Islam doesn't condone terror

[b&wpac7]

Jews are not told they are superior? Okay, there's a lot of texts in the talmud that speaks against that. Are you surprised that the (arabic) jews that lived in Mecca/Medina during that time based their belief on Talmud too?

You do realize that we leave arguments in the Talmud that have been ruled against, right? A lot of people make that mistake and read things that seem to indicate something without knowing that it was the losing side of the argument. You can't just read a line on a website and assume it is the belief. I mean, you would object to people doing that with Islamic material, right? In fact, that seems to be exactly what you are fighting here.

 

[Rebax]

You do realize that we leave arguments in the Talmud that have been ruled against, right? A lot of people make that mistake and read things that seem to indicate something without knowing that it was the losing side of the argument. You can't just read a line on a website and assume it is the belief. I mean, you would object to people doing that with Islamic material, right? In fact, that seems to be exactly what you are fighting here.

Indeed I'm fighting that, but the difference is, people here dosen't even paste the whole verse of what is begin said, instead they take 1/2 of the verse...and not last, they don't know the historical view of the fights that were taken place and so on. I would like to understand you better, would you mind to bring up sources by rabbics that says against that verse?

 

[b&wpac7]

Indeed I'm fighting that, but the difference is, people here dosen't even paste the whole verse of what is begin said, instead they take 1/2 of the verse...and not last, they don't know the historical view of the fights that were taken place and so on. I would like to understand you better, would you mind to bring up sources by rabbics that says against that verse?

Which verse? I'd have to see which part you are referencing in the whole of the Talmud. In the end, it probably wouldn't be worth the time to go though all of them. The Talmud is actually pretty difficult to understand being written in Aramaic in a weird style. I've heard it said that it is considered an advanced level to be able to read the text and understand what it is saying. I can't even read Aramaic so I'm not even at the beginner level.

However, I have plenty of books on Jewish ethics and beliefs and I can assure you that the accepted view is that Jews are not superior. The only difference is that we were given the Torah to keep. That doesn't make us better or worse. These books reference the writings in the Talmud and all that. Maybe those people did think they were superior or whatever, but the fact remains that all we have is one side of hte story. I really wonder what the other side would have to say. I always believe there is one side, the other side, and somewhere in between the truth.

I really just worry about these kinds of ideas. For a long time these things have been the charges thrown at the Jewish people and have been the basis for persecution. I do my best to counter them when I see them. I don't honestly expect Muslim writers to get the theology 100% correct. Jewish writers wouldn't get Islamic theology 100% correct. That's why I went after the parts I feel they got wrong.

 

[Rebax]

Which verse? I'd have to see which part you are referencing in the whole of the Talmud. In the end, it probably wouldn't be worth the time to go though all of them. The Talmud is actually pretty difficult to understand being written in Aramaic in a weird style. I've heard it said that it is considered an advanced level to be able to read the text and understand what it is saying. I can't even read Aramaic so I'm not even at the beginner level.

However, I have plenty of books on Jewish ethics and beliefs and I can assure you that the accepted view is that Jews are not superior. The only difference is that we were given the Torah to keep. That doesn't make us better or worse. These books reference the writings in the Talmud and all that. Maybe those people did think they were superior or whatever, but the fact remains that all we have is one side of hte story. I really wonder what the other side would have to say. I always believe there is one side, the other side, and somewhere in between the truth.

I really just worry about these kinds of ideas. For a long time these things have been the charges thrown at the Jewish people and have been the basis for persecution. I do my best to counter them when I see them. I don't honestly expect Muslim writers to get the theology 100% correct. Jewish writers wouldn't get Islamic theology 100% correct. That's why I went after the parts I feel they got wrong.

I fully understand you, but you have to keep in mind who the Talmud is written by. To me it sounds a bit absurd that you have more knowledge of the Mosaic Law than the Jewish Rabbis. If you would like to I can send you the verses of the Talmud over Pm to you since I dislike to throw stones in my brothers window. Remember what the title of this thread is, let's keep it on-topic ! Remember that I dislike to speak about all jews because of what few rabbis wrote in the Talmud, it's absouletly wrong to do so, since Allah have said in the Quran that there are good people among the People of the books that will enter the paradise aswell

Just keep in mind that moses warned his people for the (bible) that was sended down to him, that it would be corrupted.
For I know that after my death (Moses speaking) ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands. (Deuteronomy 31:29)

Peace brother.

