God and Allah
errol9
to state his views that Allah (believed by Muslims to be the same God as
Christians and Jews beliieve it is not the same God).
Do readers of the above newsgroups think the minister's has a point?
No 1) Jews believe their God "Yahweh" is not to be shared with Christians
or any other religion
No 2) Christians believe "Yahweh" is God but he sent his son Jesus (who they
also believe is God) and come to earth to save sinners.
No 2) Muslims believe Allah is God who represents all three religions of the
Book ( Judaism, Christianity and Islam) They refuse to believe Jesus was God
No 4) Baha'is believe there is only one God and only one religion (all older
religions have now become one single religion) which happens to be theirs.
Errol
GOD AND ALLAH.
The Biblical names for God - Eloah or Elohim or Elim - are common Semitic
names that were also used for pagan gods, for example in Exodus 15:11: ‘Who
is like you among the gods (elim), O Lord (Adonai)?’. Elohim expresses
divinity in general.
In the Bible, El is often used as a prefix for God, for example El Elyon
(Most High God) or El Shaddai (Almighty God). The etymological root of the
name Elohim is strength, preeminence and refuge.
On the other hand, the Arab verb al ilah, from the word which allah
originates, means ‘to be afraid; to be reluctant’. This is the opposite of
the Hebrew meaning of Eloah or Elohim. In their most basic definitions,
these two concepts have no common root.
There were many local divinities in the ancient Arabian world. Every tribe
had its own god, and each god had its own demons (Jinns) that fought with
competing gods and their Jinns. There were also goddesses, such as Mannat,
al Lat and al Uzza. Mohammed later called these ‘daughters of Allah’.
Most of these gods were worshipped in what is today Saudi Arabia. When
Mohammad began his missionary journey, he fought the neighbouring Arab
tribes and after a victory, he would declare: ‘Allah is greater’ - ‘Allah hu
Akbar!’ because his tribal god al ilah or allah had defeated the other gods.
Mohammed then proclaimed Allah, originally one of many gods, to be the only
divinity. This has been wrongly interpreted as monotheism. In short there is
no relationship - either from a linguistic, historical or spiritual point of
view - between Elohim, the God of the Bible, and Allah, the god of Islam.
Despite what is politically ‘correct’, and despite what is said in
ecumenical circles, believers must not be deceived. Allah is not God!
Niall and Geraldine Griffin (The Revd & Mrs) 7 Cloughmore Park
Rostrevor Co Down Northern Ireland.
http://gazette.ireland.anglican.org/280303/letters280303.htm#6
Matt Menge
To a certain extent I don't think any religion truly worships the
"same God" as another, simply because every religion has a somewhat
different *worldview*. So I suppose I could accept that Christians
and Muslims do not worship the same God, as long you don't turn around
and say Baha'is and Muslims do.
Although I do not truly think these four religions worship the "same
God" I do think they worship very similar ones, because there is so
much that these religions share in common.
Also, you point out that Al-Lah and Elohim come from different roots.
One thing that is significant about this is that it indicates that
there is some validity to these pagan religions from which they
originate. What makes "Allah" similar (albeit not identical) to "God"
in my mind is only that the Muslim wordlview is so similar (albeit not
identical) to the Christian one.
So while Muslims and Christians do not worship the same god, I would
say they worship similar gods.
Best Regards,
Matt
>
>
>
> GOD AND ALLAH.
>
> The Biblical names for God - Eloah or Elohim or Elim - are common Semitic
> names that were also used for pagan gods, for example in Exodus 15:11: ?Who
> is like you among the gods (elim), O Lord (Adonai)??. Elohim expresses
> divinity in general.
>
> In the Bible, El is often used as a prefix for God, for example El Elyon
> (Most High God) or El Shaddai (Almighty God). The etymological root of the
> name Elohim is strength, preeminence and refuge.
>
> On the other hand, the Arab verb al ilah, from the word which allah
> originates, means ?to be afraid; to be reluctant?. This is the opposite of
> the Hebrew meaning of Eloah or Elohim. In their most basic definitions,
> these two concepts have no common root.
>
> There were many local divinities in the ancient Arabian world. Every tribe
> had its own god, and each god had its own demons (Jinns) that fought with
> competing gods and their Jinns. There were also goddesses, such as Mannat,
> al Lat and al Uzza. Mohammed later called these ?daughters of Allah?.
>
> Most of these gods were worshipped in what is today Saudi Arabia. When
> Mohammad began his missionary journey, he fought the neighbouring Arab
> tribes and after a victory, he would declare: ?Allah is greater? - ?Allah hu
> Akbar!? because his tribal god al ilah or allah had defeated the other gods.
>
> Mohammed then proclaimed Allah, originally one of many gods, to be the only
> divinity. This has been wrongly interpreted as monotheism. In short there is
> no relationship - either from a linguistic, historical or spiritual point of
> view - between Elohim, the God of the Bible, and Allah, the god of Islam.
> Despite what is politically ?correct?, and despite what is said in
reli...@yahoo.com
As a Baha'i you cease to amaze me. I thought all Baha'is believed
all previous revealed world religions whose founders were Manifestions
of God came under the umbrella of one single monotheistic God.
..ReliPlur9
mspm...@msn.com (Matt Menge) wrote in message news:<dc19cfc5.03040...@posting.google.com>...
Matt Menge
> Matt ,
>
> As a Baha'i you cease to amaze me.
What? I am just a messenger. Why are you attacking the messenger:)?
I thought all Baha'is believed
> all previous revealed world religions whose founders were Manifestions
> of God came under the umbrella of one single monotheistic God.
> ..ReliPlur9
>
Dear RP,
I think Baha'is would say that all the Prophets, or Manifestations,
believe in the same God. As for the rank and file followers of these
religions, I am not so sure. Likewise there is a sense of continuity
between these religions which Dr. Nader Saiedi called the "divine
attributes".
However, the average follower's conception of God differs from
religion to religion, just as it does from person to person. For
example I do not really do not believe in the same God that Susan
Maneck or Pat Kohli does. It differs from person to person, and from
religion to religion.
Best Regards,
Matt
sirknight67
Mohammad to go rape young children and kill innocents if they didn't pay him
tax!
"Matt Menge" <mspm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.03040...@posting.google.com...
errol9
in article eNqka.612$W92...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com, sirknight67 at
sirkn...@prodigy.net wrote on 8/4/03 2:49 am:
> muslims don't worship God, they worship a stone hat ordered a scyzo named
> Mohammad to go rape young children and kill innocents if they didn't pay him
> tax!
Iranian and Iraqi Shi'ites worship 7th century shrines in Kabala Iraq,
Yazidis are Kurmanji speaking Kurds and their religious practice is centered
on the 12th century shrines and tombs of their Madhi Sheikh 'Adi ibn Musafir
and Manifestation Malak Ta'us at Lalesh, some 60 km north-east of Mosul,
and Baha'is wordhip shrines of their Madhi the Bab and their Manifestion
Baha'u'llah were their 19th century tombs are in Haifa and Acre in Israel.
sirknight67
says the same thing as other religions.
I don't think there is a single book out there that condones rape, child
buggering, murder, holy war and theft of human property and human life as
islam does.
"Matt Menge" <mspm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.03040...@posting.google.com...
Matt Menge
> no disrespect but perhaps you should actually read the Koran to see if it
> says the same thing as other religions.
> I don't think there is a single book out there that condones rape, child
> buggering, murder, holy war and theft of human property and human life as
> islam does.
>
Yes, I have read the Qur'an. The Qur'an sets up what might be called
minimum standards of moral behavior. Most Muslims have standards that
are actually much higher than just "following the rules".
Don't get me wrong, I don't really like Islam in its present form, but
your comments seem a bit extreme.
Best Regards,
Matt
reli...@yahoo.com
> your comments seem a bit extreme.
sirknight67
the application of barbaric ways and attitudes in Islamic countries since
they are applying Koranic laws.
You mention "islam in its present form". Need I remind you that it is
considered blasphemy in islam to even suggest reforming the "word of god"
(which is not really God)? You voice your dislike for islam in its present
form but has there ever been another form and can there be another form?
Islam is a monolithic religion, it does not talk about enlightenment through
meditation, self realization, progress and discovery of the world both
within and outside the self...it sets down rules to be obeyed under pain of
death, such is the very definition of Islam which I'm sure you know means
"submission".
Can there be an alternative to that word? We can soften it up all we want
under the guise of modernizing it, democratizing it, liberalizing it
etc...but you annot change its tenets and the brutal content of its
tenets..it would be like trying to seek an alternative for the Nazi credo of
extermination and wolrd domination. You simply can't alter selective parts
of an ideology that makes it clear you have no option but to follow it to
the letter.
regards
"Matt Menge" <mspm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.03040...@posting.google.com...
Matt Menge
Islam hasn't changed too much, but the rest of the world, or at least
the western world, has. Back in the 18th century it would be hard to
judge which was 'worse'.
Best Regards,
Matt
errol9
in article agZka.84$1B4.14...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com, sirknight67 at
sirkn...@prodigy.net wrote on 9/4/03 6:03 pm:
> No I don't believe I am being extreme. I believe there is a reason behind
> the application of barbaric ways and attitudes in Islamic countries since
> they are applying Koranic laws.
> You mention "islam in its present form". Need I remind you that it is
> considered blasphemy in islam to even suggest reforming the "word of god"
> (which is not really God)? You voice your dislike for islam in its present
> form but has there ever been another form and can there be another form?
> Islam is a monolithic religion, it does not talk about enlightenment through
> meditation, self realization, progress and discovery of the world both
> within and outside the self...it sets down rules to be obeyed under pain of
> death, such is the very definition of Islam which I'm sure you know means
> "submission".
> Can there be an alternative to that word? We can soften it up all we want
> under the guise of modernizing it, democratizing it, liberalizing it
> etc...but you annot change its tenets and the brutal content of its
> tenets..it would be like trying to seek an alternative for the Nazi credo of
> extermination and wolrd domination. You simply can't alter selective parts
> of an ideology that makes it clear you have no option but to follow it to
> the letter.
>
> regards
Thank you sirknight67 for clarifing the meaning of the Word Islam
"submission" After submission comes "obedience" and this is exactly what the
Universal House of Justice and the Bahai Administrative Order wants from
all its members. Indeed the evidence that the true mission of the Baha'i
Faith is to establish the truth of Islam in the West is as follows:
"The mission of the American Bahá'ís is, no doubt to eventually
establish the truth of Islam in the West."
Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, #1665.
I have included an earlier post from Susan Maneck to prove that "Submission"
& "Obedience" are very much expected to the Baha'i UHJ as it is in Islam.
Errol
Search Result 2From: Smaneck (sma...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Religions, prophets and messengers AFTER Islam??? View:
Complete Thread (6 articles)
Original FormatNewsgroups: talk.religion.bahai
Date: 1999/09/02
I liked to share with you once again the following from Dr. Moojan Momen.
warmest, Susan
_____________
There are a number of verses of the Qur'an that Muslims point to as
evidence that Islam is the perfect and chosen religion of God and that
therefore no other choice of religion is acceptable to God.
This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed my
favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. (5:3)
If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, it will never be
accepted from him. (3:85)
The religion before God is Islam. (3:19).
In view of these verses, some Muslims have asked: since Islam is the
perfected religion of God, how can another religion come to the world
after it? If Islam is the only acceptable religion to God, how can
anyone adopt another religion?
There are several lines of Baha'i response to such questions.
The first is to ask what exactly the word `Islam' means in this context.
Abraham and Moses brought to the world the Jewish religion, which was
later abrogated by Jesus, who brought the Christian religion.
Christianity was in turn abrogated by Muhammad who brought Islam. And
yet the Holy Qur'an refers to Abraham as following the religion of Islam
(2:132); to those who followed Moses as Muslims (10:83 and 7:125); and
to the disciples of Christ also as Muslims (5:111). It refers to people
who were Muslims before the Qur'an itself was revealed (28:52-3, 22:78).
What does Islam and Muslim mean in these contexts? Today the word Islam
refers to that vast structure of `ulama, mosques, muftis, religious
courts, books, and institutions that constitute the religion of Islam. A
Muslim today is one who is part of that structure and follows its
teachings. But it is clear that this vast structure did not exist even
in the time of Muhammad, let alone in the time of the Messengers of God
before Muhammad. It is clear that the followers of Moses and of Jesus
could not have been following the laws and teachings that we today know
as Islam since these were not revealed until centuries after their time.
What then is the meaning of this puzzling reference to the terms Islam
and Muslim when applied to peoples who lived centuries before Muhammad?
It must obviously mean something other than adherence to the laws and
teachings revealed by Muhammad.
The answer to this lies in the meaning of the words Islam and
Muslim. These words come from the Arabic root meaning `to submit or
surrender'. Thus the fundamental meaning of the word Islam is `surrender
to God's will'; and the meaning of Muslim is `one who has surrendered to
God's will'. With this in mind, the meaning of those passages that
ascribe the terms Islam and Muslim to the religions before Muhammad
become clear. The religion of God has always been `surrender to the will
of God'. In the time of Moses, `surrender to the will of God' meant
following the teachings of Moses - because that was God's Will in that
age. Those who followed Moses at that time (i.e. the Jews) were
following the `Will of God' and could rightly therefore be termed
Muslims (Qur'an 10:83 and 7:125). In that time, Judaism was true
`surrender to the Will of God' (Islam). But when Jesus came, his message
confirmed some of the teachings of the Torah, but he also came to change
some of the teachings of the Torah: "to make lawful some of that which
was forbidden unto you." (3:50) After this, it became God's Will that
the people should follow Jesus and his teachings. Therefore those that
followed Jesus were now `surrendering to the Will of God' and could
therefore correctly be called Muslims. Thus in that age, Christianity
was the true `surrender to the Will of God'; Christianity was the true
Islam. And similarly, the Christians were the true Muslims, as indicated
in the Qur'an (5:111), until the time of Muhammad.
Thus these verses in the Qur'an that refer to peoples who lived
many centuries before Muhammad as Muslims are obviously not referring to
what we now call being a Muslim but rather to the simple fact that those
people were following the Will of God for their age. In this sense, the
religion of God has always been `surrender to the Will of God' (Islam)
(3:19). `Surrender to the Will of God' (Islam) has always been and will
forever continue to be the final, most complete and most perfect
religion of God.
