The Original Sin

The Saint wrote: Jesus PBUH was not the son of God. I can prove it to you fr the Quran and the Bible. And killing is not acceptable in Islam unless it is in combat. But Christianity does not permit war. Yet the most warlike nations are Christian nations.

Greetings The Saint,

I can not say that this is true...
the only difference with western nations is that they have more advanced weapons... but these wars have nothing to do with the Christian religion.

and if you say that 'killing is not acceptable in islam unless it is in combat'...
how is this any different from western wars?

The Saint wrote: If we destroy goodly, and Godly, caring people, the very people who seek to serve God's good purposes, then we do not serve the Creator. Agreed.

   I like when we agree. 

The Saint wrote: Discernment is what God requires. True. But where is the discernment? Palestinians have been living in an open jail for the last 60 years financed by the US in partnership with zionist entity. Whither discernment?

Yes, and among those people are good and bad... innocent people held at the mercy of their rulers who rather than seeking a peace agreement, continue the war.
Palestinians regularly launch rockets into Israel, but I would never judge all Palestinians as bad people.  I would judge them individually on how they treat their neighbor... with love or with contempt... with compassion or with enmity. 
When all people find themselves in one boat and it is sinking, do they help one another, or do they turn and devour one another, killing innocents merely because of theological differences.  Do they see one another each as humans?  I say the ones that truly belong to God will see each other as humans and help one another to survive and not turn on one another so that all end up drowned.  If the people of Palestine want peace then they must help one another and make it clear to those in power that they want a cessation of endless, useless, battles.

And if a people that shows itself to be peaceful continues to be oppressed then the world will see and respond, but the world will not respond as long as the Palestinians look like the instigators...
(what is sad, is that it is not even the Palestinians that continue this war, but outsiders with their own agendas and no thought for the people living there)
and Israel can not remove blockades as long as there are those that insist on threatening the existence of Israel.
Would you want your country to allow an enemy to be free to bring in weapons knowing the plan was to use them against you?  Knowing that the goal was to destroy your country... or would you want your country to protect you?  As long as there is a threat any country will take steps to protect itself from those threats.

asalaam and blessings,
Caringheart

Edited by Caringheart - 18 May 2015 at 12:41pm

But civilization has advanced in so many ways since Muhammad's time, and human laws have to change to keep up.

Human laws may need to change. But not divine laws. Islamic laws are divine. Therefore, they shall remain the same. God Almighty has spoken and thou shall heed.


Most other cultures understand this, and adapt their rules accordingly. And that is why most other cultures are more successful.

Most other cultures, as you said, are breaking divine laws and they shall be answerable. But in your opinion they are more successful. Obviously our definitions of success are different.

Our's is: �Everyone shall taste death. And only on the Day of resurrection shall you be paid your wages in full. And whoever is removed away from the fire and admitted to Paradise, he indeed is successful. The life of this world is only a deceiving thing.� (Quran 3:185)

Yes, I already pointed that out. But again, science has vastly surpassed the beliefs of the seventh century; and yet we still have Islamic scholars seriously suggesting we should look to the Quran for scientific guidance.

Beliefs of the seventh century are the same today. That is what I am trying to tell you. Beliefs given to us are forever. Until the Day of Judgement. I disagree with those scholars who look to Quran as a book of science. It is not. Instead, it is a book of signs. Allah's signs.

It's ludicrous. And it's why Muslim countries are making scant progress in the sciences.

It is not why Muslim countries are lacking in advancements of most kinds. The reason is just one. In most Muslim countries the form of govt is inappropriate and most Muslims have traveled away from their true faith. Muslims who pioneered the sciences were imbued with true Islam.

But these are supposed to be your best examples of successful societies; and yet Malaysia only ranks #62 out of 187 countries on the HDI, and Indonesia at 108 can't even get above the median!

No, they are good examples of good governments and good economies but they are not very high on HDI because they are predominantly Muslim countries and they do things differently there.

There are other successful societies in the world that you would not know about because they are successful in the Quranic sense. Also by certain worldly scales they have strong marriage institutions. Their societies are cohesive. Divorce rate is low and there is no Interest.

Most secular societies are much more advanced by just about any measure. If the best Islam can do is barely adequate, and the worst is places like Somalia and Pakistan, then it should be evident by now that Islam is no longer a blueprint for an ideal society, if it ever was.

The best that Islam can do is already known to the civilized world. You must not forget history. Islam IS a blueprint of an ideal society but that ideal is inimical to you. Because it imposes restrictions on you. It demands that you change your way of life.

That was just one index. If you don't like it, find another one. There are lots of others, but as I said I don't think you'll find any objective scale that makes Islam look good.

