Symposium about Islam

[Malic]

---

things to think about...

In the bible violence is also rampant. Dont dissect(old n new) the bible as means to justify non-violence because if Jesus is God then He is the same God in the old testament who commanded innocent children to be smash in the wall. And He is also the same God who use the womb of mary to give birth to the Messiah at the age of around 9-12 yrs old. So is the God of the bible a pedophile too for choosing a young virgin to give birth to Jesus?

by the way Joseph was around 90yrs old was married to a young 9-14 yrs old mary. Was a a pedophile too?

[Malic]

examine this jewish talmud.

"Marrying off one's daughter as soon after she reaches adulthood as possible, even to one's Slave. (From the Talmud, Pesachim 113a)"

this is just it for now. More to come.

[tokidoki_v2.0]

And He is also the same God who use the womb of mary to give birth to the Messiah at the age of around 9-12 yrs old. So is the God of the bible a pedophile too for choosing a young virgin to give birth to Jesus?

by the way Joseph was around 90yrs old was married to a young 9-14 yrs old mary. Was a a pedophile too?

Ing-ana na kasagaran christian pre. I call it "grafting verses". Isumpay ang mga lagpas na verses to form a favorable outcome.

i.e. pareha ra na ba na if nagbasa ka ug newspaper. isumpay na nimo ang mga random words to say "I am NOT a criminal." or "I AM a criminal". (depending on your desired result)

Case in point, "Thou shalt not kill" is quoted a lot but leave out the massacre part of the bible to make it look like God is fair. And then if di ka believer, mawala na ang "thou shalt not kill", mahimo na ug "you will burn in the fires of hell". Correct?

Regarding the pedophilia, is that really true bai? Karon pa ko ana bitaw. Ngek! heheh.... Is that a historical or biblical account?

[tribu]

hmmm since tribu did not accept my offer for a live debate cge diri ta mag discuss,pero hangyo nako nimo,sir tribu nga dont twist this into a persnal word war,ok.


but let me answer tokidki first...naa koy idea kung unsa hitsura ni Prophet muhammad(pbuh) pero i'll ask my friends so i can give you a better picture.

-----------------------------------------

let me first say this one...when a christian commits a crime like,raping,we dont as civilize people,indict the whole religion for the act of few violators who appeared to be a member of that community.

Same principle also goes to Islam,when a muslim commits a crime,we dont say,that islam is about terrorism and oppression.

About the Quran and Hadiths...There are verses that appears to be suggesting violence and oppression and some other things negative to the eyes and ears of other people but failure to understand its context and its background story and culture would lead us to a very unfair treatment and interpretation of the verses.

Context is everything and proper exegesis is so important if one wish to arrive to a better understanding of a certain subject.

let's take the accusation of violence in islam. It is unfair to project verses and hadiths that suggest violence and not open the other pages of the Qur'an and hadiths that suggest peace and freedom. Its also wrong to google around and accept the misrepresentations and one sided treatment of some people and accept it w/o any personal evaluation.

I think that it is wise to really ask yourself this question...what do i really know about Islam? Not what some anti-islamic sites said, not what Hollywood said, not what the media said. You owe it to yourself to ask the question "what i really know about islam?" and honestly evaluate yourself,IF you are just taking what other people said then better ask yourself this question, what IF those people were wrong?

Thats why i would suggest if you are so fond of googling things around then why not start typing in there words like "what is real Islam?" hit it then study its content. And much better visit any mosques or islamic centers and ask them to give you a lecture about islam. You dont have to agree to what it says but you have to hear both sides.Thats what Mahatma Ghandi and some great thinkers and biographers did before they gave their OWN evaluation about islam. Why cant you?

how can you indict a religion whose sacred books do not encourage those things?

it is just this simple: indict the religion by what their sacred books says and not what their adherents are doing.

isn't that exactly why i am encouraging everyone to read the quran and the hadith. if you need the link, just go back to the previous pages.

and the difference between christianity and islam is very clear. the christian new testament abrogates the previous violent verses in favor of a peaceful loving tolerant way of life.