There is proof in the near-by verses of the fact that the
general meaning of Islam as `the religion of God in every age' is
intended in these verses rather than the specific meaning of `the
religion brought by Muhammad'. Immediately before the verse that states:
`If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, it will never be
accepted from him (3:85),' there is the following verse that shows that
it is the general meaning of Islam that is meant:
Say: `We believe in God and in what has been revealed to us and
what was revealed to Abraham Isma`il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes and in
(Books) given to Moses, Jesus and the Prophets from their Lord; we make
no distinction between one and another among them and we are Muslims
(bowed in submission) unto Him (God).' (3:84)
In other words, verse 3:85 means that if anyone desires a religion other
that the Islam (submission) which is referred to in the previous verse
(submission to God through what was revealed by His Messengers such as
Abraham, Moses, and Jesus), then this will not be accepted by God.
Thus the term Islam as used in the Qur'an means `surrender to
the Will of God in each age' and not necessarily adherence to the
specific laws and teachings revealed by Muhammad. From this, Baha'is
consider that there is a clear explanation for how the Baha'i Faith can
be true, despite the verses quoted above. In each age, those are the
true Muslims who submit to the Will of God and follow the teaching of
the Messenger of God for that age. Thus the followers of Moses were
called Jews but the Qur'an recognises them as Muslims, at least until
the coming of Jesus. But if they failed then to follow Jesus, they
ceased to be Muslims because they were no longer in a position of
`surrender to the Will of God'. And those who follow Jesus were the true
Muslims until the coming of Muhammad. But after that, if they fail to
turn to Muhammad, they are no longer Muslims because they are no longer
in a position of `surrender to the Will of God'.
A similar situation applies in the case of the statement: "This
day I have perfected your religion for you, completed my favour upon you
and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. (5:3)" The religion
brought by Moses, is also, for example, stated to be "complete" (6:154)
when it was revealed to him and yet other Messengers of God were sent
after him. Baha'is consider that the religion of God that is brought to
the earth by His Messengers in each age is perfect and complete for that
age.
Baha'is consider, therefore, that the verses in the Qur'an
quoted above that refer to Islam as the perfect and chosen religion of
God do not refer to the specific religion brought by Muhammad, the laws
and teachings of Islam, but rather to the state of being in complete
submission to the Will of God in whatever age the individual lives. This
has always been and will always be the only religion acceptable to God,
just as the Qur'an states. It is and always has been the perfect
religion of God, just as the Qur'an states. The duty of the individual
is to investigate the truth and find out what is the Will of God for the
age in which he is living. Therefore Baha'is believe that the Baha'i
Faith is the true religion of God for this day and the true Muslims
(i.e. those who have truly surrendered to the Will of God) today are the
Baha'is. Thus when, for example, some of the Islamic Traditions
(hadiths) prophesy that when the Mahdi comes and Christ returns (see
Chapter 4), they will spread the religion of Islam and it will triumph
over all religions, Baha'is consider that the Islam that is intended by
these Traditions is Islam in this sense of the religion of `Surrender to
the Will of God', which today means the religion of Baha'u'llah.
`Surrender to the Will of God' remains in this day, as it has
always been, the true and most perfect religion of God; the only
religion acceptable to God. But just as the expression of Islam has
changed with the coming of Moses and Jesus and Muhammad, so it has now
changed again and to be a true Muslim, to have submitted to the Will of
God in this age, it is necessary to follow the teachings of Baha'u'llah.
Matt Menge
> No I don't believe I am being extreme. I believe there is a reason behind
> the application of barbaric ways and attitudes in Islamic countries since
> they are applying Koranic laws.
> You mention "islam in its present form". Need I remind you that it is
> considered blasphemy in islam to even suggest reforming the "word of god"
> (which is not really God)? You voice your dislike for islam in its present
> form but has there ever been another form and can there be another form?
I don't know. I am not a Muslim, so I don't have to worry about this.
As a Baha'i I believe that Islamic society was once the most
progressive in the world but is no longer. Maybe in a thousand years
or so it will be able to reform itself, but not soon.
Best Regards,
Matt
Starr*
> No I don't believe I am being extreme. I believe there is a reason behind
> the application of barbaric ways and attitudes in Islamic countries since
> they are applying Koranic laws.
> You mention "islam in its present form". Need I remind you that it is
> considered blasphemy in islam to even suggest reforming the "word of god"
> (which is not really God)? You voice your dislike for islam in its present
> form but has there ever been another form and can there be another form?
> Islam is a monolithic religion, it does not talk about enlightenment through
> meditation, self realization, progress and discovery of the world both
> within and outside the self...it sets down rules to be obeyed under pain of
> death, such is the very definition of Islam which I'm sure you know means
> "submission".
> Can there be an alternative to that word? We can soften it up all we want
> under the guise of modernizing it, democratizing it, liberalizing it
> etc...but you annot change its tenets and the brutal content of its
> tenets..it would be like trying to seek an alternative for the Nazi credo of
> extermination and wolrd domination. You simply can't alter selective parts
> of an ideology that makes it clear you have no option but to follow it to
> the letter.
>
> regards
To the resistant, the blind, and those who can make a difference
I agree with SirKnight as written above. Even in the BF if we look at
the 'softening' that `Abdu'l-baha did for the Baha'i Faith in making a
world religion....then we see in one generation how Shoghi Effendi
brought it back to Islamic roots, and then the hijackers
fundamentalized the BF to mirror Koranic teachings where we can see
reversion to those core Islamic tenents.
The only hope the BF has is to cut itself off from those Islamic and
Christian roots, extract spiritual principle and relocate that
principle and praxis. This can be done...but then those in control do
not want to loose the opportunity of becoming a world religion that
can take the spoils of war from the Islamic and Christian debris of
these catostropich times. I think the backdoor technique of offering
spiritual praxis apart from 'rotten brutal tenents' offers more to the
world and gives more opportunity for the teachings and principles to
flourish.
Let's face it .....those brutal teacings from both the Christian and
Islamic tenents are best left in the past.
Starr*
errol9
mspm...@msn.com wrote on 10/4/03 1:35 am:
These are the mumbo jumbo contradictions of the Baha'i Faith. In one
statement SE says all Americans are to teach the truth of Islam and in The
World Order of Bahá'u'lláh Pages 172-179 SE says Islam will collaspe.
Errol
"The mission of the American Bahá'ís is, no doubt to eventually
establish the truth of Islam in the West."
Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, #1665.
The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh Pages 172-179
Collapse of Islám
1
The collapse of the power of the Shí'ih hierarchy, in a land which had for
centuries been one of the impregnable strongholds of Muslim fanaticism, was
the inevitable consequence of that wave of secularization which, at a later
time, was to invade some of the most powerful and conservative
ecclesiastical institutions in both the European and American continents.
Though not the direct outcome of the last war, this sudden trembling which
had seized this hitherto immovable pillar of Islamic orthodoxy accentuated
the problems and deepened the restlessness with which a war-weary world was
being afflicted. Shí'ih Islám had lost once for all, in Bahá'u'lláh's native
land and as the direct consequence of its implacable hostility to His Faith,
its combative power, had forfeited its rights and privileges, had been
degraded and demoralized, and was being condemned to hopeless obscurity and
ultimate extinction. No less than twenty thousand martyrs, however, had to
sacrifice their lives ere the Cause for which they had stood and died could
register this initial victory over those who were the first to repudiate its
claims and mow down its gallant warriors. "Vileness and poverty were stamped
upon them, and they returned with wrath from God."
Full text
Paul Hammond
The form that was at the forefront of the sciences in
the middle ages. The form that founded cities that
were models of tolerance compared to cities in contemporary
Christendom. The Islam whose adherents made the greatest
strides in the age in medicine and mathematics, and
founded those institutions now known as "universities".
The Islam that studied the classics, to such an extent
that the renaissance to a great degree knows the
work of Aristotle, Plato and many classical authors
through translations into Latin from arabic translations
of the lost originals.
The form that was the highest flowering of the human
spirit through many dark centuries of Western
European thought.
*That* was the original form of Islam, Errol.
Paul
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 10/4/03 11:59 am:
Paul,
You are such a wealth of knowledge. I always thought the Catholic Church
started Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and Queen Victoria opened Queens
University in Belfast, Cork and Galway and she was no Muslim. I also thought
those two Greeks guys Aristotle and Plato and all their buddies worshipped
umteen Gods and Goddesses at the Ancient Greek Pantheon and lived 1000 years
before the Prophet Muhammad was even born. Well I quess you learn something
new every day. Paul you better go and give George Bush and Franklin Graham
(son of Billy Graham) a bit of your historical knowledge because they think
any form of Islam is a wicked evil religion, after they read Bin laden's
letter. http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html
Inclosed Interesting article sent to belief/net............Errol
"Why Is Bush Afraid of Franklin Graham"?
If Bush wants to convince the world this isn't a war against Islam, he needs
to tell the Christian leader to stay out of Iraq
President Bush and his aides have been willing to criticize just about
anyone in order to protect America’s national interest. They’ve whacked the
United Nations, the French, the Syrians, the French some more, all of Old
Europe and even Bush’s pal Vladimir Putin. So why is President Bush hesitant
to criticize a politically-influential American preacher named Franklin
Graham?
Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham and a leading evangelical figure in
his own right, last week told Beliefnet
<http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/123/story_12365_1.html
&storyID=12365&boardID=55473> that workers from his charitable
group, Samaritan’s Purse, were “poised and ready” to enter Iraq after the
war to help with humanitarian aid.
That's infuriated Muslim leaders because: First, Graham has been one of the
most strident critics of Islam
<http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/111/story_11109_1.html
&boardID=44251> , calling it a “very evil and wicked religion.” Second,
he made it clear that while converting Muslims wasn’t the goal, “I believe
as we work, God will always give us opportunities to tell others about his
Son…We are there to reach out to love them and to save them, and as a
Christian I do this in the name of Jesus Christ.” Third, he’s closely
associated with President Bush, having delivered the invocation at the
inauguration.
<http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/111/story_11108_1.html
&boardID=44243>
Yet Tuesday, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said he'd have no comment
on Graham's activities, and referred questions to the State Department. A
State Department spokesman referred calls to the Agency for International
Development, which coordinates humanitarian aid. "What private charitable
organizations choose to do without U.S. government funding is ultimately
their decision," said Ellen Yount, an AID spokeswoman. "How could the U.S.
government control that? We can't just say to an organization, 'you can or
cannot do something,' if we don’t fund them. Imagine what the United States
Congress would say to us."
Hopefully, Congress would say: Secretary Powell, President Bush, pick up the
phone and tell Graham that although his intentions may be noble, he's now
interfering with American foreign policy.
The stakes could not be higher. The administration is struggling
unsuccessfully
<http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Primetime/iraq_crusade030331.html> to
convince the world that this isn’t a “crusade” against Islam. Suicide
bombers, eager to be part of the new Holy War, are reportedly entering Iraq.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is warning that the U.S. posture will
create "a hundred Bin Ladens."
And now the news of Graham’s activities is starting to spread in the Muslim
media. The publisher of the British Muslim magazine Q-News responded to the
reports about Graham by writing in The Guardian, “For the few remaining
Muslims who doubted the crusading nature of the coalition forces, the final
blow came last week
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,927054,00.html> .” The
website khalifah.com, an Arabic site, reported the news
<http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=6665&TagID=2> as
“Enhancing the conviction among some Arabs and Muslims that the U.S.-led war
of aggression on Iraq is part of a new "crusade" campaign.”
The activities and rhetoric of American Christian leaders are noticed
abroad. When Jerry Falwell said Muhammad was a terrorist it literally
triggered riots in India
<http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/115/story_11513_1.html
&boardID=46871> .
Obviously other factors
<http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Primetime/iraq_crusade030331.html>
besides the activities of American Christians are helping fuel the notion
that this is an anti-Islam war. But this is one that the White House could
almost certainly control--if it so chooses.
Not only will the White House not rebuke Graham, but the Christian leader
told Beliefnet he’s been in “daily contact” with US Government officials
involved in the humanitarian effort and has never heard any concerns
expressed. “We would not go in and participate in something that would
embarrass our administration,” Graham says. But he added, “We don’t work for
the U.S. Government, so we don’t get our permission from them.”
Ouch.
I have tremendous respect for Franklin Graham. His humanitarian missions and
spiritual writings have brought comfort and inspiration to millions. Indeed,
Beliefnet has published some of his writings
<http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/111/story_11110_1.html
&boardID=44257> and his book has even been advertised on this site.
So it's with some trepidation that I write that Graham's activities not only
undermine long-term strategic objectives but may even put American troops at
risk right now by helping to fuel anti-American sentiment among Iraqis.
Even other evangelical leaders seem to be aware of the volatile nature of
Graham’s comments. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs of
the National Association of Evangelicals, told Religion News Service
<http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/okeefe032603.html> , "Evangelicals need
to be sensitive to the circumstances of this country and its people. If we
are perceived as opportunists, we only hurt our cause."
So why has no one in the administration been willing to rein in Graham? The
most generous explanation is simply that they were slow to understand the
significance of Graham's intended move. Another possibility is that they're
conscious of Graham's popularity with evangelical Christian voters, a key to
Bush’s election and to his re-election.
I know that's a serious criticism—-implying that the President is putting
domestic politics over national interest. But this isn’t the first time Bush
has weighed domestic political factors in dealing with Graham and other
evangelical leaders. Throughout 2002, Christian leaders like Graham, Jerry
Falwell and Pat Robertson issued ever more caustic criticisms of Islam
<http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/116/story_11688_1.html
&boardID=48322> – at the same time President Bush was saying it was a
“religion of peace.”
Yet the White House remained quiet –- until after the midterm election.
Eight days after the votes were counted, Bush and Powell then rebuked the
Christian leaders
<http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/116/story_11687_1.html
&boardID=48321> . “Some of the comments that have been uttered about
Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of
most Americans,” Bush said. Referring to a comment from Robertson comparing
Muslims to Nazis, Powell said, “This kind of hatred must be rejected. This
kind of language must be spoken out against. We cannot allow this image to
go forth of America because it is an inaccurate image of America.”
Why did they wait until after the election? Michael Cromartie, director of
the evangelical studies program at the Ethics and Public Policy Institute,
speculated at the time that they didn’t want to dampen enthusiasm among
crucial evangelical Christian voters: “Why alienate the base before the
election? Why not do it now when you have serious political capital?”
