If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
esther is the egytptian connection and rabbits and eggs are the babylonian one. both of who's religous practices and symbolism, the god of the bible detested as false worship. so it is very dodgy ground for a christian to celbrate these pagan festivities if they want to please thier god.
I think under the previous Pope things were more strict -- Catholics only ate certain things on certain days and fasted more seriously in Lent also I think.
And, I also know many Christians and I have seen most of them pray on their knees with palms together at least a few times - like before bed "Now I lay me down to sleep...", in certain churches, etc. It is not an unreasonable icon for Christian prayer or else you would not see it all over Christian bookstore ads and literature - little kids by the beds, or the pervasive image of the palms together with Catholic prayer beads between them.
I think some people are being nitpicky trying to refute things. The fact is, Muslims DO fast more like Jesus did, and pray more like he did, too, if the Bible has any historical accuracy whatsoever, there can be no denying that. That does not mean no Christians fast or pray, nor that none do it like Jesus did, but as a whole if we are talking about methodology, the current Muslim practice if more like that of Jesus.
I'm certainly not nitpicking - just coming back with some answers to Aisha's propaganda which she will no doubt ignore as she has done when anyone confronts her with a few facts about the inacurracy of the Qu'ran.
Did you read my reply to her? Yes, Muslims DO fast but not like Jesus - he didn't do it all out in public for the world to see.
Yes, Muslims do pray in a way that Christ did, but he prayed in other ways too etc etc
The problem here, orionzephram, is that Aisha trys to use parts of the Bible (or the Qu'ran even) that suit her argument but does not reveal the whole picture (e.g. the prayer thing). She is being deceitful because it seems that the "ends justify the means" i.e. she can tell half-truths or lie just to win an argument for her case for Islam. I've just tried to put her arguments in perspective. Muslims are not allowed to contest the validity, accuracy or divine inspiration of the Qu'ran so she attacks the Bible instead. Now, while I agree that the Bible does appear to have some problems, so does the Qu'ran, which I have highlighted - fairs fair, don't you think? But I'm sure she'll be very quiet on this subject now because she will be cautious of me (or anyone else) showing glaring shortcomings in the Qu'ran which she can't refute and also show that the Qu'ran must have been written by a man (Muhammed) and not inspired or written by God.
I've met born again Christians who are so filled with hate, they think everyone who isn't born again is going to hell. And we've all read about the Muslim and Jewish extremists murdering innocents.
So as we go further into a new century, it amazes me that we see so much of the negative affect of being religious being carried on.
Hate is a hard thing to live with.:)
An American onenatcons... ?
I certainly don't hate Muslims but I do hate narrow minded rhetoric. If it were a Christian spouting off their beliefs without any concern of sincere dialogue and debate, as Aisha does, I'd quickly turn my attention to them too.
Quoting a phrase of each verse makes it look like "kill all non-Muslims" but Harlequin http://www.thesite.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35650 refuted you ages ago. You bring up the same topic again and again.
http://www.thesite.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=36207&perpage=15&pagenumber=2 Is Islam violent?
From Luke 19:27 it appears Jesus wanted war as well "But those mine enemies, who would not that I should REIGN over them, bring them hither, and SLAY them before me". Waging war as means of self defence does not belittle a prophet. Shall we say the same about Moses and Joshua?
Jesus also said the same about prayer in Matt 6:5-8 as well as ostentatious fasting. You overlook what the Prophet of Islam has said - the same. Christians pray in public in Churches as well as Muslims as Mosques. So? The whole point about worship - any form is that it must be sincere and genuine. Muslims don't go round "I'm fasting". The point is that the science of fasting has been lost in Christianity. It is not as important as it once was. The Qur'an says that "O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you, that ye may (learn) self-restraint" 2:187. In Islam it's 1 of the 5 pillars of faith.
