ebonics wrote:
why? since when is any animal "clean"? so are you telling me it doesnt say pork is banned?
Pork is banned, but the reason isn't given. By contrast, alcohol and gambling are banned and a reason is given (that there is some good in both, but the bad outweighs the good).
The Quran describes the pig as unclean. What part of the word 'unclean' do you wish me to elaborate on or are you disputing applies to pigs?
ebonics wrote:shafique wrote:Where women outnumber men, for example after a war, polygamy is a better solution for society than the alternative. That is my opinion - and we do have examples of societal effects of such instances in the 20th century which we can look at and argue over.
I will join you in condemning muslims who are mis-using Islam, but my contention is that they are doing wrongs in spite of Islam, not because of it.
how is polygamy ok in any situation? i cease to understand this - and what is the situation when its vice versa? im sorry thats probably the most flawed hypocritical thing you could possibly justify that with...
Polygamy as described in the Quran is ok when women outnumber men to a large degree - as the case in Europe after the second world war, to quote a recent example.
In most European countries today men have multiple partners and this is not frowned upon, as long as they don't marry more than one at a time. Islam says that you can't have multiple partners, except when you publically marry a second wife and treat both equally.
It is unjust, in my opinion, to deny women in these circumstances the rights or opportunity to marry. You would have them live a life of spinsterhood or single parenthood (after committing adultery or fornication).
ebonics wrote:
ok so here in the UAE - males GRIEVLY outnumber females, according to your logic, its ok for women to marry several men because it is the best solution for society.... if the answer to that is no, thats hypocricy of the highest degree... unless of course, islam openly admits that males and females are not equal (which it does) - to that i will leave you to comment, as i have nothing to say, it says it all.
Males and females are biologically different. Men and women have different social responsibilities which relate to these biological differences. Islam does not ignore these differences, but does go out of its way to explicitly address women and give them equality in all spiritual affairs and also for the first time in religious history give them rights of divorce, property ownership etc.
Islam does not permit women to have multiple husbands - and this difference comes down to biological as well as sociological reasons.
You are free to object to Islam's philosophy and present an alternative, I am happy to explore that alternative and examine whether it better provides for human and societal needs.
ebonics wrote:shafique wrote:Ok - I presume you haven't read the Bible
read it many times over, please, raise any question you wish.
Ok - two questions:
1. do you agree with the Christian teachings that all other religions are the work of the devil and not from the one true God?
2. Do you agree that if Hitler found salvation just before he died, he goes to heaven? What about a rapist, paedophile and murderer - if he repents just before being executed, does he go to Heaven? Christianity teaches that for both the answer is 'yes' whilst Mahatma Ghandi goes to hell. Do you agree with this teaching?
ebonics wrote:shafique wrote:
Interesting - how do you define a 'true Buddhist'? I actually believe in the original teachings of Gautama Buddha - but I disagree, say, with the current teachings of Tibetan Monks - such as the Dalai Lama. Some of his monks worshipped a deity that was aggressive, and there are instances of monks killing other monks over theology.
the buddhists i met would scold me for swatting a fly... let alone kill someone, you need to remember, some things are personal choices, but essentially what you outline there, are fudamentally against everything they believe in.
The Christians I meet will say Jesus taught to turn the other cheek. George W Bush is a born-again Christian.
I believe the violent Tibetan monks and George W all think they are following the teachings of their religion.
ebonics wrote:
thats equal to me bringing out the never-ending list of terrorist acts that muslims seem to carry out all around the world... then turn around and say we're a religion of peace and forgiveness - like they forgot how they opened all of north africa with the edge of their sword, with very little peace and very little forgiveness... and if your history book tells you otherwise, you're reading the wrong ones.
There was a suicide bombing in Sri Lanka this month, there were killings at a university in the US this week, there are killings in Burma, Tibet, Chechnya etc etc - But I take your point, the media highlights 'Islamic terrorism' and we lap it up.
As for North Africa - are you including Ethiopia (Abysinnia) in that, or are your history books glossing over this country?
Anyway - you raised this point as an aside, I'll treat it as such and perhaps as a new topic for the future (suffice to say, history shows Islam (the religion) was not spread by the sword)
And you make a good point - I too would say 'true Muslims' are following Islam. For me true muslims follow the Quran - so the question about what is a true Buddhist should mean - which particular teachings/books do 'true Buddhists' follow?
ebonics wrote:shafique wrote:
That's an interesting theory. You would therefore have no problem in eating rats, cats, dogs or carrion etc.