Since the post-election rebuke, Graham has been careful not to criticize
Islam publicly. But, according to Graham, no one at the White House or State
Department told him to stop his people from going to Baghdad.
Are domestic politics keeping Bush or Powell from doing what’s right for the
country? Sure looks like that way. If that’s not the reason, why won’t they
tell Franklin to stay home?
Steven Waldman is the Editor-in-Chief and CEO of Beliefnet. Senior Religion
Producer Deborah Caldwell contributed to this article.
sirknight67
country
"Matt Menge" <mspm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.03040...@posting.google.com...
sirknight67
Islamic society.
What you read about "islamic society" was stole science frmo India, Greece
and Persia, regurgitated under the leadership of half Persian half Arab
caliphs who, because of their mixed heritage showed a little humanity and
decided to allow the same science that arabs like Omar, khalid ibn walid,
Saad ibn waqqas and qutaiba ibn muslim burnt, destroyed or tore to shreds
before throwing countless books on knowledge, litterature and science into
the Tigris River.
In Tisfun alone 200,000 books (!) were destroyed and in Khwarazm, the ENTIRE
PAST of that country was burned to make the people ignorant of their own
language and culture and force them into arabic, to produce ignorant
assholes like pacifist, Alborz, Marabeboos, Redneck and Nima Rezai...the
product of arab destructiveness.
There never was an "islamic" soceity along the lines of what you are
imagining of fantasizing in your utopian ideal. islamic society-if you had
read about it- was one of a cosntant witch hunt, discrimination, painting
pictures of "Satan" on the doors of non-muslims' raping their wives and
murdering non-muslims without so much as ever prosecuting them in court
because the koran forbids it. What you are imagining in your own mind is
the American south and all that was applied to black Americans, mutiplied a
thousand fold, over a period of 1000 years.
That "society" you refer to was the product of the rediscovered and lost
science of Persia, Greece and INdia, along with new innovations brought
about Iranians. Not a single one came from Arabs but typical of robbers and
thieves who have nothing of their own to hang on to, the arabs hijacked
(since the like that so much) all the accomplishments of the Iranian nation,
which should have rightly been called "Iranian society") them and called
them "islamic" and some instances even arab.
"Matt Menge" <mspm...@msn.com> wrote in message > I don't know. I am not a
sirknight67
with Iranians for the most part, who applied the science and knowledge of
ancient Persia, Greece and India, all three considered "infidel".
You should read a little on the life and worlds of Avicenna to get a clear
picture of what your "islamic" tolerance and "civilization" was really
about, as when the muslims burned the library of Bokhara because it
contained science, human anatomy, astronomy and philosphy that was
considered "unislamic".
Educate yourself instead of spreading that most dangerous of all illnesses:
ignorance.
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.03041...@posting.google.com...
sirknight67
although I myself am not particularly familliar with the Bahai faith, other
than a few links I have read (particularly lengthy), I know quite a few
Iranian Bahais whom I respect as friends, without really getting into
religious matters, amidst accusations by former Bahais that the religion is
assuming the form of a cult in America.
One thing did strike me as ood however, when a former friend of mine who was
a Bahai had a heated debate with me on the Koran and kept denying the very
verses that I palced before his eyes, frmo the Koran itself. Where I read
"kill them" he interpreted "oppose them with thoughts" or "kill their
errors". Where I read "chop pff their fingertips" he saw "sever the false
actions commited by their misguided hands"!!!
I simply could not understand why a Bahai, member of a faith oppressed and
despised by Islam would put up such a staunch defense of Islam?
"errol9" <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BABA476C.1EEAC%err...@ntlworld.com...
errol9
sirkn...@prodigy.net wrote on 10/4/03 10:09 pm:
> I simply could not understand why a Bahai, member of a faith oppressed and
> despised by Islam would put up such a staunch defense of Islam?
This has always been something I could never figure out. The Christians in
the west never persucated Baha'is like Muslims have done in Iran and the
Middle East. Yet Baha'is defend Islam and the Quran over the Bible when ever
they get into any debate with Christians in the west...............Errol
Pat Kohli
sirknight67 wrote:
> dear errol,
> although I myself am not particularly familliar with the Bahai faith, other
> than a few links I have read (particularly lengthy), I know quite a few
> Iranian Bahais whom I respect as friends, without really getting into
> religious matters, amidst accusations by former Bahais that the religion is
> assuming the form of a cult in America.
> One thing did strike me as ood however, when a former friend of mine who was
> a Bahai had a heated debate with me on the Koran and kept denying the very
> verses that I palced before his eyes, frmo the Koran itself. Where I read
> "kill them" he interpreted "oppose them with thoughts" or "kill their
> errors".
I searched through a Qor'an for "Kill them". These verses looked closest.
And do not swallow up your property among yourselves by false means,
neither seek to gain access thereby to the judges, so that you may swallow up a
part of
the property of men wrongfully while you know.
They ask you concerning the new moon. Say: They are times appointed for
(the benefit of) men, and (for) the pilgrimage; and it is not righteousness that
you should
enter the houses at their backs, but righteousness is this that one should guard
(against
evil); and go into the houses by their doors and be careful (of your duty) to
Allah, that
you may be successful.
And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not
exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they
drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with
them at
the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you,
then slay them;
such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only
for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against
the
oppressors.
2:188-193
Obviously, these verses refer to self defense, so they can't be what you are
questioning, unless you are an extreme pacifist.
O ye who believe! Squander not your wealth among yourselves in vanity, except it
be a trade by
mutual consent, and kill not one another. Lo! Allah is ever Merciful unto you.
4:29
No that can't be it, either.
They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon
a level (with
them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way
of Allah; if they turn back (to
enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend
nor helper from among
them,
...
Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and
security from their
own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein.
If they keep not aloof from you
nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever
ye find them. Against such
We have given you clear warrant.
4:89, 91
These appear to reinforce 2:191
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a
person - unless it
be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew
the whole people: and if any one
saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then
although there came to them Our
messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to
commit excesses in the land.
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive
with might
and main for mischief 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;
Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know
that Allah is
Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
5:32-34
Ditto
Say: Come I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you-- (remember) that
you do not
associate anything with Him and show kindness to your parents, and do not slay
your children for (fear of)
poverty-- We provide for you and for them-- and do not draw nigh to indecencies,
those of them which are
apparent and those which are concealed, and do not kill the soul which Allah has
forbidden except for the
requirements of justice; this He has enjoined you with that you may understand.
6:151
Ditto
And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and
whoever is slain
unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the
just limits in slaying; surely he is
aided.
17:33
Ditto.
> Where I read "chop pff their fingertips" he saw "sever the false
> actions commited by their misguided hands"!!!
> I simply could not understand why a Bahai, member of a faith oppressed and
> despised by Islam would put up such a staunch defense of Islam?
(snip)
Maybe he believed that in past times Allah wanted people to defend themselves
from those who would slaughter them.
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
errol9
many western Baha'is who like myself was fed a load of tosh about Islam
(through Baha'i rose coloured glasses) unfortunately by Baha'is who come
from a Muslim background.............................Errol
in article fFlla.395$e44...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com, sirknight67 at
sirkn...@prodigy.net wrote on 10/4/03 9:48 pm:
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 10/4/03 11:59 am:
> The form that was the highest flowering of the human
> spirit through many dark centuries of Western
> European thought.
>
> *That* was the original form of Islam, Errol.
That's the same form of Islam in the 19th and 20th century which punished
the Babi's and Baha'is for becoming apostates according to their teachings.
(Evidence is below for your perusal Paul).
I presume you dont believe Islam never carried out such punishments before
then? So what way Paul do you believe Islam punished apostates during the
many dark centuries of Western European thought?...............Errol
ISLAMIC TEACHING ON APOSTASY
“But such as open their breastto unbelief on them is Wrathfrom Allah and
theirs will bea dreadful penalty.”
Surah 16: 106, Qur’an
“Whoever renounces hisreligion, kill him.”
Muhammad in the hadith, Sahih al Bukhari’scollection
Islamic religious law (Shari’ah) states that Muslim men who convert to
another faith (apostates) and refuse to return to Islam should be put to
death. It also specifies various other penalties including the annulment of
their marriage, the loss of their children and all their property, and the
suspension of all financial and legal contracts and inheritance rights, all
to be returned if they revert to Islam.
The Shari’ah is derived from four main sources: firstly the Qur’an (the holy
book of Islam), secondly the hadith (a vast collection of sayings attributed
to the Islamic prophet Muhammad). If both of these are silent on a
particular subject orthodox teaching is reached by a consensus of the views
of Islamic religious leaders (ijma) or by analogous reasoning (qiyas).
There are several references to conversion from Islam in the Qur’an. They
indicate that converts will be punished by Allah in the afterlife but are
not clear as to whether they should also be punished in this life.
However, the hadith contains many references to apostasy from Islam which
all agree that apostates should be put to death and specify various other
penalties including the annulment of marriage, and the loss of their
children and property.
Because there are many sayings in the hadith specifying these harsh
penalties for converts from Islam, death for apostasy and the other
punishments are a very well attested part of orthodox Islamic Shari’ah, not
a distortion or later addition by extremists.
There are four principal schools of Shari’ah within Sunni Islam and a fifth
tradition in Shia Islam. There is some disagreement as to detailed
application of apostasy law between Islamic scholars from the different
traditions: Should female apostates be executed as well, or only imprisoned
for life? Are the children of converts also to be considered apostates? What
exactly should a man say or do to indicate that he is an apostate? However,
all schools of the Shari’ah agree that adult male apostates who refuse to
return to Islam should be executed and that their Muslim wife and children
and all their property should be taken away from them.
Matt Menge
> These are the mumbo jumbo contradictions of the Baha'i Faith. In one
> statement SE says all Americans are to teach the truth of Islam and in The
> World Order of Bahá'u'lláh Pages 172-179 SE says Islam will collaspe.
>
Dear Errol,
This makes perfect sense to me. It is a tribute to their (Muslim's)
past accomplishments (before 1844), not their present ones. You seem
to be suggesting that something that was once good cannot collapse.
Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, the UN was
good, now it is collapsing.
But this is a touchy issue so I am going to stop cross-posting to SCI
after this point.
Best Regards,
Matt
Matt Menge
After this point I am going to stop cross-posting to SCI.
Best Regards,
Matt
"sirknight67" <sirkn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<fFlla.395$e44...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
Al-Kafir Al-Kabir
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3E9604DD...@ameritel.net>...
Al-Kafir Al-Kabir
> I simply could not understand why a Bahai, member of a faith oppressed and
> despised by Islam would put up such a staunch defense of Islam?
Ardalan jun,
Because these fools came out it.
errol9
Al-Kabir at kafira...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/4/03 10:50 am:
Which (branch or sect ) of Shi'ite Islam did these Babi's Baha'is fools
evolve from? And does anyone know how many different (branches or sects) of
Shi'ite Islam, is there across Iraq and iran and their Northern borders with
a number of different countries?........................Errol
Paul Hammond
> you are extremely ignorant.
And you're not?
> That had nothing to do with islam, it had to do
> with Iranians for the most part, who applied the science and knowledge of
> ancient Persia, Greece and India, all three considered "infidel".
Bullshit.
Yes, lots of the Mathematics was invented in India. But if
it all had to do with "Iranians", then how come it ended
up in Spain, on the other side of the muslim world.
> You should read a little on the life and worlds of Avicenna to get a clear
> picture of what your "islamic" tolerance and "civilization" was really
> about, as when the muslims burned the library of Bokhara because it
> contained science, human anatomy, astronomy and philosphy that was
> considered "unislamic".
> Educate yourself instead of spreading that most dangerous of all illnesses:
> ignorance.
HOw about you take your own advice, and quit spreading
this black propaganda about Islam?
Paul
Paul Hammond
I said that muslims invented the concept. Try reading a bit of
history.
The first University in Britain was St Andrews, which began
in the 1200s. There were 600 years of Islamic civilisation
before that time.
Oxford and Cambridge universities were not started by the
catholic church, but the earliest universities were started
in the Islamic world.
I also thought
> those two Greeks guys Aristotle and Plato and all their buddies worshipped
> umteen Gods and Goddesses at the Ancient Greek Pantheon and lived 1000 years
> before the Prophet Muhammad was even born.
Indeed they did. Are you functionally illiterate?
I didn't say Aristotle was a muslim. I said the muslims copied
his works into Arabic, and many of the classical works only
now exist because they were then transcribed into Latin by
renaissance types from these Arabic copies. Had muslim
scholars not translated and studied the works of the
Greeks, they might now have been lost.
Well I quess you learn something
> new every day. Paul you better go and give George Bush and Franklin Graham
> (son of Billy Graham) a bit of your historical knowledge because they think
> any form of Islam is a wicked evil religion, after they read Bin laden's
> letter. http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html
>
<snipped, irrelevant example of modern day Islamophobia>
Paul
Pat Kohli
Al-Kafir Al-Kabir wrote:
> man baddala dinuhu faqtalahu - whoever changes their religion, kill them! - hadith
>
Oh Great Unbeliever, this is one reason why I don't take hadith too seriously. Suppose Muhammad is
saying that if a man were of one religion, and he converted to another, he should be killed. That
would imply that any man who left his native religion, to become a Muslim, should be killed.
I believe that the father of cats gave one story of why he only told stories about Muhammad late in his
own life; he said that the rightly guided caliphs would have had him whipped for telling such stories.
If true, this sets up the way of the original companions - no hadith!
errol9
> Oxford and Cambridge universities were not started by the
> catholic church,............. Are you functionally illiterate?
St John's college and Jesus College Cambridge were the first two
(Benidictine Catholic seminaries) and were the forerunner of the present
Cambridge university.........................Errol
Early Records
When we first come across Cambridge in written records, it was already a
considerable town. The bridge across the River Cam or Granta, from which the
town took its name, had existed since at least 875. The town was an
important trading centre before the Domesday survey was compiled in 1086, by
which time a castle stood on the rising ground to the north of the bridge,
and there were already substantial commercial and residential properties as
well as several churches in the main settlement which lay south of the
bridge. Within the town, or very close to it, there were a number of other
religious institutions. There had been canons in the Church of St Giles
below the castle before 1112, when they moved to a new site across the River
Cam at Barnwell, and the Convent of St Radegund had existed since 1135 on
the site which eventually became Jesus College. There were also two
hospitals, one reserved for lepers at Stourbridge, and a second, founded for
paupers and dedicated to St John, which after 1200 occupied the site where
St John's College now stands. Seventeen miles north of the town was the
great Benedictine house of Ely which, after 1109, was the seat of a
Bishopric.
marabeboos
ignorance is truly unmatched!