Oh! I am not looking for any scale/s. Islam is its own standard. I notice that you did not answer my entire comment?

You call it twisted; I call it adapted. Yes, people need to adapt to new circumstances.

Yes, men need to marry men and women need to marry women! What cataclysmic event called for this abominable adaptation? To violate sacrosanct laws?Again, you have not answered fully.

For instance, there was a time when it was a good thing, for both the individual and for the tribe, to have lots of children. Marriage laws therefore encouraged procreation. But that time is no more.

Why?

The planet already has far too many people, and individuals no longer need children to support them. So in advanced societies, marriage is now more about emotional support than making babies. It needs a totally different set of rules.

LOL..........Most amusing! Both advanced societies and not so advanced societies are stillfed by God Almighty as they were fed twenty centuries ago.

Allah is sufficient for us. Most Excellent is He in whom we trust as Disposer of our Affairs! This is what Abraham (peace be upon him) said when he was cast into the bonfire. It is also what Muhammad (peace be upon him) said when the people said: ��They have gathered against you, so fear them.� However, it only increased the believers in faith, and they said: �Say: Allah is Sufficient for us! Most Excellent is He in whom we trust as Disposer of our affairs!�� [Sūrah Āl `Imrān: 173>

Above was not valid for only the seventh or the tenth or fifteenth or the twenty first century only. It is for all times. Therefore, Muslims need not conform to the changing times and values. They have faith Allah will guide them if they have faith in Him.

Absolutely. As I've already said several times, this isn't just about Islam. All religion puts faith ahead of facts.

In Islam facts matter which is why Allah shows signs o scientific facts in His book.

The first thing you should do is to stop posting it yourself. Don't believe stuff just because you read it on the Internet, and don't mindlessly repeat stuff on forums like Islamicity without confirming it yourself.


That is good advice. I suggest you follow it, too.

Beyond that, there isn't much you can do about what others post or publish, but you can learn to evaluate the credibility of a source and disregard the ones that don't care about the truth. That's what I do.

Fair enough.

The same thing I'm doing right here. When I see something on the Internet that is blatantly untrue, whenever possible I respond to it pointing out the error.

It is inadequate, particularly if you know that hateful propaganda is rampant on the internet. Don't you think you should more proactively try to stop it? By your standards it would be the right thing to do.

You could do the same, and it's something I have been urging Muslims to do for years. Find a public forum or media Web site posting "shameless propaganda" against Islam, and post a reasoned and respectful response defending the truth. It could be your own personal "Internet jihad". I've suggested that here several times, but the apathy among Muslims for such a project is perplexing and frustrating. The general response can be summed up as "it's too much trouble". Unhappy

It is a good idea.

Calling Hitler a Christian is like calling Osama Bin Laden a Muslim. There is one important difference, however. Whatever you might think of Bin Laden, I believe that he was sincere. Hitler, on the other hand, used religion as a rhetorical device more than anything else.

Maybe. I know almost nothing about Laden. Except what I have read in the western press. Hitler, otoh, is a well-documented person.

Did Hitler really believe his own religious posturing? I doubt it. I think you quoted him earlier wishing that he could have used Islam instead of Christianity, because the latter is weak and timid whereas Islam is more suitable for military purposes. How sincere can such a man be?

Does not make him an orthodox christian. But my later quote about him make him out to be an ardent christian:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God�s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice� And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." �Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

P.S.: By the way, the (alleged) quote from Hitler was originally from Albert Speer's book, Inside the Third Reich. Here is how it originally appeared:

Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regarded sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

It should be obvious that Speer is merely paraphrasing what Hitler "usually" said; so although it may truly reflect Hitler's attitude toward religion, once again it is misleading to claim that it is a direct quote.

I have already said that Hitler is a well-documented person and all shades of his personality are available to be studied.

"Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" It is a critical statement. But

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God�s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter." Points to an ardent and conscientious believer.

The Saint wrote: Maybe. I know almost nothing about Laden. Except what I have read in the western press.

He was the mastermind behind 9/11, which killed thousands of innocent people.  Does that sound like a true Muslim to you?  What else do you need to know?

Does not make him an orthodox christian. But my later quote about him make him out to be an ardent christian:

This is what I meant by Hitler posturing and using religion as a rhetorical device.  Yeah, he claimed to be a Christian, at least when it suited him; but was he sincere, or was he just using Christianity to rally support? Remember, Hitler was a politician.  Do you believe everything politicians tell you?

Did he even understand what Christianity is?  I would say the quote itself refutes the latter claim.  Any Christian referring to the "Jewish poison" would do well to remember that Christ himself was a Jew.