Some people think its ok to eat other humans, others see it as a sign of respect to eat the deceased relatives (with the women eating the brains). Do you think religions are wrong to say God has forbidden cannibalism?
im happy to try anything once, i ate horse, gazelle, camel, frogs, snails.. some people eat cats and dogs, some eat rats in asia... everyone eats what they please - i dont see the problem in that, or your point with the first statement for that matter..
cannibalism is a different kettle of fish.
So you agree that God can legitimately outlaw some foods - human flesh for one. So we are just differing on why God should outlaw some food you find tasty.
ebonics wrote:shafique wrote:
Muslims are human. There were hypocrites among the first Muslims - so I am not surprised at this statement - but not sure what you are saying.. it just indicates that aversion to eating pork is something that is hard to overcome. I know Jews who don't normally eat pork, but will eat spare ribs (because spare ribs from other animals don't taste the same!)
nothing compares to pork
shafique wrote:You're the one that wants to kill and eat the poor things!
see above - plus there are squillions of them and they're farmed regularly - i refuse to have shark fin soup or any whale products.. i do have a heart.
Fine - enjoy your pork. I'm a little confused that you cite intensive farming of an animal as a reason to enjoy pork and don't eat whale meat which is organic and free range. Hmm.
Why do you have an issue with Jews and Muslims following their religious books and not eating pork?
ebonics wrote:shafique wrote:
Yes, you can dare say it. Dare I say you have not experienced true peace until you have reached a state where your soul is pleased with God and God is pleased with you?
as i said im quite sure that the god i think of, the god i have experienced, and the god that i believe in, is fundamentally very different to yours and mosts.. people fear god.. i dont see any reason why anyone would "FEAR" god, my god is a god of love, forgiveness, and is a model for everything good in life - hence god will always be pleased with me, i have never done anything greavily terrible to have god frown down upon me for any reason..
My God is most forgiving, gracious and merciful. He is Rahman - i.e. the provider of all the necessary conditions for life, giving without being asked for, the Gracious; He is Raheem - the one who rewards one's for actions, listens to supplications, the Merciful. My God is above all just.
ebonics wrote:
god forgives sinners to killers and everything in between...
Agreed.
ebonics wrote:shafique wrote:I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him
with all due respect, this basically could be, anyone and everyone... it specifically says from their bretheren, is specifically says words in his mouth - jesus talked as he and god is one and the same - a huge argument when it comes to any muslim admitting that.
Ah - but 18.20 etc shows it can't be everyone. It has to be a prophet that claims to be receiving revelation from God, makes prophecies in God's name and is not murdered/killed - as this is the fate of false prophets according to the Bible.
Jesus did not say what he was saying was God's words, and he made a distinction between himself and God (the father). See Mark 10:18 (Why callest me good, there is none good but God).
Also, Jesus prophecised that there was a message to come after him that will be delivered by a 'comforter' who would only say what God has commanded him.
ebonics wrote:
but the same way you fundamentally believe on blind faith that the kuran is god's own word - and i dont (that verse never said anything about a book, but mouth - i dont see muhammad fullfilling that in any way)
If you call weighing up the facts and continually questioning 'blind faith', then perhaps you are right.
I say for a fact that this is the claim of the Quran, and as such is the only religious text that claims to be the literal word of God.
ebonics wrote:i also believe that jesus is God, and you dont
That is true - but I also believe this is exactly what Jesus taught in the Bible. I have searched in vain for any mention of Jesus saying that anyone should pray to him - if he is not to be prayed to, how can he have thought he was god?
ebonics wrote:and therefore that statement above, points to jesus, and not muhammad - to me....
Sure, Christians say this as well. It is a matter of faith for them.
However it does not explain the fact that Jesus himself said that the Bible does not contain the final religion and that there are more instructions to come:
John 16:
12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
I choose the more logical, literal reading of these verses that there is a new message that will be delivered by the new prophet, the same prophet prophecised in Deut 18.18. Jesus is saying that it is not him, and that a new message will come.
At the very least, the message Jesus preached is not complete and he said the Spirit of Truth will come.
Muhammad, pbuh, was known amongst his people as 'Al Amin' - the Truthful - but more importantly, he fulfilled the prophecies of Deut 18.
So, my reading of the bible is that Muhammad, pbuh, more fulfils the prophecies than Jesus (for example, Deut 18 also says the prophet will be like Moses - Moses brought a book, fought wars etc - all things that Muhammad, pbuh, fulfilled but did not apply to Jesus).
My contention is that Christian interpretation that the spirit of truth is the 'Holy Ghost' does not stand up to logic - but this is the least of the problems of Christianity vis-a-vis logic (eg was Jesus praying to himself, when Jesus was 'dead' was God still alive - how many gods are there, and was he ever dead? )
Good luck and congratulations on getting to the end of this marathon post!!
Cheers,
Shafique