the old do matter but as a man of peace, i do not care whether your past is violent or not, what is important is the fact that they as christians already clearly renounced and abrogates the previous violent way of life. whereas, islam until now still adheres to the violence that is written in its sacred books because it is believed to be the command of their god. and that is the main point.

again read the quran and the hadith. i do not need to debate with people who already thinks that they are right. i am revealing this truth for those who want to examine the truth and know what the real truth is. so that truth will set them free. read the quran and the hadith examine it page by page and see if indeed the truth about violence can be seen in the quran because i for my part had seen it in these books then witness them being commited from all over the world by muslims who believed in the quran and the hadith's sacred command.

and FYI, mary was believed to be 14-16years old when she married joseph because to the jews a jewish girl becomes a woman at age 12 (Bat Mitzvah). very different from what muhamad did to a 9year old girl. and there was no clear evidence that joseph was 90 when he married mary and that he had *** with mary. while muhamad, according to the hadith, had *** with a 9year old girl. and whether christian or jews, what is imprtant is that their sacred book never encourage anyone to have *** with a 12yeasr old girl, whereas muhamd being a perfect example had set into law the lawful *** with 9year old girls.

[Malic]

how can you indict a religion whose sacred books do not encourage those things?

it is just this simple: indict the religion by what their sacred books says and not what their adherents are doing.

isn't that exactly why i am encouraging everyone to read the quran and the hadith. if you need the link, just go back to the previous pages.

and the difference between christianity and islam is very clear. the christian new testament abrogates the previous violent verses in favor of a peaceful loving tolerant way of life.

the old do matter but as a man of peace, i do not care whether your past is violent or not, what is important is the fact that they as christians already clearly renounced and abrogates the previous violent way of life. whereas, islam until now still adheres to the violence that is written in its sacred books because it is believed to be the command of their god. and that is the main point.

again read the quran and the hadith. i do not need to debate with people who already thinks that they are right. i am revealing this truth for those who want to examine the truth and know what the real truth is. so that truth will set them free. read the quran and the hadith examine it page by page and see if indeed the truth about violence can be seen in the quran because i for my part had seen it in these books then witness them being commited from all over the world by muslims who believed in the quran and the hadith's sacred command.

and FYI, mary was believed to be 14-16years old when she married joseph because to the jews a jewish girl becomes a woman at age 12 (Bat Mitzvah). very different from what muhamad did to a 9year old girl. and there was no clear evidence that joseph was 90 when he married mary and that he had *** with mary. while muhamad, according to the hadith, had *** with a 9year old girl. and whether christian or jews, what is imprtant is that their sacred book never encourage anyone to have *** with a 12yeasr old girl, whereas muhamd being a perfect example had set into law the lawful *** with 9year old girls.

All you have to do is read the entire bible. The christian old testament book is full of it. Killing even the innocent babies and ripping the womb of pregnant women. Read Psalms they even praise such act.

FYI, you are quoting the so called violent verses out of its context. With all honesty you havent even read the entire context and its background story. You are repeating a misrepresentation, youre taking it at face value,for your own sake read the whole thing.

LOLz,you are encouraging everyone to read the quran and the hadith? LOLZ, when you yourself obviously havent read it. you just read it from online and you think you already know ISLAM,LOLZ, google and finding a real answer from people who knows what the quran says is two different thing.


The new testament abrogates the old testament?wow,very convenient. What about Jesus' Violent reactions inside the temple? lols,he was showing his temper,remember this is the same God in the old testament,who massacre a lot of people. Remember what Jesus said sir "I did not come here to bring peace but divisions" tsk tsk.

from the book matthew

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

WHAT WAS IT AGAIN? a man's foe shall be they of his own household,tsk tsk... Jesus didnt came to bring peace but a SWORD.


5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

ouch,what a violent solution. abrogation? i dont think so.


Sir as ive already said those alleged verses that suggest violence,you need to put it in the proper context and consider the background story and the culture of that time.


oh no sir mary was even believe to be 10-14 yrs old and joseph was 90. Yeah jospeh never had *** with her but God allowed Mary to have a child at that young age. So the question is was God a pedophile?

maybe you are ignorant of old jewish laws sir. IT even allows a 3 yr old to be married and have sexual intercourse.


Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

In the Torah (In the Book of Numbers in the Bible), after the conquest of Midian and Moab, and the great venereal plague, Moses (peace be on him) ordered that all the women "who have known a man" be killed but that "all the young girls, who have not known a man by lying with him" be kept alive for the Israelites.

Since the only females left fit for marriage and wholesome relations were prepubescent virgins, a Jewish law concerning child marriage was enacted. That law is found in the Babylonian Talmud:

"Rabbi Joseph said, 'Come and hear. A maiden aged 3 years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition.'

Mishnah: A girl of the age of 3 years and a day may be betrothed, subject to her father's approval, by sexual intercourse.

Gemara: Our Rabbis taught: 'A girl of the age of 3 years may be betrothed by sexual intercourse.' "


by the way the christian bible has no verse that says that you should not marry a 3 yr old child. In fact there is no fix AGE written in the bible.


Jews are allowed to marry girls as young as 3 yrs old. New testament has no law against it.


When Asiha was given to The Prophet,there was a consent by both parents. So there was no violation of any law because in fact there was no law that goes against it,even the Roman empire and the Jewish community were doing it too. No law no Violation no crime. In other words sir,that kind of practice is allowed in anceint time. God allowed sisters and brothers according to christian doctrines to have ***,and God surely allowed early marriage during that time.

The fact sir is that you are not getting all the facts. I suggest that you look for the complete Idiot's guide to understanding islam.

[Malic]

Fanatics and terrorists misguided
"America's fight against terrorism is justified by the Quran", says Imam Tammam Adi Ph.D, Director of the Islamic Cultural Center of Eugene, Oregon.

I will try to show that America's fight against terrorism is justified by the Quran, and that fanatics and terrorists misinterpret the Quran to justify their views.

Islam's prophet, Muhammad, is a descendant of Abraham. His message, the Quran, confirms the Gospel and the Torah. Its essence is that we should love God above everything and not play God on this earth (Allahu akbar), and also that we should treat all humanity as brothers and sisters.

According to Shatibi, a 14th century Spanish-Muslim scholar, the Quran outlines a bill of rights. All verses work together to define five rights in this order of priority: religious liberty, right to life, freedom of the mind, social liberty, and, finally, economic liberty.

In his famous four-volume work "How Things Fit Together in the Roots of Legislation," Shatibi details the proof. He says all religions protect these basic rights - see, for example, the Ten Commandments.

We find in verses 2:190-193 that the Quran values religious liberty even above the right to life: "... attacking a religious group (fitnah) is more severe than a plain attack (qatl)." These are the first verses revealed that tell Muslims to fight to defend themselves.

"Jihad" is an Arabic word that means "struggle." It is either military or nonviolent. The verses prescribe when military jihad is allowed. In all other situations, nonviolent jihad (personal and civic struggle) is the only legitimate way to achieve change.

"Fight in the way of God against those who are fighting you and do not start a fight; God surely dislikes aggressors." Since the verb "fight" is in the plural form, jihad is a collective action based on a political decision by "mutual consultation" (Quran 42:3. No scholar, mullah or religious leader may "declare jihad." The grammar also excludes non-collective military actions such as assassination, sabotage and guerrilla warfare.

The "way of God" is then defined: "And kill them only in combat clashes, and expel them only from where they expelled you." This outlaws the killing of non-combatants (terrorism), prisoners of war, retreating troops or surrendering soldiers. It also prohibits overreaching into enemy territory in the course of liberating a country.

"And fight them until there are no more attacks against religious groups and all religious authority is God's alone" (Quran 2:193).

Given this clarity in the Quranic presentation of principles, religious fanatics have to use blatant misinterpretations to justify their causes. For example, extremists misinterpret Verse 2:193 to mean "Fight until there is no more polytheism and all submit to the religion of Allah (Islam)." Fanatics replace "kill them only in combat clashes" with "kill them wherever you find them."

The Arabic language and the context of the verses do not allow this twisting by any stretch of imagination. But in a dictatorship without freedom of speech, such state-sponsored mistranslations can stand unchallenged, and will be confirmed by scholars serving the despots.