 

[b&wpac7]

I fully understand you, but you have to keep in mind who the Talmud is written by. To me it sounds a bit absurd that you have more knowledge of the Mosaic Law than the Jewish Rabbis. If you would like to I can send you the verses of the Talmud over Pm to you since I dislike to throw stones in my brothers window. Remember what the title of this thread is, let's keep it on-topic !

Go ahead. I'd like to see what you've got and I'll break out my books (hopefully sometime this week..) to give you what I've got.

Just keep in mind that moses warned his people for the (bible) that was sended down to him, that it would be corrupted.
For I know that after my death (Moses speaking) ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands. (Deuteronomy 31:29)

It says the people (not every person individually but the people collectively), not the Torah, will deviate from the path. Seems like as a collective that happened, even though all the prophets spoke of a remnant that remained true to the path. It's all about context. You can't prove anything with a single verse, especially when it doesn't say what you are trying to prove.

 

[JJWhite]

The Talmud is actually pretty difficult to understand being written in Aramaic in a weird style. I've heard it said that it is considered an advanced level to be able to read the text and understand what it is saying. I can't even read Aramaic so I'm not even at the beginner level.

You mean I'm gonna have to learn Aramaic when I'm done with Hebrew?

---

b&w, what Rebax brings up is something that I've been thinking a lot about. There is basis for these theories within the Qur'an.

In Chapter 2, talking about Jews in Madinah:

And when there came to them a Book from Allah confirming that which was with them - although before they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieved - but [then] when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it; so the curse of Allah will be upon the disbelievers. How wretched is that for which they sold themselves - that they would disbelieve in what Allah has revealed through outrage that Allah would send down His favor upon whom He wills from among His servants. So they returned having [earned] wrath upon wrath. And for the disbelievers is a humiliating punishment. And when it is said to them, "Believe in what Allah has revealed," they say, "We believe [only] in what was revealed to us." And they disbelieve in what came after it, while it is the truth confirming that which is with them. Say, "Then why did you kill the prophets of Allah before, if you are [indeed] believers?" (Probably referring to John and Jesus, I think.)

Anyhow... I have read commentaries that translated the part of praying for victory differently... commentaries that suggest (don't know how accurate) that the Jews of Madinah thought that a messenger to the Jews (I'm thinking the Messiah?) was going to appear in Madinah and that's why there was a large migration of Jewish tribes to that location. Instead of translating it as 'praying for victory' it's understood as them giving tidings to the pagans of their sure and upcoming victory once this prophet/Messiah arrives. The reason I'm thinking Messiah is because when I was looking up ahadith about David, remember, there were ones where some Jews told Prophet Muhammad that they believed he was a Prophet (and fit certain descriptions) but that they couldn't become Muslim or they'd be killed by their people because they were waiting for a son of David. I'm confused myself... were two figures prophesied but everything understood as referring to one? This is something worthy of research, in my opinion. Touchy topic.

 

[b&wpac7]

I'm confused myself... were two figures prophesied but everything understood as referring to one? This is something worthy of research, in my opinion. Touchy topic.

Touchy indeed.

I don't know of two figured prophesied. I only know about the messiah, who must come from David according to our scripture.

 

[Rebax]

Go ahead. I'd like to see what you've got and I'll break out my books (hopefully sometime this week..) to give you what I've got.


It says the people (not every person individually but the people collectively), not the Torah, will deviate from the path. Seems like as a collective that happened, even though all the prophets spoke of a remnant that remained true to the path. It's all about context. You can't prove anything with a single verse, especially when it doesn't say what you are trying to prove.

Maybe you can read Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death. Let's be little logic now. If the people turn against the commands of moses, wouldn't they be able to change the context of Torah for their own desires? Do you see it as something...hard to do? I believe it's so. About the verses in the Talmud you wanted, I can send them in Pm since I don't want to be off-topic here, it seems like there have been lots of off-topic here and people change subject when they can't prove the evidence they are given about they are wrong. (Not speaking about you now)

Peace brother.