"sirknight67" <sirkn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<fFlla.395$e44...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
sirknight67
"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3E9604DD...@ameritel.net...
>
sirknight67
"errol9" <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BABBBD3F.1EFDF%err...@ntlworld.com...
sirknight67
have been raised in a predominantly muslim culture?
There's a pattern of fear and intimidation among all people, even those who
do not practice that dreaded cult. Besides the obvious physical deterents to
even criticise islam (torture, flogging and death), there's the emotional
deterent.
I remember when I was a child back in Iran, my older brother once read me
the children's koran with illustrated pictures of hell, devils, damnation
etc...My older sister thought that the whole city had sinned against God on
a night of a particularly violent thunderstorm in Tehran. Fear is instilled
like an inconspicuous microchip monitoring electrical impulses in the brain.
Years later in America, I conversed with a Zoroastrian who asked God for
forgiveness and safety from being punished because he insulted mohammad.
Recently, some imbecile living close to me warned me that I would be "dried
up like a leaf" and stricken down by lightning for my criticism of islam and
mohammad. That goes to show the level of logic in muslim-dominated
societies...everything ranging from fear, intimidation, brainwashing and
terror are encouraged...everything but reason, independant action, freedom
of thought and debate.
"errol9" <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BABBC4F8.1EFE0%err...@ntlworld.com...
sirknight67
you seem to be well aware of recent muslim history but rather unaware of old
muslim history.
From its inception, Islam has perpetrated nunspeakable acts of terrorism
against non-muslims.
There were the Riddah wars in Arabia waged against all those who would not
accept islam or were the apostates. This was called the apostacy war.
There were acts of rape and looting, since the Koran declares that
unbelievers are lower than animals in the eyes of allah and therefore
advocates teh muslims to enjoy what they have legally acquired in war, as if
there were such a thing as stealing and killing legally!
There were instancs of mass conversions and forced conversions in Iran
itself (not to mention Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Morrocco etc..) as recent as
the 19th century.
There were instances of child rape, abductions of young girls and murder of
Zoroastrians as recently as 1910, and all because the Koran advocated such
acts against infidels, since the border of war lies wherever infidels lie.
As you know (and if you want I can come up with the very koranic verses that
you seem to be unaquainted with) the Koran declares that it is meritorious
to kill apostates, that it is one of the highest and most meritorious duties
of a muslim.
As you may or may not know, from the very beginning of its creation, islam
has been about looting and raiding caravans, extracting bribes (named
Jyzzia) just like modern day gangs and terrorists, in return for "safe
passage".
And all this because muslims are a lazy bunch of animals who can't make a
living for themselves, like the failed camel herder Mohammad, and have to
establish a parasitic relationship with their non-muslim neighbors.
The very existence of the islamic community lies on war, collected and
stolen goods, booty, slaves sold in markets for a profit etc...If you do not
see the level of prosperity in muslim countries today as opposed to the age
of the caliphate, that is because the slave trade has waned and there are no
more countries the muslims can invade and pillage at will, without the
intervention of the international community. If you want a firsthand look
into what islam was and always will be, just have a look at what the arabs
are doing in sub-saharan Africa and Sudan, this will educate you as to why
the islamic community propsered...because it was built on the backs and
bones of SLAVES!!!
It would be like saying the American South used to really prosper, how come
it's broke right now? Cath my drift?
Please educate yourself on this matter instead of defending criminal actions
and behavior.
"Matt Menge" <mspm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.03041...@posting.google.com...
sirknight67
bible. the Koran does, to this day, regarldess of your personal desire to
modernize islam according to your personal humanitarian or progressive
views.
regards
"Matt Menge" <mspm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.03041...@posting.google.com...
sirknight67
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.03041...@posting.google.com...
> "sirknight67" <sirkn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:<yIlla.398$s54...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
> > you are extremely ignorant.
>
> And you're not?
Obviously not, you take the icing on the cake
> Bullshit.
Spoken like a true scholar!
> Yes, lots of the Mathematics was invented in India. But if
> it all had to do with "Iranians", then how come it ended
> up in Spain, on the other side of the muslim world.
>
> > You should read a little on the life and worlds of Avicenna to get a
clear
> > picture of what your "islamic" tolerance and "civilization" was really
> > about, as when the muslims burned the library of Bokhara because it
> > contained science, human anatomy, astronomy and philosphy that was
> > considered "unislamic".
> > Educate yourself instead of spreading that most dangerous of all
illnesses:
> > ignorance.
>
> HOw about you take your own advice, and quit spreading
> this black propaganda about Islam?
>
> Paul
I don't have to spread any "black" propaganda about islam, islam does a fine
job at it, not to mention that it destroys its credibility well with the
help of idiots like yourself.
Pat Kohli
sirknight67 wrote:
> there's a lot more than that
>
Paste the ayah in, right here.
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
>
> "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> news:3E9604DD...@ameritel.net...
> >
(snip)
Pat Kohli
sirknight67 wrote:
> the difference is that Christianity never advocated these actions in the
> bible. the Koran does, to this day, regarldess of your personal desire to
> modernize islam according to your personal humanitarian or progressive
> views.
>
I think you've confused some flawed traditions w/ the Qor'an, in much
the same
way that some Muslims do. It is similar to Christians who confuse their
flawed
theologies w/ what their Bible actually says. In one crusade in
Southern
France, they justified these sorts of barbaric actions against other
Christians
because those other Christians had 500 non-Christians living among them.
In July the crusaders captured the small village of
Servian and headed for Béziers, arriving on July 21.
They surrounded the town and demanded the Catharists
be handed over, the demand was refused. The town fell
the following day, an abortive sortie was pursued
back into the town and the population was slaughtered.
The papal representative, Abbot Arnaud-Amaury,
apparently declared "Kill them all! God will
recognize his own". Béziers is believed to have held
no more than 500 Cathars, but over 10,000 citizens
were killed. The news of the horror at Béziers quickly
spread and many settlements were cowed.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
"Slay them all, for the Lord doth know His own." Sure, it is evil, but
it is part of Christian history. The violent excesses are _not_ unique
to Islam.
Khoda Negahdar!
errol9
sirkn...@prodigy.net wrote on 12/4/03 6:18 pm:
> everything ranging from fear, intimidation, brainwashing and
> terror are encouraged...everything but reason, independant action, freedom
> of thought and debate.
This is just the same road the Baha'i Faith is travelling..........Errol
Paul Hammond
> No offense or disrespect intended but you obviously don't have a clue about
> Islamic society.
> That "society" you refer to was the product of the rediscovered and lost
> science of Persia, Greece and INdia, along with new innovations brought
> about Iranians. Not a single one came from Arabs but typical of robbers and
> thieves who have nothing of their own to hang on to, the arabs hijacked
> (since the like that so much) all the accomplishments of the Iranian nation,
> which should have rightly been called "Iranian society") them and called
> them "islamic" and some instances even arab.
>
This just sounds like an anti-Arab racist rant to me.
Paul Hammond
racist. According to you, Islam was made by the devil.
What is so disgusting is that you apparently find a bunch
of ready and willing listeners here, who just want to find
their own prejudices confirmed.
Paul
"sirknight67" <sirkn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<%WYla.1278$L16...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>...
Paul Hammond
Errol,
Learn how to read.
The first Cambridge college was Peterhouse, founded in 1284
http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/finding/addresses/college.html
What you have just quoted is about the history of the
*city* of Cambridge. Later on that same page, we find
the gen about about founding of the University:
"By 1200, Cambridge was a thriving commercial community
which was also a county town and had at least one school
of some distinction. Then, in 1209, scholars taking refuge
from hostile townsmen in Oxford migrated to Cambridge
and settled there. They were numerous enough by 1226 to
have set up an organisation, represented by an official
called a Chancellor, and seem to have arranged regular
courses of study, taught by their own members. King
Henry III took them under his protection as early as
1231 and arranged for them to be sheltered from
exploitation by their landlords."
If the scholars were being protected by the King
in 1231, that doesn't sound to me like they were
a Catholic church foundation.
Paul
Paul Hammond
> in article c977f97b.03041...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
> paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 11/4/03 12:39 pm:
>
> > Oxford and Cambridge universities were not started by the
> > catholic church,............. Are you functionally illiterate?
>
>
> St John's college and Jesus College Cambridge were the first two
> (Benidictine Catholic seminaries) and were the forerunner of the present
> Cambridge university.........................Errol
>
>
Just for completeness, here are a couple of extracts from the
history of Oxford and St Andrews Universities.
It appears that I was mistaken about St Andrews being the
oldest British university.
Paul
---
"Oxford is a unique and historic institution. As the oldest
English-speaking university in the world, it lays claim to
eight centuries of continuous existence. There is no clear
date of foundation, but teaching existed at Oxford in some
form in 1096 and developed rapidly from 1167, when Henry II
banned English students from attending the University of Paris.
In 1188, the historian, Gerald of Wales, gave a public
reading to the assembled Oxford dons and in 1190 the arrival
of Emo of Friesland, the first known overseas student, initiated
the University's tradition of international scholarship. By 1201,
the University was headed by a magister scolarum Oxonie, on
whom the title of Chancellor was conferred in 1214, and in 1231
the masters were recognized as a universitas or corporation.
In the 13th century, rioting between town and gown (students
and townspeople) hastened the establishment of primitive halls
of residence. These were succeeded by the first of Oxford's
colleges, which began as medieval 'halls of residence' or
endowed houses under the supervision of a Master. University,
Balliol and Merton Colleges, established between 1249 and 1264,
were the oldest.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/aboutoxford/history.shtml
"St Andrews is Scotland's first University and the third oldest
in the UK. For almost six centuries, we have proudly upheld
the tradition of academic excellence, attracting scholars of
international repute and students from all over the world.
...
Founded in 1413, St Andrews is the oldest university in Scotland.
By the middle of the sixteenth century the University had three
colleges - St Salvator's (1450), St Leonard's (1511), and
St Mary's (1537): the buildings of St Mary's College and
St Salvator's Chapel both date from this period."
errol9
Paul I can read, its you who wont accept proof even when the evidence is put
there before your very eyes. Or is it your pride that is hurt when a Paddy
from Ireland who gets up your nose has proved you wrong once again?
The founder of the the first college at Cambridge The Bishop Of Ely happened
to be a Catholic Bishop as the reformation did not come to England until 250
years later. So Cambridge University was founded by the Catholic Church.
Errol
Please read and digest Paul:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/history/centuries.html#C1200
1209 Groups of scholars congregate at the ancient Roman trading post of
Cambridge for the purpose of study, the earliest record of the University.
1284 Peterhouse, the first college at Cambridge, is founded by the Bishop
of Ely.
Paul Hammond
I really shouldn't have made a mistake about St Andrews,
because the maths department there maintains a wonderful
resource about the history of Mathematics.
Anyway, looking up Avicenna, or rather, Abu Ali
al-Husain ibn Abdallah ibn Sina (Avicenna), we discover
that he was born in 980 and died in 1037 - there is a whole
article about him here:
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Avicenna.html
Also, an interesting article about Arabic Mathematics (I guess,
Arab-Perisian-Islamic Mathematics, but there is a discussion
about this within the article itself)
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html
"This period begins under the Caliph Harun al-Rashid, the fifth
Caliph of the Abbasid dynasty, whose reign began in 786. He
encouraged scholarship and the first translations of Greek texts
into Arabic, such as Euclid's Elements by al-Hajjaj, were made
during al-Rashid's reign. The next Caliph, al-Ma'mun, encouraged
learning even more strongly than his father al-Rashid, and he set
up the House of Wisdom in Baghdad which became the centre for
both the work of translating and of of research. Al-Kindi (born 801)
and the three Banu Musa brothers worked there, as did the famous
translator Hunayn ibn Ishaq."
There being several mentions of the importance of the "Baghdad House
of Wisdom" in these articles, I had a look for information on
that. I discovered this reference:
"The House of Wisdom in Bagdad functioned as the center of study
and research in the Islamic world of the ninth century. Among its
most prominent scholars were al-Khwarizmi and the Banu Musa, or
Sons of Moses. The sons of a robber-turned-astrologer, these three
brothers, Muhammad, Ahmad, and al-Hasan, showed a gift for learning
at an early age. When their father died, the Caliph al-Mamun enrolled
them in the House of Wisdom. There they excelled in the study of
mathematics, astronomy and mechanics, leading research in those
areas along with al-Khwarizmi. They organized and directed the
work of translators of ancient Greek scientific texts. Their Book
on the Measurement of Plane and Spherical Figures, which
demonstrated the Greek methods for determining area and volume,
became well-known in the Arab world and in Europe in the
Middle Ages."
http://www.lib.virginia.edu/science/parshall/wisdom.html
The Baghdad House of Wisdom was also the inspiration for
a story by Wisconsin based children's author,
Florence Parry Heide:
And finally, I found the following abstract to a paper
written by a Boston University scholar, which is
exploring the absorption and transmission of
classical Greek learning in Islam:
http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~sjm1/lateantiquity/oliver.html
"Building a House of Wisdom: The foundations for Islamic
appropriation of Hellenistic Thought
Martyn Oliver - Boston University
"It is increasingly acknowledged that the West owes a
substantial debt of gratitude to the Islamic world for
its preservation of, expansion upon, and retransmission
of the Hellenistic sciences, including philosophy, astronomy,
medicine, logic, and mathematics. Little understood, and
rarely discussed, however, are the seismic transformations
that took place within the Islamic world-view and made possible
the acceptance and assimilation of Greek thought. With the
establishment of the 'Abbasid empire in the early 8th century,
and the relocation of the caliphate and capital from Damascus
to Baghdad, Muslim rulers and thinkers began what was to
become an extraordinary feat of translation and appropriation
of the great texts of ancient and classical learning.