Since Islam says that the same religion but with a different Law and rites was taught everywhere in the past and not just in the Middle East (as the Bible indicates) - (why should God not bless nations with prophets if He blesses them with sun and rain?) it would come as no surprise that Buddhist and other non-Abrahamic faiths have a concept of prostration. But the point was we are talking about the Semites. Prostration was how all the prophets prayed: Abraham, Moses, etc
http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch5.6.html The highest part of man goes to lowest part of the ground for total submission to his creator. Jesus might not have "said it" but the example was here "he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." Matt 10:38. We only have a snapshot and interpretation of his life. Scholars have said reading the Gospels his ministry could have been 3 weeks not 3 years with the amount of information given. Take all the words of Jesus and remove the duplications and the words don't fill 3 columns of a newspaper. John 21:25 says that Jesus said alot more things which were not recorded. There were many other gospels not just the '4' in existance. Muslims try to follow the "Sunnah" or example of the Prophet. We have to be very careful not to be following "innovations" which don't derive from the Prophet himself. From that perspective alot of Christianity is innovation. In Christian paintings Jesus and others have a "halo" on their heads -- where did this come from? Gospels don't report it? Christmas wasn't taught by Jesus. BTW The bowing, prostration, standing, etc is part of the formal prayer but Muslims for personal petition/supplication pray with their hands open towards heaven sitting on their knees. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/features/worship/worship.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/features/worship/wudu.shtml
Photos here
Batman outfits. Show me in the Qur'an where there's mention of this and an Aston Martin (as in Die Another Day) for you Sir. Islamic dress is simply nun's dress without any uniform or in a style. Pakistanis wear their dress; Arabs another; Western Muslims can wear loose ankle length skirt with an overcoat or baggy jumper and headscarf, etc. I doubt Jesus would be happy with bikinis and swimsuits in front of other men publicly as "Christian" women wear.
Commentators say "kingship" of the Israelites is a metaphorical allusion to their freedom and independance after their Egyptian bondage, the term "king" being equivalent here to "a free man who is master of his own affairs". As for prophets before Moses: Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, (peace be upon them) etc. These were all prophets_in_the Qur'an. Trying to say the Qur'an is wrong it contradicts the Bible is silly; you have to first show the Bible is inerrant and only the Fundamentalist insists this, the rest like Muslims say it contains the words of God and man's. The "original" Bible got lost. Xerox photocopiers weren't invented then. Copyists/scribes were bound to make errors just like we do when we type on the keyboard. Translation errors. The contents of the Bible which we have now dates from the 4th century: finally they decided which books to be in the Bible.
Stop painting all Muslims with the same brush. Shall we say Catholics are ALL child-molestors?
Half of us aren't even christian anyway. You're trying to cnvert a bunch of atheists who think the religion we grew up with is a load of crap. How do you expect us to believe yours?
And look at it like this, why should we choose to worship a religion that's only been around for a 1000 years? When we'd be more likely to be "saved" if we convert to judaism which has been around for ever?
Islam is a religion of deceit, lies and propaganda, any religion that feels it needs to advertise can't possibly be a good one anyway.
Christisans, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists and Pagans don't advertise their religions at all, and they certainly don't attract as much attention to themselves as some so called muslims seem to do.
Now, for your reply, I want you (careful, this is hard) THINK FOR YOURSELF AND DON'T QUOTE
It can be said that Islam must be most misunderstood religion. The point I've being trying to make is that Muslims see everything as "muslim" - small "m" meaning every living thing "submits its will to God". Tree, animals, sun, moon, etc obey's God's Law and in that respect they are following "Islam" - it's a generic term -submission to God's will. I've said in the past the Muslim believes that every prophet taught Islam but the final complete version came 1400 years ago. In the essentials there is no difference "One God" Deut 6:4, Mark 12:29 Qur'an 112. People didn't preserve the teachings of that prophet intact and added to it hence the different religions in the world today - see the Islam and other religions thread. In fact one could say Islam is Judaism made universal, the dietary laws are similar and we both believe in one God, no Son, no Incarnation, etc.
http://www.ipci-iv.co.uk/SeriesA.htm#A1
Erm ... no ... he didn't refute me. He never even mentioned my name. He just mentioned his opinion of the meaning of jihad. And where have I mentioned those suras "again and again". It has only been in a recent posts - and those suras don't go away just because you want them to.