 

[b&wpac7]

Maybe you can read Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death. Let's be little logic now. If the people turn against the commands of moses, wouldn't they be able to change the context of Torah for their own desires? Do you see it as something...hard to do? I believe it's so. About the verses in the Talmud you wanted, I can send them in Pm since I don't want to be off-topic here, it seems like there have been lots of off-topic here and people change subject when they can't prove the evidence they are given about they are wrong. (Not speaking about you now)

You are starting with a conclusion (The Torah is corrupt) and finding text to attempt to prove that. You are not starting with text (People will fall away from the Law and not follow it) and then reaching your conclusion (the Torah is corrupt). If you had no Islamic belief that the text was corrupt, you could not deduce it from that line.

Also, the fact that you are using the Torah to prove the Torah is corrupt seems to be a flaw in your logic. Why didn't the Jews change that when it says bad things about them? Shouldn't it be all sunshine and rainbows for the Jews where they never do anything wrong?

 

[Rebax]

You are starting with a conclusion (The Torah is corrupt) and finding text to attempt to prove that. You are not starting with text (People will fall away from the Law and not follow it) and then reaching your conclusion (the Torah is corrupt). If you had no Islamic belief that the text was corrupt, you could not deduce it from that line.

Also, the fact that you are using the Torah to prove the Torah is corrupt seems to be a flaw in your logic. Why didn't the Jews change that when it says bad things about them? Shouldn't it be all sunshine and rainbows for the Jews where they never do anything wrong?

Corrupt dosen't mean everything vanish and nothing is left from the orginal. It would be pretty difficult to do so. I suggest you read James Robert white's book about this subject, giving you a lot of questionmarks to think about. I just want to mark it that it's not an ''Islamic beleif'' to make sucha statement.

Also an interesting docementary I watched http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcCusw7qhgI watch all episodes, pretty interesting.
Peace brother

 

[Rebax]

You mean I'm gonna have to learn Aramaic when I'm done with Hebrew?

---

b&w, what Rebax brings up is something that I've been thinking a lot about. There is basis for these theories within the Qur'an.

In Chapter 2, talking about Jews in Madinah:

And when there came to them a Book from Allah confirming that which was with them - although before they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieved - but [then] when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it; so the curse of Allah will be upon the disbelievers. How wretched is that for which they sold themselves - that they would disbelieve in what Allah has revealed through outrage that Allah would send down His favor upon whom He wills from among His servants. So they returned having [earned] wrath upon wrath. And for the disbelievers is a humiliating punishment. And when it is said to them, "Believe in what Allah has revealed," they say, "We believe [only] in what was revealed to us." And they disbelieve in what came after it, while it is the truth confirming that which is with them. Say, "Then why did you kill the prophets of Allah before, if you are [indeed] believers?" (Probably referring to John and Jesus, I think.)

Anyhow... I have read commentaries that translated the part of praying for victory differently... commentaries that suggest (don't know how accurate) that the Jews of Madinah thought that a messenger to the Jews (I'm thinking the Messiah?) was going to appear in Madinah and that's why there was a large migration of Jewish tribes to that location. Instead of translating it as 'praying for victory' it's understood as them giving tidings to the pagans of their sure and upcoming victory once this prophet/Messiah arrives. The reason I'm thinking Messiah is because when I was looking up ahadith about David, remember, there were ones where some Jews told Prophet Muhammad that they believed he was a Prophet (and fit certain descriptions) but that they couldn't become Muslim or they'd be killed by their people because they were waiting for a son of David. I'm confused myself... were two figures prophesied but everything understood as referring to one? This is something worthy of research, in my opinion. Touchy topic.

Interesting topic really! Open a new about this, I would be interested to join it. As for now there's a lot of off-topics going on in here, would be thankful if you made a new thread about this subject.

 

[Montalban]

I've respect for people that criticise religion after they've read through it a lot and have knowledge in what they criticise. Rather less respect for people who have no knowledge and spreads agenda without any sources/knowledge and floating in ignorance, does this seem strange to you? I've never claimed that I support the people that treated the cartoon maker, nah... Islam don't go under because of them. Also anyone who would like to really understand Islam they don't search for it on a christian forum, instead they look at other places. I see people convert to islam nearly everyday and in great tons.

