with that awareness.
A relationship is in truth a very complex creature. Let’s take the example of a marriage. Both husband and wife should love each other and care for the other not for his or her own sake but for that of the other. I do not do for my wife only in order that I’ll get back for me. I do because I truly care about her, and am interested in her happiness and well-being. (We’re talking a little on the fairy-tale level, but let us not lose sight about what a relationship and a marriage ideally should be. Many of us actually once got married with that in mind…
At the same time, let us say, that I, the ideal selfless husband, care for my wife for her sake alone, but she does not return that same affection. In fact, she is in it only for herself - in getting what she can out of my sizeable paycheck (fortunately couldn’t be the case in my marriage…). Or even worse: she ignores me altogether, paying no attention to my love and devotion. In being so selfless, am I building a relationship? Or am I just sacrificing myself, wasting my very essence on an uncaring human being?
Giving to another without getting in return is not a relationship. It is self-sacrifice. It does not build you and bring you closer to the other in the way only a relationship can. Thus, if we were to serve G-d and actually not receive reward, we would not be building a relationship with Him at all. We would be in some sort of miserable, hopeless master-slave relationship. It would have no meaning, and no matter how many mitzvos we would perform, we would never truly be getting closer to G-d. Thus, for a relationship to be meaningful, both sides must be doing for and responding to the other. I must know that G-d responds to my service and rewards in kind. Yet, at the same time, to be a selfless and giving relationship, I must not be serving Him for that reason. And there is the rub – and the dilemma of our mishna. I must know that G-d rewards, but I must not serve Him on account of this. Thus, Antignos gave us no positive reason for serving G-d. I have a relationship with Him. I am not serving Him for my agenda at all, but simply because it is what the G-d whom I love wants. We must live that impossible paradigm of knowing that G-d rewards yet ignoring it all the same. And this is no easy feat. Relationships are probably the most difficult - but meaningful - form of social interaction we have on this earth. Our relationship with God is, and should be, no less demanding. (Part of the above is based on a lecture heard from Rabbi Yochanan Zweig ( www.talmudicu.edu
Humanity is perfectly capable of appreciating the rewards of the world-to-come/Paradise/Heaven (call it what you will) in abstract, spiritual terms alone. (Orthodox) Judaism and Roman Catholicism are living proofs of this. In fact, as far as I can recall, expressing the rewards of the world-to-come/Paradise/Heaven (call it what you will) in finite, physical, downright earthly terms is a pagan notion (i.e. the eating, drinking & brawling of the Norse Valhalla or the relaxed eating & drinking of the Greek Elysian Fields).
(cont.)
S
stillsmallvoice
Guest
(cont.)
Rabbi Rosenfeld also writes:
I mean no disrespect (God forbid!) but this
I have one other, entirely unrelated, question. I have Dawood’s translation of the Quran. The Sura “Repentance” says (9:30):
Be well!
ssv
Rabbi Rosenfeld also writes:
Link: torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter4-22.html
I mean no disrespect (God forbid!) but this
sounds more like the pitch an ad-man would use in a marketing campaign than it does an attempt to explain the sublime & transcendant joys that we all believe await the righteous in the hereafter. It is an appeal to the base and lowest-common-denominator rather than to the spiritually uplifting.
I have one other, entirely unrelated, question. I have Dawood’s translation of the Quran. The Sura “Repentance” says (9:30):
This
is a lie, as are these
. What say you?
Be well!
ssv
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Elizabeth,
I have read a majority of books you listed. I would also suggest to anyone interested to read anything by *Ibn Warraq. *
That is not his real name by the way. He has to use a pseusonym to protect his life and his families lives from Muslims who would kill him for being an Apostate and for DARING to criticize Islam.
Please read about this religion and their plans for you. In fact go to this link to hear some of Islam’s “homilies”.
memri.org/sd.html
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
If Allah does not misguide please explain Sura 3-39:
“And they who reject our communications are deaf and dumb, in utter darkness, whom Allah pleases He causes to err, and whom He pleases He puts on the right way”.
This is not adding up to me.
M
Munawar
Guest
Hi StillSmallVoice,
Yes, the Quran is telling Muslims to be good so that they may recieve a reward.
You have to understand that the Quran speaks to all of humanity. From the basest to the highest elevated. Each level requires different ways of encouragement. What encourages a monk, does not encourage a prostitute.
Having said that, there are three levels of Faith in Islam.
- Those that do good out of fear of Hell.
- Those that do good out of a wish for Heaven
- Those that do good for the love of God.
Munawar
- Status