Now Aisha, unfortunately here again is more proof that you are prepared to LIE to try and win arguments for Islam? Or you quote things while being grossly uninformed? Jesus DID say these words, BUT they are taken from a PARABLE - the actual words are said by the king in the parable of The Ten Minas. They were not said by Jesus directly. You have taken texts out of context and tried to manipulate them into your interpretation. Why do you do this? It is so sad!
You're the one that tried to make out that only Islam follows the practices of Jesus! I know Christians and Muslims pray in churches and mosques but I was pointing out that (contrary to what you implied) Jesus taught fasting in private. As you say "So?", what is your point? The "science of fasting" (is it a science when it is in a religious context?) hasn't been "lost" to Christianity as you say although it isn't widely practised. But most so-called Christians are not Christians while most so-called Muslims are not Muslims. Many of both religons consider themselves to be one or the other but actually in practice have very little knowledge of their faith. Many Christians do fast. But fasting is not a route to salvation in itself for Christians. The New Testament says in Ephesians 2 amongst other places "8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and
this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."
Yes, Aisha, but as I pointed out, Jesus prayed in many ways and as his status in Christianity and Islam (although you would possibly believe he is second to Muhammed) is far higher than any of the other prophets, I hardly see referring to
the other prophets as being as important. The other prophets were fallable and often sinful while Jesus of the New Testament is not. Regarding your quote from Matt 10:38 (out of context again), Jesus is referring to the disciple who follows him and the commitment involved (i.e. possible persecution because of it) ... not that the follower must pray in a certain way to achieve salvation.
You are right. We do only have a snapshot of his life. But quality of content is far more important that quantity. Yes, there are other so called "gospels" BUT the content is incompatible in many ways historically and spiritually and can only have been written by people hoping to deceive. There are good reasons for trusting in today's list of New Testament books. As previously mentioned, the Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were close followers of Jesus. The other authors were considered trustworthy as well: James and Jude (half-brothers of Jesus, who initially did not believe in him), Peter (one of the 12 apostles), and Paul (whom Jesus made an apostle after his death and resurrection). The church knew about these men and their association with Jesus. Moreover, what they reported was consistent with what people had heard and seen themselves regarding Jesus, and had passed on to their children. So, when other books were written and appeared hundreds of years later (e.g., the Gospel of Peter, though Peter had long since died), it wasn't difficult for the church to spot them as fake.
The Gospel of Thomas (which Muhammed references in the Qu'ran) was written around 140 A.D., long after Thomas had died. Though it bore some similarities to the New Testament's authentic Gospel of Matthew, it also contained wildly different messages. The descriptions of Jesus did not fit anything the early church knew to be true of him. So, as books were written and circulated among the early church, it was not difficult for people to discern the forgeries. False writings countered the known teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament, and often contained historical and geographical errors.
I'm going to apologise here Aisha. I was so irate and frustrated by the rubbish you were going on about, by the time I got to the veil, I was being flippant and rude. I apologise wholeheartedly for calling them “batman outfits”.
Now, I may agree with you that Christ may not approve of bikinis and swimsuits (but we don't know for sure).
What I do know is that Allah must have been pretty disappointed in his creation of women if he was to order them to be hidden behind a veil so that their beautiful hair and faces were shrouded from view. And the sexual unfairness that this raises! A good-looking Muslim man can have his face and hair viewed by a woman but a Muslim woman cannot be viewed by a man? Are you telling me that Muslim women do not suffer from lust as men do? Do they not see a good looking man and are excited to some degree by him? This is sexual inequality or Allah despises his creation of women.
Very handy! So the commentators find that there is a glaring error in the Qu'ran and then call it an "allusion" to give the Qu'ran credence? Is that what you REALLY believe? Please wake up and smell the coffee, Aisha. Perhaps the whole of the Qu'ran is a "metaphorical allusion" then? Where does the "allusion" finish and the fact start?
Yes, they are all prophets in the Qu'ran but you believe the Qu'ran to be the word of God - I don't. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc are people in the Bible but they do not fall under the prophets. The Bible clearly sees Moses as the founder of the faith and founder of the Jewish people (while Abraham is the founder of the nation) and the first prophet.