Thanks for repeating the circular logic

 

[Montalban]

As for the first Hadith you posted, the right translation is ''He insulted Allah and his messenger'' Not hurt Allah, none can hurt Allah (God) or don't you agree with me? Why do I have a feeling that you have copy this from Answering-islam?

That actually addresses my very point about your approach to circular logic.

I cited that Hadith, from a university, not 'answering-islam'. But when faced with a text of your own you have to assume that it's from an anti-Islamic site.

Anyways, let's go back to the discussion.
Ka'ab did not only insult Islam by his poetry, he also traveled all the way to Mecca to encourage the enemies of Islam to attack Medina and annihilate the Muslims.

He may have used poetry in his verbal attack on Muhammed/incitement. However he was a single man. If he's inciting violence then that means he's not yet undertaking it. So by that he's doing what I said he's doing – he's not 'at war', excepting in Islamic standards that thinks any 'attack' even by words, is an attack that can be responded to with violence.

So I'm left wondering what your point is.


So when I say even criticising Islam can lead to death you say in effect "no, this man used words to incite violence, so he was murdered"

This man was personally 'at war' with Islam.

You noted that his tribe was not at war.

I don't know what point you think you've addressed.

Those cartoonists could also be said to be 'at war' with Islam. You yourself agreed in effect by saying that they were inciting hatred.

 

[Montalban]

This is the strangeness of Islamic apologetics.

I cite an hadith from a university web-site. It's 'assumed' to be from an anti-Islamic one, though I clearly gave the link.

I say this man was murdered for speaking out against Islam and Moslem apologists say EXACTLY THE SAME THING - he was murdered for being 'at war' with Islam.

I'm left wondering if the apologetics is actually understanding of this problem.

 

[FRM48]

I am sure you will find it more interesting to note that the early arabic inscription of Muhammad (peace be upon him) can be found at Inscriptions Near Madinah Of The Early Years Of Hijra: Inscription C

The above is dated 4AH or 625 CE. Muhammad (pbuh) passed away on 632 CE.

Sorry,A muslim dates it at 625 A.D.,the other dates it closer to the first century.My point is that for such a supposed universally accepted prophet, history shows differently,there is virtually nothing until after 690 A.D..And another thing I find disturbing is the fact that there is very little archeological evidence to support Quranic claims.If this truly is the final revelation of God then archeologists should be uncovering tons of physical evidence as to its historical accuracy,but yet secular sources contradict many of the claims of the Quran.

 

[Islam_mulia]

Sorry,A muslim dates it at 625 A.D.,the other dates it closer to the first century.My point is that for such a supposed universally accepted prophet, history shows differently,there is virtually nothing until after 690 A.D..And another thing I find disturbing is the fact that there is very little archeological evidence to support Quranic claims.If this truly is the final revelation of God then archeologists should be uncovering tons of physical evidence as to its historical accuracy,but yet secular sources contradict many of the claims of the Quran.

What exactly did these "secular sources" contradict?

 

[plenary]

This is the strangeness of Islamic apologetics.

I cite an hadith from a university web-site. It's 'assumed' to be from an anti-Islamic one, though I clearly gave the link.

I say this man was murdered for speaking out against Islam and Moslem apologists say EXACTLY THE SAME THING - he was murdered for being 'at war' with Islam.

I'm left wondering if the apologetics is actually understanding of this problem.

When one is critical about Islam, Muslims are not any longer a partner in the discussion, because they cannot be... (As it is forbidden, to criticize Islam, according to Islamic law.)

And that effectively ends all discussion...

Sure, the discussion goes on, most of the time with a lot of copy pasting, but the contents of the discussion does not matter at all... Because it is not an open discussion about facts or about truth finding, but about justification and the love of self, that is, self-expression...

Islam is characterized by one main thing, that is the love of self (the other being the love of the world, which is secondary to the love of self).... Even the moderate Muslims (the ones who don't want to kill every non-Muslims when they have the chance) identify with Muhammad, in the way of the love of self.

They identify with Muhammad and love Muhammad above everything else (which is the indicator of the love of self), including that which is most sacred, namely love, truth and spiritual freedom...