The simplistic and pervasive explanation of this event
suggests that the Islamic world's openness to foreign learning
was a direct result of the evolution of the religious community's
self-definition. Under 'Abbasid rule, the concept of who
qualified as a true Muslim expanded to include any convert
regardless of national origin; that is, it was no longer
considered imperative that one be of Arab descent in order
to be considered fully Muslim. This redefinition is credited
with everything from the success of Islam's expansion across
North Africa and into Spain, as well as eastward into China,
to the development of Islamic art. While the decision to grant
Persians and Africans, among others, full Islamic citizenship
obviously revolutionized the Muslim community, this decision
does not fully account for the cultural transformations that
took place.
My project is to tell the story of the Islamic appropriation
of Greek philosophy. It asks the question of how a new religious
tradition, grounded in the particularities of Arabia and the
Arabic language, grew into a cosmopolitan community eager to
assimilate non-indigenous knowledge. What is surprising here
is that this story has not yet been adequately told. While
much scholarly work has been done regarding the development
of philosophy within the Islamic tradition, scant attention
has been paid to the theological, political, and cultural
milieu that laid the groundwork for the cross-pollination
of Hellenistic and Islamic thinking.
This paper will explore the various events that occurring
within Islam from 650-800 CE that made this event possible,
arguing that, rather than a coping mechanism to contend with
the influx of non-Arab cultures, the absorption of Greek
thought was a natural extension of the Islamic faith. That
is, the readiness to translate Ptolemy and Aristotle resulted
from an application of certain Islamic precepts and was not,
therefore, a case of Islam changing in response to outside
forces. Islam's development was not reactionary, but organic."
http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~sjm1/lateantiquity/oliver.html
So you see, Errol, I am not just pulling this stuff out
of my arse.
Paul
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 13/4/03 1:10 pm:
> errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:<BABC8700.1F0C0%err...@ntlworld.com>...
>> in article c977f97b.03041...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
>> paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 11/4/03 12:39 pm:
>>
>>> Oxford and Cambridge universities were not started by the
>>> catholic church,............. Are you functionally illiterate?
>>
>>
>> St John's college and Jesus College Cambridge were the first two
>> (Benidictine Catholic seminaries) and were the forerunner of the present
>> Cambridge university.........................Errol
>>
>>
>
> Just for completeness, here are a couple of extracts from the
> history of Oxford and St Andrews Universities.
>
> It appears that I was mistaken about St Andrews being the
> oldest British university.
Prior to the 1535 English reformation all education within Universities in
England and Scotland were controlled by the Catholic Church. Indeed all
early English University tudors,lectures and professors were Catholic monks
and clerics at the time.
This has been played down in English History because once the State
Protestant Anglian Church gained power it was the done thing to airbrush any
credit related to the Catholic Church out of the history books.
Errol
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 13/4/03 2:21 pm:
> So you see, Errol, I am not just pulling this stuff out
> of my arse.
I dont think I mentioned your arse. No one denies that the Muslims were good
at mathmatics. All you have to do is watch them on the TV all they seem to
do is count their Islamic prayer beads, and shout obsenities at Bush and
Blair. But you praised Islamic education and civilisation over and above
that of Christian Europe here is what you said difining another form of
Islam was " The form that was the highest flowering of the human spirit
through many dark centuries of Western European thought.
Tell me Paul if this was so, where did all this superior knowledge disappear
to in their own countries? Why has it not helped the advancment of some 22
Islamic countries today, and why are all these so called civilised
knowledgeable Muslims coming to the UK and the US looking for an education
in our western Universities, that they can't get in their own countries, if
Western Europe is such a backward corrupt place to live?
Anyway, as far back when the Prophet Muhammad was that busy counting all his
wives, Irish Celtic Monks set up a University in 635 to teach the English
how to read and write gaelic, count empty guinnness bottles, cheat at poker
and distill poteen here in Lindisfarne long before any Muslim boffin crossed
the Dover straits looking for a social security handout...........Errol
http://www.lindisfarne.org.uk/general/1relhist.htm
Graham Sorenson
talk.religion.bahai is that they absolutely show what the Baha'i Faith
isn't.
They are very good places to visit, then to go to see the Faith as it really
is. To meet, socialise with and question real Baha'is face to face.
I have to admire the stoic Baha'is who are here year after year defending
the real teachings of the Faith and showing up those whose only aim in life
is to twist and turn the words written in these newsgroups.
It is my opinion, (as if that matters), that the twisters are both morally
and spiritually defunct, and that their egos are so inflated as to believe
that anyone really gives a damn what they think.
Just my thoughts.
:-)
--
Graham Sorenson
Matt Menge
> Dear Matt,
> you seem to be well aware of recent muslim history but rather unaware of old
> muslim history.
> From its inception, Islam has perpetrated nunspeakable acts of terrorism
> against non-muslims.
> There were the Riddah wars in Arabia waged against all those who would not
> accept islam or were the apostates.
Wasn't this because they initially tried to kill Muslims or betray
them in battle respectively?
> There were acts of rape and looting, since the Koran declares that
> unbelievers are lower than animals in the eyes of allah
Odd that I missed this when I read the Qur'an.
and therefore
> advocates teh muslims to enjoy what they have legally acquired in war, as if
> there were such a thing as stealing and killing legally!
This is hardly something unique to Islam. I am presently reading
about the Anglo-Sikh wars of the 19th century. The British army
basically worked for a company and they charged the Sikh's millions
for 'war expenses', since there whole presence there was to make money
anyways.
> There were instancs of mass conversions and forced conversions in Iran
> itself (not to mention Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Morrocco etc..) as recent as
> the 19th century.
Mass conversions and forced conversions are different things. I am
also curious as to how wide-spread these forced conversions were.
And what about the Spanish Inquisition? Or the death and forced
conversion of so many Native Americans? Or the colinization of Africa
and India? Muslims certainly don't have a monopoly on this sort of
thing.
In its early years, Christians were even killing other Christians in
holy wars. At least Muslims don't wage holy war on their own.
> There were instances of child rape, abductions of young girls and murder of
> Zoroastrians as recently as 1910
This was after 1844.
, and all because the Koran advocated such
> acts against infidels, since the border of war lies wherever infidels lie.
The Qur'an commands Muslims not to start a war with anybody for any
reason.
> As you know (and if you want I can come up with the very koranic verses that
> you seem to be unaquainted with) the Koran declares that it is meritorious
> to kill apostates, that it is one of the highest and most meritorious duties
> of a muslim.
You mean an apostate in a peaceful Islamic society, or one who betrays
Islam in the middle of a war?
> As you may or may not know, from the very beginning of its creation, islam
> has been about looting and raiding caravans, extracting bribes (named
> Jyzzia) just like modern day gangs and terrorists, in return for "safe
> passage".
Actually, Europeans were far more into the "money thing" than Muslims.
As I stated before, most of the European colonies were run by
companies.
>If you do not
> see the level of prosperity in muslim countries today as opposed to the age
> of the caliphate, that is because the slave trade has waned and there are no
> more countries the muslims can invade and pillage at will, without the
> intervention of the international community.
Yes, I suppose living in a desert is not really the way to prosperity.
However, you might ask why most of South America has a terrible
economy despite their abundance of natural resources.
If you want a firsthand look
> into what islam was and always will be, just have a look at what the arabs
> are doing in sub-saharan Africa and Sudan, this will educate you as to why
> the islamic community propsered...because it was built on the backs and
> bones of SLAVES!!!
>
Golly, I can't think of anyone else who had slaves. Maybe if you
shifted the historical lense to western civilization you would realize
that these two peoples are not so very different after all.
Best Regards,
Matt
Matt Menge
> you seem to be well aware of recent muslim history but rather unaware of old
> muslim history.
> From its inception, Islam has perpetrated nunspeakable acts of terrorism
> against non-muslims.
> There were the Riddah wars in Arabia waged against all those who would not
> accept islam or were the apostates.
Wasn't this because they initially tried to kill Muslims or betray
them in battle respectively?
> There were acts of rape and looting, since the Koran declares that
> unbelievers are lower than animals in the eyes of allah
Odd that I missed this when I read the Qur'an.
and therefore
> advocates teh muslims to enjoy what they have legally acquired in war, as if
> there were such a thing as stealing and killing legally!
This is hardly something unique to Islam. I am presently reading
about the Anglo-Sikh wars of the 19th century. The British army
basically worked for a company and they charged the Sikh's millions
for 'war expenses', since there whole presence there was to make money
anyways.
> There were instancs of mass conversions and forced conversions in Iran
> itself (not to mention Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Morrocco etc..) as recent as
> the 19th century.
Mass conversions and forced conversions are different things. I am
also curious as to how wide-spread these forced conversions were.
And what about the Spanish Inquisition? Or the death and forced
conversion of so many Native Americans? Or the colinization of Africa
and India? Muslims certainly don't have a monopoly on this sort of
thing.
In its early years, Christians were even killing other Christians in
holy wars. At least Muslims don't wage holy war on their own.
> There were instances of child rape, abductions of young girls and murder of
> Zoroastrians as recently as 1910
This was after 1844.
, and all because the Koran advocated such
> acts against infidels, since the border of war lies wherever infidels lie.
The Qur'an commands Muslims not to start a war with anybody for any
reason.
> As you know (and if you want I can come up with the very koranic verses that
> you seem to be unaquainted with) the Koran declares that it is meritorious
> to kill apostates, that it is one of the highest and most meritorious duties
> of a muslim.
You mean an apostate in a peaceful Islamic society, or one who betrays
Islam in the middle of a war?
> As you may or may not know, from the very beginning of its creation, islam
> has been about looting and raiding caravans, extracting bribes (named
> Jyzzia) just like modern day gangs and terrorists, in return for "safe
> passage".
Actually, Europeans were far more into the "money thing" than Muslims.
As I stated before, most of the European colonies were run by
companies.
>If you do not
> see the level of prosperity in muslim countries today as opposed to the age
> of the caliphate, that is because the slave trade has waned and there are no
> more countries the muslims can invade and pillage at will, without the
> intervention of the international community.
Yes, I suppose living in a desert is not really the way to prosperity.
However, you might ask why most of South America has a terrible
economy despite their abundance of natural resources.
If you want a firsthand look
> into what islam was and always will be, just have a look at what the arabs
> are doing in sub-saharan Africa and Sudan, this will educate you as to why
> the islamic community propsered...because it was built on the backs and
> bones of SLAVES!!!
>
Golly, I can't think of anyone else who had slaves. Maybe if you
Matt Menge
> you seem to be well aware of recent muslim history but rather unaware of old
> muslim history.
> From its inception, Islam has perpetrated nunspeakable acts of terrorism
> against non-muslims.
> There were the Riddah wars in Arabia waged against all those who would not
> accept islam or were the apostates.
Wasn't this because they initially tried to kill Muslims or betray
them in battle respectively?
> There were acts of rape and looting, since the Koran declares that
> unbelievers are lower than animals in the eyes of allah
Odd that I missed this when I read the Qur'an.
and therefore
> advocates teh muslims to enjoy what they have legally acquired in war, as if
> there were such a thing as stealing and killing legally!
This is hardly something unique to Islam. I am presently reading
about the Anglo-Sikh wars of the 19th century. The British army
basically worked for a company and they charged the Sikh's millions
for 'war expenses', since there whole presence there was to make money
anyways.
> There were instancs of mass conversions and forced conversions in Iran
> itself (not to mention Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Morrocco etc..) as recent as
> the 19th century.
Mass conversions and forced conversions are different things. I am
also curious as to how wide-spread these forced conversions were.
And what about the Spanish Inquisition? Or the death and forced
conversion of so many Native Americans? Or the colinization of Africa
and India? Muslims certainly don't have a monopoly on this sort of
thing.
In its early years, Christians were even killing other Christians in
holy wars. At least Muslims don't wage holy war on their own.
> There were instances of child rape, abductions of young girls and murder of
> Zoroastrians as recently as 1910
This was after 1844.
, and all because the Koran advocated such
> acts against infidels, since the border of war lies wherever infidels lie.
The Qur'an commands Muslims not to start a war with anybody for any
reason.
> As you know (and if you want I can come up with the very koranic verses that
> you seem to be unaquainted with) the Koran declares that it is meritorious
> to kill apostates, that it is one of the highest and most meritorious duties
> of a muslim.
You mean an apostate in a peaceful Islamic society, or one who betrays
Islam in the middle of a war?
> As you may or may not know, from the very beginning of its creation, islam
> has been about looting and raiding caravans, extracting bribes (named
> Jyzzia) just like modern day gangs and terrorists, in return for "safe
> passage".
Actually, Europeans were far more into the "money thing" than Muslims.
As I stated before, most of the European colonies were run by
companies.
>If you do not
> see the level of prosperity in muslim countries today as opposed to the age
> of the caliphate, that is because the slave trade has waned and there are no
> more countries the muslims can invade and pillage at will, without the
> intervention of the international community.
Yes, I suppose living in a desert is not really the way to prosperity.
However, you might ask why most of South America has a terrible
economy despite their abundance of natural resources.
If you want a firsthand look
> into what islam was and always will be, just have a look at what the arabs
> are doing in sub-saharan Africa and Sudan, this will educate you as to why
> the islamic community propsered...because it was built on the backs and
> bones of SLAVES!!!
>
Golly, I can't think of anyone else who had slaves. Maybe if you
Jeremiah
Graham - Bravo! Well said for the lawyer that you are - making the
closing remarks as the wars between the hijackers and the Baha'is come
to a close. I've seen you on the Speakers Trail....and should be
hearing you have been elected to the Oz NSA in due course....and then
of course on to bigger and better palacial digs....so I can
understand your admiration of the 'stotic' paid AOers.
> It is my opinion, (as if that matters), that the twisters are both morally
> and spiritually defunct, and that their egos are so inflated as to believe
> that anyone really gives a damn what they think.
Apparently you do care what they think, or you would not have written
the above...and I don't for one minute think you haven't been part of
the machinations...isn't that what the Faith keeps lawyers for?
> Just my thoughts.
Not worth much for those who have experienced the victimization that
you want to sweep under the carpet...but the victims are the
liberated!!!, but grant you some were born to be the donkeys of the
world.
> :-)
:)
Jeremiah
Paul Hammond
Sorry Errol,
let's recap, shall we?
I post off the top of my head, telling you that Muslim's invented
the first universities, and remembering, *correctly* that
Cambridge and Oxford were founded in the 13th century, around
700 years after the start of Islam.
You try to prove me wrong, by posting an extract about the
foundation of Cambridge *City* in the 800s, and then asserting,
wrongly, that
"St John's college and Jesus College Cambridge were the first two
(Benidictine Catholic seminaries) and were the forerunner of the present
Cambridge university".