You can recognize misinterpretations by the fact that they contradict other verses or known principles. For example, a common mistranslation of verse 5:51 is "O you who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as friends (awliya)... ." The right translation is "protectors," not "friends," and it refers to Muslims collaborating with enemies at a time when a specific war was going on, as 5:52 explains.

Verse 60:8 makes the general relationship between Muslims and others crystal clear: "God does not prohibit you from treating with utmost friendship (birr) and fairness those who have not attacked you because of your religion or expelled you from your homes. God loves the fair ones." The concept of "birr" is the way one should treat parents and relatives.

The old Romans and Persians targeted Jews and Christians within their empires. Early Muslim armies fought against them to protect targeted religious groups. Muslims did not convert anybody. They remained in their nearby garrisons to assure local self-rule according to the Torah or the Gospel. Muslim "conquests" were called "fat-h," which means "opening" or liberation. Islam spread peacefully. That early Islamic way of life included some cherished values: self-rule, religious freedom and pluralism.

The Quran blessed this approach: "... and if God did not cause people to defend each other, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques would have been demolished in which God's name is often remembered" (Quran 22:40). "There should be no coercion in religion" (Quran 2:256).

Fourteen centuries later, the picture is reversed. Terrorist states in the old world replace the Roman and Persian empires in oppressing people. Governments of many nations with Muslim populations sponsor fanatic organizations that target free-thinking Muslims and call for terrorism against Jews, Christians and others.

The terrorism of September 11 brought the battle to the United States. We are now in a combat clash with terrorists and the states sponsoring them. The Quran gives us the right to fight "until there are no more attacks on religious groups" here or in any allied countries.

America's fight against terrorism is not only justified, it is jihad.

*

Reprinted with permission. Copyright 2001, The Register-Guard.

AUTHOR'S UPDATE June 18, 2003:

I wrote the following article soon after the 9/11 attacks. At the time, I argued that America's response might be considered self defense or "jihad." The passage of time has proved me wrong, given the excesses in Afghanistan and allegations of war crimes, the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, and the unAmerican crackdown on Muslims in the US.

Tammam Adi Ph.D is the Director of the Islamic Cultural Center of Eugene, Oregon, USA. Originally from Syria, he is a computational linguist specializing in Arabic.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/adi03.htm<----go to this site tribu sir para ma properly guided ka.

[tokidoki_v2.0]

FYI, you are quoting the so called violent verses out of its context. With all honesty you havent even read the entire context and its background story. You are repeating a misrepresentation, youre taking it at face value,for your own sake read the whole thing.

Ana gyud na pre. People need to discuss what they understood and come at an agreement. Ang uban man gud iya iya lang ug interpret nya if di magkapareha patay naderecho.

The existence of many Christian sub-groups prove this fact. If I were from another religion and I knew this much about Christianity (which isn't a lot anymore), I would wait for them to kill each other off and finish off what's rest. LOL. Very efficient in eradicating the competition.

[Malic]

Ana gyud na pre. People need to discuss what they understood and come at an agreement. Ang uban man gud iya iya lang ug interpret nya if di magkapareha patay naderecho.

The existence of many Christian sub-groups prove this fact. If I were from another religion and I knew this much about Christianity (which isn't a lot anymore), I would wait for them to kill each other off and finish off what's rest. LOL. Very efficient in eradicating the competition.

hehe.Maldito pod diay ka gamay sir

[tokidoki_v2.0]

I read Sun Tzu's art of war

Political warfare has been the way Spaniards colonized earlier tribes. Mao na ang Pinas supak sa kastila pero ang kapwa pinoy ang kaaway kay ang pikas gi incite man pud sa kastila. If you look at the numbers, if dunganon sa pinoy ug palayas ang kastila kaya baya. But nobody ever wondered why with only the few spaniards here they were able to control an entire country consisting of thousands of islands (excluding muslim mindanao). Kinsa man sad ila gipa atake sa muslim? Pinoy ra pud!

They applied the same tactics with the aztecs as well.

[tokidoki_v2.0]

--double post--