Trying to say the Qu'ran is wrong in no way contradicts the Bible. Trying to say the Qu'ran is the "Word of God" and not sit up and notice its own failings and contradictions is "silly". Looks like we'll never agree on that!
Only in your opinion. But lucky you, I'm helping you to see that the Qu'ran "is inerrant and only the Fundamentalist insists this,". You'll thank me later!
Well, Muslims would, wouldn't they? And it's only THEIR opinion.
I know you will dispute this because you cannot even begin to contemplate any shortcomings of the divine authenticity of the Qu'ran but the present-day Qu'ran is not the same as the origonal "handed down" to Muhammed all those years ago. Allegedly, every single sura of the Qu'ran is a Revelation from God and every word is that spoken by God to Muhammad. Despite that and despite what many Muslims would have you believe, there was and is more than one version of the Qu'ran. The reason being is that for some time the sura were disseminated solely by oral route - they were not written down. When they were, the original script used missed out short vowel sounds and failed to add the necessary diacritical marks to distinguish certain consonants. When these were subsequently added in separate places and at separate times, differences in spelling and pronunciation arose. Surely an impossiblity for the "Word of God". In addition, the Qu'ran today is based on the Uthmanic codex - Uthman ibn 'Affan being the third caliph. Prior to his standardising the text of the Qu'ran - which involved ordering that all other copies be burnt - there were at least three other documented codices - those of Ubayy bin Ka'ab, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and Abu Musa. Some authorities allege even more.
And of course, even your "Sunnah" contradicts the Qu'ran and vice versa. Where's the divinity in THAT????
No, I don't "paint all Muslims with the same brush". Most Muslims as individuals are kind, generous and lovely people - as are most of humankind perhaps. Muslims are no better or no worse than anyone else unless fundamentalism is involved - but that is ugly regardless of what religion that may be.
What this whole exercise has all been about on my part is that you post articles on this board stating only what YOU perceive are FACTS because the Qu'ran or Muhammed say so; your posts are rarely ever DISCUSSIONS but really statements that you refuse to debate; you are blatantly using these boards to be a Muslim "missionary" and lastly (most importantly), if you want to shoot holes in the accurracy of the Bible or any other text for that matter (I repeat - I am not a Christian) while your own Qu'ran and Sunnah has holes big enough to pass the moon through, then someone should help expose them for the sake of any interested party on this board - and to you.
Those fighting verses. http://www.answering-christianity.com/no_murder.htm http://www.answering-christianity.com/jihad.htm
Jihad is always done in self-defense.
Jesus wasn't speaking of parables to kill time or for public speaking practice. There was a point to made in that for real-life. He himself used violence as a means of self-defence - he overturned the money changer tables and chased them out of God's House. He told his disciples to arm themselves with swords in Luke 22:36 prior to his arrest.
I didn't say only Muslims follow Jesus. My point as a whole Muslims follow Jesus more. Fasting was practised previously as the Qur'an says. But most of Christianity today doesn't derive from Jesus' words. You sing hymns. Did Jesus sing those hymns, did he write them? Fasting is not a route of salvation in itself for Muslims. Muslims also are told to be well-groomed whilst fasting as Matt 6:16. Incidentally as well as Ramadhan you can fast_optionally_on other days and don't go round telling your community e.g. "Guys it's New Year's Day - I'm fasting".
Praying. The example was there by Jesus and previous Prophets whereas the example of him doing most of the things in today's Christianity is not there. Christmas wasn't taught by Jesus. He is not second to Muhammad because the Qur'an 2:136 says: "Say ye: "We believe in God, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to God (in Islam)."
Bible. The contents of the Bible today was only decided in 367 - finally they decided which books to have. Mark and Luke were NOT disciples of Jesus. Scholars are in dispute as to whether Matthew or John were the actual authors. Paul, a persecutor of Christians was never a disciple of Jesus. Jesus never said before he left "Paul will come and teach you".
Women. I have posted here and in the Sex forum that because of the Genesis version that Eve alone was considered the fall of man, Church Fathers debated whether women had a soul! The Qur'an said both Adam and Eve together sinned, repented and were forgiven and gave a soul to women 1400 years ago. Nuff said.