Only by the power of God, can someone be pulled to the real love of God and only when one searches for the truth, which all human must do.. And many Muslims are absolutely not searching for the truth (which isn't strange, because a lot of non-Muslims are also not searching)... And if one does not search, one will most certainly not find.

 

[Montalban]

Exactly, that's why they can't take non-Moslems as close friends because by our very 'stubborness' in not joining Islam we're deemed to be cursed.

 

[plenary]

Exactly, that's why they can't take non-Moslems as close friends because by our very 'stubborness' in not joining Islam we're deemed to be cursed.

Yes, and faith without love, is no faith at all. But they do not understand that... They think that being born into a religion means faith... But that is no faith at all.... (That is also stipulated by the famous quote of Christ Himself, that even some who say Lord, Lord, He will say: Depart from me, I never knew you....)
Because, again, it is not dead faith what matters, but a loving heart.... And when one understands the origin of faith, it becomes even clearer...
For angels, there is no difference between love and faith... Indeed, pure faith and pure love are the same... There is no difference, only for the imperfect word it is...
But the vast majority of Muslims are no partners to the discussion, as many are not searching for truth, only to defend their pre-disposed opinions and indoctrinated facts.... All part of self-expression... The children of the world will always be more in number than the real children of God.... At least in these times, as it is written...
And do you think, Montalban, that Muslims are the least interested in the fact that prophets still exist (as the gift of prophecy still exists...)

Of course not, because they only repeat what they have been indoctrinated...

And remember, it is also written in the prophetic texts, that a people get the rulers they deserve...

Bombing Libia has no value, because when one tyrant disappears, another advances, most probably under the flag of Islam. And Islam is a whole lot more dangerous than national-socialism... Faith-socialism is far more dangerous, because heaven is promised for deeds of hatred.

 

[Robban]

Yes, and faith without love, is no faith at all. But they do not understand that... They think that being born into a religion means faith... But that is no faith at all.... (That is also stipulated by the famous quote of Christ Himself, that even some who say Lord, Lord, He will say: Depart from me, I never knew you....)
Because, again, it is not dead faith what matters, but a loving heart.... And when one understands the origin of faith, it becomes even clearer...
For angels, there is no difference between love and faith... Indeed, pure faith and pure love are the same... There is no difference, only for the imperfect word it is...
But the vast majority of Muslims are no partners to the discussion, as many are not searching for truth, only to defend their pre-disposed opinions and indoctrinated facts.... All part of self-expression... The children of the world will always be more in number than the real children of God.... At least in these times, as it is written...
And do you think, Montalban, that Muslims are the least interested in the fact that prophets still exist (as the gift of prophecy still exists...)

Of course not, because they only repeat what they have been indoctrinated...

And remember, it is also written in the prophetic texts, that a people get the rulers they deserve...

Hi Plenary,
What is your personal definitian of a prophet and prophesy?
Am asking because, in the last few posts of yours you have given extra pressure to it.
What I mean is,how do you know if anyone is a prophet?
Can you give some examples?
I have a very good friend, though I hav,nt met him in many years, he was and is a, don,t know the word for it, maybe it is similar in Dutch, "Föreståndare" for a pentecostal community, though his views of "pentecostal" are mostly rejected by the majority.
He was very sceptical to those who considered themselves a prophet.
He even told a woman once to"sit down".
It is obvious that it is not a good thing to have people popping up here and there proclaiming they have a message from God, it can lead just anywhere.
However, qouteing now from an article by Mendy Hecht in answer to a question,"What is prophecy?". Just a little from the answer.
1,"The era of prophesy came to an end some 23 centuries ago.
2,"Nevertheless, the principle that G-d communicates to mankind through prophecy remains a foundation of the Jewish faith".
3,"A lesser form of prophesy, known as, ruach hakodesh (divine inspiration), remains the province of the tzaddikim, (the righteous men and women) of all generations.
4, "And in a letter to the Jews of Yemen, Maimonides recounts an age-old tradition that "shortly before the Messianic era, prophesy will return to the Jewish people". End of the quotes.
In general we need no prophesy today, Gods will is already written down. What we do need, is to use our brain, and develope a sensitivity to be able to seperate the two inner voices.
My opinion is, there is divine guidence for all who seek it with all honesty and uprightness.
What say you?
Also others, of course.