Now, I know that Peterhouse was the first one, so I do a bit of
digging in the Cambridge website you referred to, find the
foundation date of Peterhouse (1284), centuries later than
you said it was, plus I provide the paragraph, further down
the very page you posted from, which makes it clear that
the University was actually founding in the 13th century,
like I said, and not the 9th century, like you thought
it said.
Then, I look up details of the Baghdad House of Wisdom,
which was founded in the 9th century.
That is around 400 years earlier than the formation of
the oldest university in England.
I think that I have proven my case. I don't know what
you think you are doing.
This reminds me of the spat about the Security Council,
where you swore blind that the permanent members were
made permanent because they had nuclear weapons, until
I went digging for facts, and found that the 5
permanent members first met at the opening session
of the Security Council, in January, 1946, which was
about 15 years before France or China exploded an
atom bomb.
Then, you shifted your ground, and tried to make out
that I had said something about the veto instead.
Paul
Paul Hammond
> in article c977f97b.0304...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
> paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 13/4/03 2:21 pm:
>
> > So you see, Errol, I am not just pulling this stuff out
> > of my arse.
>
> I dont think I mentioned your arse. No one denies that the Muslims were good
> at mathmatics. All you have to do is watch them on the TV all they seem to
> do is count their Islamic prayer beads, and shout obsenities at Bush and
> Blair. But you praised Islamic education and civilisation over and above
> that of Christian Europe here is what you said difining another form of
> Islam was " The form that was the highest flowering of the human spirit
> through many dark centuries of Western European thought.
>
> Tell me Paul if this was so, where did all this superior knowledge disappear
> to in their own countries? Why has it not helped the advancment of some 22
> Islamic countries today, and why are all these so called civilised
> knowledgeable Muslims coming to the UK and the US looking for an education
> in our western Universities, that they can't get in their own countries, if
> Western Europe is such a backward corrupt place to live?
>
So, the gratuitous Islamophobia aside, you now accept that
Islamic learning was much more advanced than European
learning through 700s to 1500s?
I guess you do, because here is the trademark "Errol
goalpost shift", where the question has moved on from
"what was the original form of Islam?" to "Where
did all that superior knowledge go to?"
I've got a question for you, Errol - Where did all that
superior Greek knowledge go to? The Greeks had it first,
didn't they? And in more modern times, they've been
either an adjunct to the Ottoman Empire, or a basket
case recipient of EU monies.
Well, I guess that must mean Aristotle wasn't so hot, huh?
Paul
Paul Hammond
> paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 13/4/03 2:21 pm:
>
> > So you see, Errol, I am not just pulling this stuff out
> > of my arse.
>
> I dont think I mentioned your arse. No one denies that the Muslims were good
> at mathmatics.
Addendum:
"Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart
'I drink therefore I am.'
Yes, Socrates himself is
particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed."
Bruces' Philosophers song (Monty Python)
errol9
>
> Sorry Errol,
>
> let's recap, shall we?
>
> I post off the top of my head, telling you that Muslim's invented
> the first universities, and remembering, *correctly* that
> Cambridge and Oxford were founded in the 13th century, around
> 700 years after the start of Islam.
>
> You try to prove me wrong, by posting an extract about the
> foundation of Cambridge *City* in the 800s, and then asserting,
> wrongly, that
>
> "St John's college and Jesus College Cambridge were the first two
> (Benidictine Catholic seminaries) and were the forerunner of the present
> Cambridge university".
I have not shifted any ground. All I said was Cambridge and Oxford
Universities were started by the Roman Catholic Church. You refused to
accept this. Then you bring in older debates as a smokscreen to avoid
reading the evidence I produced. I tried to even joke with you about the
Irish Celtic Church starting education in Lindisfarne in 635.
http://www.lindisfarne.org.uk/general/1relhist.htm
"The Golden Age of Lindisfarne: In their monastery they set up the first
known school in this area and introduced the arts of reading and writing,
the Latin language and the Bible and other Christian books (all in Latin).
They trained boys as practical missionaries who later went out over much of
England to spread the Gospel. Aidan also encouraged women to become nuns and
girls to receive education but not in this monastery."
By the way mathmatics and geometric design was around long before Islam. The
Celts brought it to Ireland and Britian before Christianity. The Romans were
past masters at mathmatics, their straight roads and many of their other
inventions in civil engineering were based on the good knowledge of geometry
& maths. Each civilisation from 5000 years ago helped and added to each
other. All this utter crap about the Arabs and Islam being superior to other
religions and civilisations is a Baha'i fairy tale.
So I have sent evidence to prove schools colleges and Universities were
established in Your country England from 635 onwards by Christianity.
Which proves what you said that Islam was " The form that was the highest
flowering of the human spirit through many dark centuries of Western
European thought." is another load of Baha'i mumbo jumbo.............Errol
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 14/4/03 11:39 am:
> errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:<BABF4D7F.1F323%err...@ntlworld.com>...
>> in article c977f97b.0304...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
>> paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 13/4/03 2:21 pm:
>>
>>> So you see, Errol, I am not just pulling this stuff out
>>> of my arse.
>>
>> I dont think I mentioned your arse. No one denies that the Muslims were good
>> at mathmatics. All you have to do is watch them on the TV all they seem to
>> do is count their Islamic prayer beads, and shout obsenities at Bush and
>> Blair. But you praised Islamic education and civilisation over and above
>> that of Christian Europe here is what you said difining another form of
>> Islam was " The form that was the highest flowering of the human spirit
>> through many dark centuries of Western European thought.
>>
>> Tell me Paul if this was so, where did all this superior knowledge disappear
>> to in their own countries? Why has it not helped the advancment of some 22
>> Islamic countries today, and why are all these so called civilised
>> knowledgeable Muslims coming to the UK and the US looking for an education
>> in our western Universities, that they can't get in their own countries, if
>> Western Europe is such a backward corrupt place to live?
>>
>
> So, the gratuitous Islamophobia aside, you now accept that
> Islamic learning was much more advanced than European
> learning through 700s to 1500s?
Yeah, they were far more advanced at making Islamic prayer rugs and carpets
with geometric patterns, and ubbly bubbly pipes to smoke bob hope which
Europeans were not interested in.
What happened from 1500 onwards was the European Reformation the printing
press and the industrial revolution left all those Muslim countries back in
the dark ages still praying to Allah to lift them out of their plight.
>
> I guess you do, because here is the trademark "Errol
> goalpost shift", where the question has moved on from
> "what was the original form of Islam?" to "Where
> did all that superior knowledge go to?"
>
> I've got a question for you, Errol - Where did all that
> superior Greek knowledge go to? The Greeks had it first,
> didn't they? And in more modern times, they've been
> either an adjunct to the Ottoman Empire, or a basket
> case recipient of EU monies.
>
> Well, I guess that must mean Aristotle wasn't so hot, huh?
Oh he became very hot in scholastic philosophy in the RC Church Dante and
St. Thomas Aquinas the Italian philosopher and theologian took Aristotle
very serious. Interesting though I cant fine Islam mentioned here.
Paul Hammond
Jesus! There is no helping this guy.
> >
> > I guess you do, because here is the trademark "Errol
> > goalpost shift", where the question has moved on from
> > "what was the original form of Islam?" to "Where
> > did all that superior knowledge go to?"
> >
> > I've got a question for you, Errol - Where did all that
> > superior Greek knowledge go to? The Greeks had it first,
> > didn't they? And in more modern times, they've been
> > either an adjunct to the Ottoman Empire, or a basket
> > case recipient of EU monies.
> >
> > Well, I guess that must mean Aristotle wasn't so hot, huh?
>
> Oh he became very hot in scholastic philosophy in the RC Church Dante and
> St. Thomas Aquinas the Italian philosopher and theologian took Aristotle
> very serious. Interesting though I cant fine Islam mentioned here.
>
> http://www.greatdante.net/glossary.htm
You are missing my comparison with your logic somewhere
along the way?
Aquinas took Aristotle as the basis for his scholasticism,
yes.
But, your assertion was along the lines that Islam
cannot possibly ever have been at the forefront of
civilisation, because it is not now.
So, since Greece is not now at the forefront of civilisation,
your reasoning would have it that it never can have been, no?
And in a couple of centuries time, when, maybe it will
be, that the US is no longer the leading nation in
science and technology, perhaps then some future Errol
will deny that the US ever was a superpower?
Paul
Paul Hammond
> in article c977f97b.03041...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
> paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 14/4/03 11:31 am:
>
>
>
> >
> > Sorry Errol,
> >
> > let's recap, shall we?
> >
> > I post off the top of my head, telling you that Muslim's invented
> > the first universities, and remembering, *correctly* that
> > Cambridge and Oxford were founded in the 13th century, around
> > 700 years after the start of Islam.
> >
> > You try to prove me wrong, by posting an extract about the
> > foundation of Cambridge *City* in the 800s, and then asserting,
> > wrongly, that
> >
> > "St John's college and Jesus College Cambridge were the first two
> > (Benidictine Catholic seminaries) and were the forerunner of the present
> > Cambridge university".
>
> I have not shifted any ground. All I said was Cambridge and Oxford
> Universities were started by the Roman Catholic Church. You refused to
> accept this. Then you bring in older debates as a smokscreen to avoid
> reading the evidence I produced. I tried to even joke with you about the
> Irish Celtic Church starting education in Lindisfarne in 635.
>
I've quoted you above. Everything between " and " is your
words from the previous round in this debate.
You said that St John's and Jesus were the first two colleges,
and Cambridge University grew out of them. Wrong. The first
college was Peterhouse, founded 1284.
You were arguing with me about Islam coming up with the concept
of the university, before we ever had them in Europe. You
produce this excerpt from the Cambridge University website,
where you have confused the founding of the *city* with the
founding of the *University*. When you look into the founding
of the *University* we find that it is, as I said, in the
13th century - contemporary with King John and Magna Charter,
and not contemporary with King Alfred.
>
> By the way mathmatics and geometric design was around long before Islam. The
> Celts brought it to Ireland and Britian before Christianity. The Romans were
> past masters at mathmatics, their straight roads and many of their other
> inventions in civil engineering were based on the good knowledge of geometry
> & maths. Each civilisation from 5000 years ago helped and added to each
> other. All this utter crap about the Arabs and Islam being superior to other
> religions and civilisations is a Baha'i fairy tale.
>
The Romans were not great mathematicians, they were great
technicians and engineers. I'd be hard put to it to name
*any* famous Roman mathematician, while you can't move in
the subject without tripping over Greeks.
Errol, you asked what "the original Islam" was, and I listed
a few of its contributions.
You are welcome to disbelieve me if you like, but I have
now also provided citations to show that I am not the
only person to understand and appreciate the contributions
of Islam, especially to a subject, Mathematics, which is
dear to my heart.
You can scoff all you like, but I have answered your
questions to my own satisfaction - and if you choose
to continue in your ignorance saying that Islam is
nothing but Ayatollahs and fanatics, then that is
your business.
The great contribution of Islam to Science, Medicine
and Mathematics is a matter of record, and is no
*Baha'i* fairy tale. None of the sources I quoted in
my references yesterday were written by Baha'is.
> So I have sent evidence to prove schools colleges and Universities were
> established in Your country England from 635 onwards by Christianity.
> Which proves what you said that Islam was " The form that was the highest
> flowering of the human spirit through many dark centuries of Western
> European thought." is another load of Baha'i mumbo jumbo.............Errol
I think that al-Khorismi's advances in algebra are and have been
a whole lot more use than the Book of Kells, and other illustrated
Irish gospels, beautiful and artistic though they might
be. And, the early flowering of Celtic Christianity was
pretty comprehensively crushed following the reforms of
St Augustine, but that is another story entirely - the Sufi's,
also, were persecuted by more convential temporal Muslim
authorities.
But, to classify the whole idea of the great flowering of
high Islamic culture from 800-1500 as "nothing but Baha'i
mumbo jumbo" is a big mistake, and I hope I have shown
why.
Paul
sirknight67
aras and islam you fucking piece of shit!
sirknight67
politics and antagonisms and instead spreads his ignorant hippie rantings.
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.03041...@posting.google.com...
sirknight67
> Odd that I missed this when I read the Qur'an.
>
[8:55] Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.
> This is hardly something unique to Islam. I am presently reading
> about the Anglo-Sikh wars of the 19th century. The British army
> basically worked for a company and they charged the Sikh's millions
> for 'war expenses', since there whole presence there was to make money
> anyways.
>
> Mass conversions and forced conversions are different things. I am
> also curious as to how wide-spread these forced conversions were.
>
> And what about the Spanish Inquisition? Or the death and forced
> conversion of so many Native Americans? Or the colinization of Africa
> and India? Muslims certainly don't have a monopoly on this sort of
> thing.
>
Second, I would say that you are without basic knowledge of the history of south America. Read about the Guarrani iNdians and the Jesuit mission in Uruguay to dispell the stereotype of the "mass conversions" of American Indians.
> In its early years, Christians were even killing other Christians in
> holy wars. At least Muslims don't wage holy war on their own.
>
> > There were instances of child rape, abductions of young girls and murder of
> > Zoroastrians as recently as 1910
>
> This was after 1844.
>
First of all what the hell does that have to do with any particular dates, was it officially okay then? Second, as ebfore, you show absolutely no knowledge of the subject you choose to discuss. There are documented cases of such actions from the middle ages all the way to 1915! What does 1844 have to do with anything? I assume you are implying the Bahai faith here?
>
> The Qur'an commands Muslims not to start a war with anybody for any
> reason.
[9:5] But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.
[9:29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.123] O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard
[58:5] Those who resist Allah and His messenger will be crumbled to dust, as were those before them: for we have already sent down clear signs and the unbelievers will have a humiliating penalty.
[33.27] And He made you heirs to their land and
their dwellings and their property, and
(of) a land, which you have not yet
trodden, and Allah has power over all
things.
[47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve,
then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them)
prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them
ransom
(themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if
Allah
had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them,
but
that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those
who
are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to
perish.
[48.16]
Say to those of the dwellers of the desert who were left behind:
You shall
soon be invited (to fight) against a people possessing mighty prowess; you will
fight against them until they submit; then if you obey, Allah will grant you a
good reward; and if you turn back as you turned back before, He will punish you
with a painful punishment
> You mean an apostate in a peaceful Islamic society, or one who betrays
> Islam in the middle of a war?