As for the dress, covering the face is optional. It might not be obvious to you personally Teagan as to why women ought to cover more (since you aren't into women) but men and women do have different ratios of emotions, strength, etc. Women are more beautiful than men. Men do have a tendency to look and lust more than women. To deny the differences by giving men and women identical roles and rules would insult these differences. Even in non-Muslim culture women wear more clothing on the beach than men do, breasts are covered. In the workplace if a man came in shorts he'd be sent home but a women wearing a knee-length skirt wouldn't. The dress rules are relaxed in privacy of family.
Kings. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=king It doesn't always mean sovereign.
"Well, Muslims would, wouldn't they? And it's only THEIR opinion." Yes but Christians say the same. It isn't a novel idea. It is found in the Bible from the start.
Quran's "versions". The Arabic text today is the same. Translations are just a man's best attempt to translate from the original Arabic to English or whatever language. A choice of words. The translation is not the Qur'an - it's a fallible effort. The Arabic text is. The Bible has "versions" not just "translations". New Bibles are based on more ancient manuscripts and in this case you have chunks of text removed e.g. 1 John 5:7, Mark 19:9-20, John 8:1-11. We have different Bibles - go into a bookstore and inspect but not different Qur'ans.
As for the vowels and other stuff. Suppose you wanted to record a message on your answer machine. The best person for this would be someone who speaks the "BBC News or Queen's" English. Getting someone with a Japanese, Indian, Italian, Scottish, Yorkshire, Manuncian, Scouse, etc accent might present problems. The Qur'an was revealed in the Arabic dialect of the Quraysh and to ensure than in the future there would be no confusion or misunderstanding in the text all other variants destroyed. Americans have different spellings for words e.g. "color" not "colour" and pronounce words differently "zee" not "zed". In the UK some say "booook" not "buk" or "yur" not "ye-ar". This is all it is.
Adding the vowels. For the Quraysh tribe they didn't need the vowel symbols.
"The man sleeps on a b*d"
You know that *=e; bad, bid, bod, bud would not make sense. But someone from outside who didn't know the language might make a mistake. Because of this the vowel symbols were added.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/other_books.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/textual.htm
Please spell Qur'an properly in future, it's Qur'an not Qu'ran.
As for Jesus not explicitly commanding to pray like this - WhoWhere you did get certain sects who pray like this.
http://www.williamdalrymple.uk.com/Pages/Biog.html
"William Dalrymple, the Scottish writer and historian"
William Dalrymple, travel writer and author of From the Holy Mountain writes about the family ties of Christians and Muslims which have been lost in the modern world and thrown into crisis since September 11th. This meditation was broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in the early hours of Christmas morning this year.
http://ship-of-fools.com/Features/Dalrymple2.html
"CERTAINLY IF A MONK from 6th-century Byzantium were to come back today it is probable that he would find much more that was familiar in the practices and beliefs of a modern Muslim Sufi than he would with, say, a contemporary American evangelical. Yet this simple truth has been lost by our tendency to think of Christianity as a thoroughly Western religion rather than the Oriental faith it actually is."
ISLAM GREW UP in the largely Christian environment of the Late Antique Levant, and the longer you spend in the ancient Christian communities of India and the Middle East, the more you become aware of the extent to which Eastern Christian practice formed the template for what were to become the basic conventions of Islam.
The Muslim form of prayer, with its bowings and prostrations, appears to derive from the older Syrian Orthodox tradition that is still practised in pewless churches across the Levant. The architecture of the earliest minarets, which are square rather than round, unmistakably
derive from the church towers of Byzantine Syria, while Ramadan, at first sight one of the most distinctive of Islamic practices, bears startling similarities to Lent, which in the Eastern Christian churches still involves as it once used to in the West a gruelling all-day fast.
The Koran calls Christians the "nearest in love" to Muslims, whom it instructs to "dispute not with the People of the Book [that is, the Jews and Christians] save in the most courteous manner," and says, we believe in what has been sent down to us and what has been sent down to you; our God and your God is one."
http://ship-of-fools.com/Features/Dalrymple_body.html full article