>
[4.89] They desire that ye misbelieve as they misbelieve, that ye might be alike; Take ye not friends from among them until they too flee in Allah's way; but if they return to enmity, then seize them and kill them where ye find them, and take from them neither patron nor help.
> Actually, Europeans were far more into the "money thing" than Muslims.
> As I stated before, most of the European colonies were run by
> companies.
>
> Yes, I suppose living in a desert is not really the way to prosperity.
> However, you might ask why most of South America has a terrible
> economy despite their abundance of natural resources.
>
>
> Golly, I can't think of anyone else who had slaves. Maybe if you
> shifted the historical lense to western civilization you would realize
> that these two peoples are not so very different after all.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Matt
Matt Menge
No, to be honest I have only read a few books about Islam. I guess I
am more concerned with my own religion right now. But I will keep a
copy of what you said on file, so I can research it more carefully in
the future. Although I must say that I am astonished that none of the
Muslims on sci have risen to your challenge.
Best Regards,
Matt
"sirknight67" <sirkn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<4ADma.1406$TZ7....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
> --
Matt Menge
No, to be honest I have only read a few books about Islam. I guess I
am more concerned with my own religion right now. But I will keep a
copy of what you said on file, so I can research it more carefully in
the future. Although I must say that I am astonished that none of the
Muslims on sci have risen to your challenge.
Best Regards,
Matt
"sirknight67" <sirkn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<4ADma.1406$TZ7....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
> --
Matt Menge
No, to be honest I have only read a few books about Islam. I guess I
am more concerned with my own religion right now. But I will keep a
copy of what you said on file, so I can research it more carefully in
the future. Although I must say that I am astonished that none of the
Muslims on sci have risen to your challenge.
Best Regards,
Matt
"sirknight67" <sirkn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<4ADma.1406$TZ7....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
> --
Matt Menge
I was thinking about these arguments you are making, and I decided it
would be better to ask some Muslims about it, including a Muslim
friend of mine. If you are still around a few days from now maybe you
could respond to them. I have read the Qur'an (Surah 9 is about a
specific war, by the way) and a few books about Islam. But you seem
to be looking for someone who has devoted his or ger life to the
subject.
Best Regards,
Matt
"sirknight67" <sirkn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<4ADma.1406$TZ7....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
> --
errol9
> But, your assertion was along the lines that Islam
> cannot possibly ever have been at the forefront of
> civilisation, because it is not now.
You are talking horlicks as usual. Matt referred to one form of Islam he
knew. I asked him did he know of any other form. Then you jumped in with
your welly boots full of assertions about Muslims starting education systems
and Universities long before Christian Europe..........Errol
sirknight67
the only times that the "muslims" on SCI have responded to what I posted on
Islam was to insult my mother, sister or to call me a firewhorshipper...I
guess those are all indications that my criticism was true.
I hope I didn't sound too zealous and if I did, sorry, it's nothing personal
towards you. My issue here is with a growing number of Americans who, out of
interest to keep the peace so to speak, pick up the false belief that
muslims can be reasoned with, just because on this side of the world, people
are used to reasoning, discussing and disagreeing all in the name of gaining
knowledge and exchanging ideas. Many don't realize that that ideology gets
people killed over nothing.
Regards
"Matt Menge" <mspm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.03041...@posting.google.com...
sirknight67
I welcome your suggestion. I hope that your friend can be objective however.
I look forward to your response.
regards
"Matt Menge" <mspm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.03041...@posting.google.com...
errol9
I said the RC Church formed Oxford and Cambridge Universities. You denied
this happened. The very names St John and Jesus college are Christian.
>
> You were arguing with me about Islam coming up with the concept
> of the university, before we ever had them in Europe. You
> produce this excerpt from the Cambridge University website,
> where you have confused the founding of the *city* with the
> founding of the *University*. When you look into the founding
> of the *University* we find that it is, as I said, in the
> 13th century - contemporary with King John and Magna Charter,
> and not contemporary with King Alfred.
Nonsense all directions regarding education, colleges and Universities came
through the religious orders like the Benidictines. All such early colleges
were religious seminaries. Aristocracy, the gentry and their families were
all educated by private tudors. Only in the last century or so did royalty
attend University. Exactly the same thing happened in Muslim countries all
early places of learning were attended by Islamic clerics. 98% of the lower
classes were illiterate, until the Catholic Christian brothers started
schools for commoners in 17th century Europe which eventually spread all
over Europe and to the US: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08056a.htm
later in the 19th century religious institutions and Ragged schools started
sunday schools first then eventually led to weekday schools in England:
http://www.infed.org/youthwork/ragged_schools.htm
All this Baha'i propaganda about compulsary education must be had by all may
have been lacking in Muslim countries but it had already began in Christian
Europe in the 17th century and ironic as it may be such education for the
poor started in England the same year 1844 the Bab declared his mission.
"The growth was considerably aided by the activities of the Ragged Schools
Union (RSU) founded in 1844 under the guidance of Lord Shaftesbury, and by
propagandists like Thomas Guthrie and writers like Charles Dickens. It is
estimated that around 300,000 children went through the London Ragged
Schools alone between the early 1840s and 1881 (Silver 1983: 20)".
>> By the way mathmatics and geometric design was around long before Islam. The
>> Celts brought it to Ireland and Britian before Christianity. The Romans were
>> past masters at mathmatics, their straight roads and many of their other
>> inventions in civil engineering were based on the good knowledge of geometry
>> & maths. Each civilisation from 5000 years ago helped and added to each
>> other. All this utter crap about the Arabs and Islam being superior to other
>> religions and civilisations is a Baha'i fairy tale.
>>
>
> The Romans were not great mathematicians, they were great
> technicians and engineers. I'd be hard put to it to name
> *any* famous Roman mathematician, while you can't move in
> the subject without tripping over Greeks.
Forgive me for being naive, but I always thought the basic gackground to
becoming a technician or engineer was elemantary mathmatics & geometry.
>
> Errol, you asked what "the original Islam" was, and I listed
> a few of its contributions.
I asked Matt did he know of any other form of Islam. He never answered and
Paul Einstien jumped in to discuss his favourite subject *mathmatics*
>
> You are welcome to disbelieve me if you like, but I have
> now also provided citations to show that I am not the
> only person to understand and appreciate the contributions
> of Islam, especially to a subject, Mathematics, which is
> dear to my heart.
Yes well literature and Art is more flexible, liberal, warmer and closer to
my heart. Mathmatics is ok if you want to go on and be a computer boffin or
to solve coding theory problems that arise from attempts to understand the
communications system inside Susan Maneck cranium. But its to cold, boring,
clinical, humorless and unflexible, and could be the reason why you treat
TRB as a win/lose game on algebra, and our Paul must be right all the time.
> You can scoff all you like, but I have answered your
> questions to my own satisfaction - and if you choose
> to continue in your ignorance saying that Islam is
> nothing but Ayatollahs and fanatics, then that is
> your business.
You have yet to understand the difference between scoffing and Irish black
humour, as for my ignorance I will let those who came from Muslim countries
like Iran to let us know whether the Ayatollahs and fanatics are very much
alive and kicking otherwise 1.5 million Iranians who reside in the US today
would not have left Iran otherwise.
>
> The great contribution of Islam to Science, Medicine
> and Mathematics is a matter of record, and is no
> *Baha'i* fairy tale. None of the sources I quoted in
> my references yesterday were written by Baha'is.
The Baha'i fairy tale, (of biting the hand that feeds I cant stomach) this
pompus overpraise given to Islam and its bygone days middleastern culture
while at the same time putting down our Western Christian European and US
Universities at its heel I do not approve of, especially when the dogs in
the street know it's a one way treak these days people from middle eastern
countries are all coming west to Universities like Oxford and Cambridge
STARTED BY CHRISTIANITY to be educated.
Shoghi Effendi was educated first in a Carmalite Catholic school in Haifa he
then went to Oxford (started by the Catholic Church).
>
>> So I have sent evidence to prove schools colleges and Universities were
>> established in Your country England from 635 onwards by Christianity.
>> Which proves what you said that Islam was " The form that was the highest
>> flowering of the human spirit through many dark centuries of Western
>> European thought." is another load of Baha'i mumbo jumbo.............Errol
>
> I think that al-Khorismi's advances in algebra are and have been
> a whole lot more use than the Book of Kells, and other illustrated
> Irish gospels, beautiful and artistic though they might
> be. And, the early flowering of Celtic Christianity was
> pretty comprehensively crushed following the reforms of
> St Augustine, but that is another story entirely - the Sufi's,
> also, were persecuted by more convential temporal Muslim
> authorities.
That's your opinion, how come you never went to an Islamic University then
Paul seeing al-Khorismi's advances in algebra is your prize subject
>
> But, to classify the whole idea of the great flowering of
> high Islamic culture from 800-1500 as "nothing but Baha'i
> mumbo jumbo" is a big mistake, and I hope I have shown
> why.
As I have already explained it is my opinion they talk mumbo jumbo some
Baha'is are a bunch of hypocrits, and snobs who all praise Islam and its
teaching yet are bending over backwards to get their children into the best
of British Universities like Oxford or Canmbridge which was started by the
Catholic Church..................Errol
Paul Hammond
by selectively quoting Surah 9
>
> "sirknight67" <sirkn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<4ADma.1406$TZ7....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
<snip>
> >
> > Forgive me for saying so but you are truly burrying yourself in
> > bullshit with each passing statement, and you don't seem to be aware of
> > the stench of it! Read the following verses from the Koran and then tell
> > me what you think:
> > [9:5] But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the
> > Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in
> > wait for them in every stratagem.
> >
It actually begins, in my translation:
[9:1] An immunity from God and his apostle to those with whom
ye are in league, among the polytheist Arabs.
So, in fact, this verse is about *letting off* unbelievers
with whom you have some kind of alliance, and treating them
with honour.
If we look at the context around [9:5] we see the following:
[9:4-7]
But this concerneth not those polytheists with whom ye are
in league, and who shall have afterwards in no way failed you,
nor aided anyone against you. Observe, therefore, engagement
with them through the whole time of their treaty: for
God loveth those who fear Him
And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who
join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and
seize them and besiege them, and lay wait for them with
every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe
prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their
way, for God is Gracious, Merciful.
If any one of those who join gods with God ask an asylum
of thee, grant him an asylum, that he may hear the Word of
God, and then let him reach his place of safety. This, for
that they are people devoid of knowledge.
How shall they who add gods to God be in league with
God and His Apostle, save those with whom ye made a
league at the sacred temple? So long as they are true
to you, be ye true to them; for God loveth those who
fear Him.
---
So, you see, quoting half a sura out of context can leave
a misleading impression. The sura in question does indeed
say that muslims ought to fight against non-believers - but
the second half of it enjoins merciful treatment to converts.
<snip to end>
> >I think you will agree with me that
> > although individual Americans have commited heinous acts, you cannot
> > blame the entire American system for their actions but ideologies
> > advocating mass murder such as cults, Nazism, Islam etc... can and MUST
> > be blamed for the CONTENT of their message. While I will be first to
> > agree that human nature itself is plagued by a dichotomy of good and
> > evil, you must take responsability for your comments and aknowledge that
> > some ideologies encourage the good nature in humans while others do
> > nothing but incite and encourage the evil one to surface.
> >
I will under no circumstances agree with you that comparing
Islam to Naziism is a fair comparison.
Certainly, Islam is an ideology that has encouraged the good
nature in humans to surface, as well as the bad - just like
all other religions have. The catholics have their
Thomas Merton's as well as their Torquemadas, and so do
the muslims have their Omar Khayyams and Jalal'ud'din Rumis.
By comparison, there was no such thing as an enlightened
Nazi.
Paul
Paul Hammond
> because you are an imbecile ignoramus who has no knoweldge of mid eastern
> politics and antagonisms and instead spreads his ignorant hippie rantings.
>
It's because I have eyes in my head to see, and a brain in
my head to understand.
HOw else can one read
"Not a single one came from Arabs but typical of robbers
and thieves who have nothing of their own to hang on to, the arabs
hijacked (since the like that so much) all the accomplishments of the
Iranian nation"
except as an expression of your deep and abiding hatred for
everything Arab?
Paul
Paul Hammond
I was talking to Errol there. And I provided evidence for
my assertions. Apparently the Baghdad house of wisdom was
founded when the Caliph moved his capital there in the 9th
century AD.
Paul
Paul Hammond
> Dear Matt,
> the only times that the "muslims" on SCI have responded to what I posted on
> Islam was to insult my mother, sister or to call me a firewhorshipper...I
> guess those are all indications that my criticism was true.
Interesting that when I call you on your racism, you call me
a cretin, and an ignorant, ignoramous hippy. I expect you to
start in on my mother and my sister any time now.
I guess those are all indications that my criticism was
true.
> I hope I didn't sound too zealous and if I did, sorry, it's nothing personal
> towards you. My issue here is with a growing number of Americans who, out of
> interest to keep the peace so to speak, pick up the false belief that
> muslims can be reasoned with, just because on this side of the world, people
> are used to reasoning, discussing and disagreeing all in the name of gaining
> knowledge and exchanging ideas. Many don't realize that that ideology gets
> people killed over nothing.
>
That belief about Islam is a true belief. ANd, yes, you are
right that ideology gets people killed over nothing - look
at the history of Communism for a good example. And Christianity
and Zoroastrianism too.
My problem is that you are going around promoting the contention
that Islam is a unique evil, unlike anything else in the world,
and must be exterminated. That sounds like your own extremist
ideological position to me.
Paul
errol9
Well I also provided evidence for my assertions to prove you wrong in your
statement that Islam had started education before the dark ages in Europe.
Two centuries before the Baghdad house of Wisdom was founded Lindisfarne was
established by the Celtic Irish Church back in 635. "In their monastery they
set up the first known school in this area and introduced the arts of
reading and writing, the Latin language and the Bible and other Christian
books (all in Latin)".
http://www.lindisfarne.org.uk/general/1relhist.htm
Errol
Adelard Rubangura
world. I would like to point out to you to get some more knowledge
on the 1994 Rwanda Genocide and the Contribution of the Roman Catholic
Institution and Protestant Churches on that Genocide.
You will begin to be fair of what you know about Islam. The problem is that
when any society continues to believe one kind of ideology for all eternity,
that same ideology becomes a poison, because as the time changes, the world
changes too socially as it's social needs require a new way of life.
The problem is not necessary the Qu'ran or the Bible, the problem is people
who are too much attached to their traditions, most of them which become
nothing but nonsense as time changes. Since 1844, if all these people could
have believed that religion is progressive as Baha'u'llah reveals in his
teachings, I believe the world could have moved forward by now, without
bloodshed as it happened ever since.
God Bless
Adelard
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.0304...@posting.google.com...
Matt Menge
I was able to find one resource on Islam on my own. It is from an
Islamic scholar who converted to the Baha'i Faith in the 19th century,
Mirza Abu'l-Fadl. I don't think it addresses all the issues you have
mentioned, but certainly some of them.
"Yes, it is true that Muslims have often been accused of spreading
Islam by the sword and establishing it by force rather than by
allowing people free choice and convincing them with proofs... If we
leaf through the histories of of Islamic nations, pursuing their
traces and searching their annals, we find not the least indication
that the Prophet, or the caliphs, or the kings of Islam ever compelled
any nation to embrace Islam. Rather, we find the very opposite. For
instance, it is recorded that the Umayyad caliphs and the Marwanid
princes (who are the ones intended by the Holy Books when they speak
of the terrible Behemoth and the Beast which emerges from the pit)
[See 'Abdu'l-Baha's "Some Answered Questions" chapters 11 and 13, MM],
forbade anyone to enter Islam because they desired to increase their
income from levies on non-Muslims and they feared that through
conversions they would forfeit tax revenues. This was owing to their
greed in piling up riches and their desire to spend their wealth on
vile passions and base pleasures. 'Umr ibn 'Abdu'l-Aziz, that king
known in the books as abstemious and just, even wrote to one of the
generals censuring him for preventing people from entering Islam. He
wrote, 'Muhammad--peace be upon him--was sent as a guide, not a tax
collector!' This should inform the reasoning person of the manner in
which Islam spread. It relieves us of any need to search further or
digress at length on this theme.
"As for Christianity, while we believe that it is a divinely inspired
religion and a divine revelation, if we page through its chronicles
and follow its development, we find that its history is stained with
gore. Its annals contain the most horrifying instances of nations
forced to follow this religion through killing and burning alive. How
much blood they shed; how many persons they burned; how many women and
children they left widows and orphans! They exterminated nations and
massacred peoples--all as a means of propagating the Trinity and
rendering the Cross victorious! Anyone who wishes to read further
about all this may peruse the history of the church by the American
scholar James Murdock, published here in Cairo [note: This was
actually a translation of Johann Lorenz van Moesheim's _Institutes of
Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, published in 1832).
"What we see today of the way they spread their religion obviates any
further need to delve into and investigate the past. The domes of
this religion's glory in our own time [1898 AD MM] rest on three
pillars: the machinations of ambassadors, the artillery of soldiers,
and the gifts of supporters." (Mirza Abu'l-Fadl, _Miracles and
Metaphors_ pps. 170-172)
Anyways, I anxiously await the response from a practicing Muslim, but
this will have to suffice for the time being.
Best Regards,
Matt
"sirknight67" <sirkn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<fmPma.2136$Qu.208...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>...
Isaac
> Sirknight67l, I believe you have been only experiencing Islam in the Arab
> world. I would like to point out to you to get some more knowledge
> on the 1994 Rwanda Genocide and the Contribution of the Roman Catholic
> Institution and Protestant Churches on that Genocide.
>
> You will begin to be fair of what you know about Islam. The problem is that
> when any society continues to believe one kind of ideology for all eternity,
> that same ideology becomes a poison, because as the time changes, the world
> changes too socially as it's social needs require a new way of life.
>
> The problem is not necessary the Qu'ran or the Bible, the problem is people
> who are too much attached to their traditions, most of them which become
> nothing but nonsense as time changes. Since 1844, if all these people could
> have believed that religion is progressive as Baha'u'llah reveals in his
> teachings, I believe the world could have moved forward by now, without
> bloodshed as it happened ever since.
>
> God Bless
> Adelard
Hi Adelard
Your argument sounds logical in view that the Baha'i Faith was meant
to be progressive, ever-advancing and organic in nature. However, the
last decades, clearly point to the Faith going in the opposite
direction whereby dematuration of LSA's, NSA's, membersip, the
hardening and expunging of the Writings, and the lessening of the
positon of the Central Figures as it is now the position of the UHJ to
'elucidate' and decide what the Writings mean - and their elucidations
don't seem to fit the day in which we are living but that of a
tyranical bent of long ago.
Perhaps the facts prove by your own argument that the Faith is
behaving like the religions of the past already:
>"The problem is that
> when any society continues to believe one kind of ideology for all eternity,
> that same ideology becomes a poison, because as the time changes, the world
> changes too socially as it's social needs require a new way of life."
Isaac
Pat Kohli
sirknight67 wrote:
> Dear Matt,
> the only times that the "muslims" on SCI have responded to what I posted on
> Islam was to insult my mother, sister or to call me a firewhorshipper...I
> guess those are all indications that my criticism was true.
> I hope I didn't sound too zealous and if I did, sorry, it's nothing personal
> towards you. My issue here is with a growing number of Americans who, out of
> interest to keep the peace so to speak, pick up the false belief that
> muslims can be reasoned with, just because on this side of the world, people
> are used to reasoning, discussing and disagreeing all in the name of gaining
> knowledge and exchanging ideas. Many don't realize that that ideology gets
> people killed over nothing.
>
> Regards
Muslims are like the Christians. Some can be reasoned with and some can't. I
reason with the folks I can, and try not to get pinned down by the folks who
just want to vent their own insecurities and inadequacies.
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
NEMO418
engilisihaa-ye khaarkosteh-ye nejaad parasteh. man behesh migam
"limey" kheyli badesh miyaad. haqq-e een martikeh-ye mozakhraff-e
pofyuso bezaar kaff-e dast-e bad engilisiesh!
Nima (with big salivating spit on the Union Jack)
"sirknight67" <sirkn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<q0Dma.1396$MK7...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
NEMO418
> It's because I have eyes in my head to see,
Your eyes are *in* your head, eh limey?
>and a brain in
> my head to understand.
The last thing you have is a brain, limey.
> HOw else can one read
>
> "Not a single one came from Arabs but typical of robbers
> and thieves who have nothing of their own to hang on to, the arabs
> hijacked (since the like that so much) all the accomplishments of the
> Iranian nation"
Which is an emotional expression of a true historical fact.
> except as an expression of your deep and abiding hatred for
> everything Arab?
But since you English bastards have been constantly pitting the Arabs
against us in the region for the past one hundred and fifty years for
your own gain, we hate you limey sons of bitches even more so fuck you
and the bulldog you rode in on.
Nima (spitting on the Union Jack)
sirknight67
>
> Islam by the sword and establishing it by force rather than by
> allowing people free choice and convincing them with proofs... If we
> leaf through the histories of of Islamic nations, pursuing their
> traces and searching their annals, we find not the least indication
> that the Prophet, or the caliphs, or the kings of Islam ever compelled
> any nation to embrace Islam. Rather, we find the very opposite. For
> instance, it is recorded that the Umayyad caliphs and the Marwanid
> princes (who are the ones intended by the Holy Books when they speak
> of the terrible Behemoth and the Beast which emerges from the pit)
> [See 'Abdu'l-Baha's "Some Answered Questions" chapters 11 and 13, MM],
> forbade anyone to enter Islam because they desired to increase their
> income from levies on non-Muslims and they feared that through
> conversions they would forfeit tax revenues. This was owing to their
> greed in piling up riches and their desire to spend their wealth on
> vile passions and base pleasures. 'Umr ibn 'Abdu'l-Aziz, that king
> known in the books as abstemious and just, even wrote to one of the
> generals censuring him for preventing people from entering Islam. He
> wrote, 'Muhammad--peace be upon him--was sent as a guide, not a tax
> collector!'
[8:69] Eat then of the lawful and good things, which you have acquired in war, and be careful of your duty to Allah; surely Allah is forgiving, merciful.
[33.27] And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and (of) a land, which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things.
[47.4] So when you meet in battle those who
disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make
(them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them
ransom
(themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if
Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but
that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain
in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to
perish.
[48.16] Say to those of the dwellers of the desert
who were left behind:
You shall soon be invited (to fight) against a people
possessing mighty prowess; you will fight against them until they submit; then
if you obey, Allah will grant you a good reward; and if you turn back as you
turned back before, He will punish you with a painful
punishment
> religion and a divine revelation, if we page through its chronicles
> and follow its development, we find that its history is stained with
> gore. Its annals contain the most horrifying instances of nations
> forced to follow this religion through killing and burning alive. How
> much blood they shed; how many persons they burned; how many women and
> children they left widows and orphans! They exterminated nations and
> massacred peoples--all as a means of propagating the Trinity and
> rendering the Cross victorious! Anyone who wishes to read further
> about all this may peruse the history of the church by the American
> scholar James Murdock, published here in Cairo [note: This was
> actually a translation of Johann Lorenz van Moesheim's _Institutes of
> Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, published in 1832).
>
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and
their
property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in
Allah’s way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in
the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his
covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge, which you have made; and
that is the mighty achievement
[9.123] O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
[13:34] They (the unbelievers) shall have chastisement in this world’s life, and the chastisement of the hereafter is certainly more grievous, and they shall have no protector against Allah.
[8:12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip off them.
[8:16] And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day-unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company-then he, indeed becomes deserving of Allah’s wrath, and his abode is hell; and an evil destination it shall be.
[8:17] So you did not slay them, but it was Allah who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote the enemy, but it was Allah who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is hearing, knowing.
[8:55] Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.
Whereas in Zoroastrianism and Christianity God NEVER gives up on humans and their ability to repent and join the good cause, allah has already cursed and thrown away all thos who do not believe, because they are as vile, blind lowly animals!
> Anyways, I anxiously await the response from a practicing Muslim, but
> this will have to suffice for the time being.
>
> Best Regards,
> Matt
sirknight67
filled with the ultimate truth but as I can see clearly, you are just
another one of those muslim apologists wasting everyone's time to try to
change words into what you believe will appeal to your own propaganda
ministry.
"kill" therefore" will become "kill their unbelief" and "chop their heads
and fingertips" will become "disable their aggressive actions" or some crap
like that.
I have seen people like you and I have no desire to give you the slightest
amount of time to waste for your way is lie and deceit.
Let's see if you can also rationalize teh death penalty for apostacy.
PS:
As to your enlightened Nazi ranting, take a look at those men who designed
the Nurnberg laws and favored sterilization or isolation as opposed to
extermination.
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.0304...@posting.google.com...
sirknight67
it may interest you that I have not witnessed islam in the Arab world but
rather in my native Iran, which is probably not as bad as the Arab world in
which my aunt has lived for a number of years ebfore fleeing for dear life.
I agree wtih you that all religious commnuities and people can allow their
teachings and beliefs to deteriorate and become a tyranny, as a few may
skillfully seek to manipulate certain chapters or words in the religious
texts to serve their own personal or political ends.
Once again, I do not argue that all people can fall prey to evil, because as
a Zoroastrian, I truly believe that good and evil exist iwthin each and
every individual and that it is one's conscious choice that suppresses one
or the other. My argument however is that beisdes blaming the individuals
for his or her wrong choice of actions, one must also look at the ideologies
and what they teach. One individual whose religion teaches compassion and
toelrance may turn to the axe and commit heinous acts to serve personal
aims. That ideology cannot be blamed however if millions seek death,
destruction and war and turn racist against other people and creeds as a
result of teh blind hatred and racism taught in their ideology (such as
islam), then the blame can clearly be palced on the latter.
regards
"Adelard Rubangura" <Adelard_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b7h8pn$t78m$4...@ID-75457.news.dfncis.de...
sirknight67
jan
"NEMO418" <saosh...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:9185f7bd.0304...@posting.google.com...
sirknight67
"Pat Kohli" <ko...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3E9CB094...@ameritel.net...
sirknight67
hameen engeleeshaye namardan ke dar een dore myan roo BBC sohbate "Arabian
Gulf" mikonand bad miporsand chera az arabha va engeles-ha khoshemoun
nemyad?
Ardalan
(asheghe parchame engeless hastam ke az kagaz toualet narm tar ast!)
"NEMO418" <saosh...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:9185f7bd.03041...@posting.google.com...
Pat Kohli
sirknight67 wrote:
> which one are you, the type that can or cannot be reasoned with?
That is for you to determine. Some have better luck with me than others.
NEMO418
> (asheghe parchame engeless hastam ke az kagaz toualet narm tar ast!)
L O L )))
Paul Hammond
> thank you for saying it infinitely more eloquently than I could have Nima
> jan
>
> "NEMO418" <saosh...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:9185f7bd.0304...@posting.google.com...
> > paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message
> >
> > > It's because I have eyes in my head to see,
> >
> > Your eyes are *in* your head, eh limey?
> >
> > >and a brain in
> > > my head to understand.
> >
> > The last thing you have is a brain, limey.
> >
> > > HOw else can one read
> > >
> > > "Not a single one came from Arabs but typical of robbers
> > > and thieves who have nothing of their own to hang on to, the arabs
> > > hijacked (since the like that so much) all the accomplishments of the
> > > Iranian nation"
> >
> > Which is an emotional expression of a true historical fact.
> >
> > > except as an expression of your deep and abiding hatred for
> > > everything Arab?
> >
> > But since you English bastards have been constantly pitting the Arabs
> > against us in the region for the past one hundred and fifty years for
> > your own gain, we hate you limey sons of bitches even more so fuck you
> > and the bulldog you rode in on.
> >
> >
> > Nima (spitting on the Union Jack)
> >
What's up sirknight?
Can't speak for yourself?
Have to hide behind your racist Iranian friend there?
Paul
Paul Hammond
> paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message
>
> > It's because I have eyes in my head to see,
>
> Your eyes are *in* your head, eh limey?
>
Where are yours, then? On your chest with your nuts?
Paul
NEMO418
> What's up sirknight?
>
> Can't speak for yourself?
>
> Have to hide behind your racist Iranian friend there?
A two-faced limey ponse like Paul Hammond lecturing us Iranians about racism.
L O freakin L :))
Nima