You mean distortions of history. Forget 100s of pages, lets see you come up with one incontrovertible piece of evidence.
New Book: The Hidden Origins of Islam
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
You mean distortions of history. Forget 100s of pages, lets see you come up with one incontrovertible piece of evidence.
FYI, till 25 years ago, King David was seen as myth - then the Tel Dan find overturned this premise. David is a mere 250 years from Moses, and his psalms numerously mention Moses and aligns with the entire narratives of the Hebrew bible, as well as the fact David established Jerusalem and conquered the Philistines. There is no similarities between the Hebrew beliefs and the Egyptian.
You are also wrong about the Torah not mentioning Jerusalem - this is made some 700 times. It is the Quran that does not mention Jerusalem - its false claims of third holy site was made much later, as a political rational for its robbery. Any Christians wilol tell you that Jerusalem is pervasively mentioned in the Hebrew bible and the dead sea scrolls. I can post you 3000 year relics of coins with Jerusalem mentioned in Hebrew.
What will you like proof of - Jerusalem mentioned in the Hebrew bible? - anyone can Goodgle this and see for themselves. Would you like proof of Hebrew relics dated 3000 years old found in Israel? or the wars of Babylon and Rome? Would you like Greek and Roman archives dated to 2,500 years old? Would you like a reference to israel from Egypt dated 3,300 years old?
And what difference will this make with your position?
Okay lets take it one by one:
Show me where Jerusalem is mentioned in the Pentateuch
edit: to save you time
Its fascinating really and if you're superstitious:
"I have placed life and death before you, blessing and curse. Choose life" (Deut. 30:19).
Jerusalem is the City of Shalem, Shalem was the god of the evening star and proclaimed the death of the sun. Some people call Urshalim, City of Shalem, as the City of Death.
http://one-evil.org/entities_locations/location_jerusalem.htm
Show me where Jerusalem is mentioned in the Pentateuch
edit: to save you time
Its fascinating really and if you're superstitious:
"I have placed life and death before you, blessing and curse. Choose life" (Deut. 30:19).
Jerusalem is the City of Shalem, Shalem was the god of the evening star and proclaimed the death of the sun. Some people call Urshalim, City of Shalem, as the City of Death.
http://one-evil.org/entities_locations/location_jerusalem.htm
Bells
Staff member
So you have no proof but you have "loads of evidences"? Sam points out that there is no actual evidence of Moses and you respond like this? And then you say:
"The text also warrants that Moses is the only figure which will never be proven."
I shouldn't have to point out the utter contradiction of this statement, should I?
Say it ain't so Joe..
Really..
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=-b3HEwXDb5oC&dq=Exodus+%28New+Cambridge+Bible+Commentary%29++Carol+Meyers&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=QUPyS_ajAZGgkQXDrYDADQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCw#v=onepage&q=Exodus%20%28New%20Cambridge%20Bible%20Commentary%29%20%20Carol%20Meyers&f=false
Read from bottom of page 5 and keep going through page 6 and so forth..
For someone who is apparently so revered and believed, it is quite astounding that there is absolutely no evidence of his existence as reported in the text.. not only that, but there isn't even any proof that there were that many Jews in Egypt.. In that there is no proof of the "exodus" led by Moses..
So yeah.. you were saying?
And the Cross isn't a symbol of Christianity
The funny thing is, the more we look into these things the more it seems Mosses, Hercules, Jesus and Mohammad were all mythical people.
And the Cross isn't a symbol of Christianity
The star and crescent doesn't play the same role nor has the same religious significance as the cross to Christianity. In Christianity, the cross refers to Jesus (as) and his alleged death on the cross for humanities sins. Not to mention in Christianity, Jesus = God. None of this is the case in Islam, it association with Islam is due to historical events and adoption. It's because of this historical adoption of the star and crescent by Muslim states that it became a popular symbol for Islam. I also, would like to repeat myself, due to it's Pagan origins (of which we both seem to agree) some Muslims do not like it as a symbol of Islam and disagree with it's use as such; of which I am one.
Those whom may not know the history of the symbol and accept it as a symbol of Islam will of course have differing opinions but this doesn't mean that they are correct in this.
You're Muslim?
Yes, I am a Muslim Indian. An unorthodox one.
Oh, well, right on sis. See, I was sent this:
"SAM is not really a muslim, she's actually a Hindi which believes that Muslims are pretttty cool."
By CheskiChips shortly before he was banned but then again, it was him so I should have just assumed he was wrong.
I know Christians who think that the Cross is not a Christian symbol. They think it's a Catholic symbol. Lot of Christians don't use the Cross. Jehovah's Witness are probably the most vocal, they will happily tell you that the cross is actually a non-Christian pagan symbol. Just like you.
Perhaps some people just like the idea that Christians use Religious Symbolism because it seems bad. Almost as bad as Idolatry - if not then AS BAD. I find a lot of religious people like this feeling - that the other guy is somewhat sinning, albeit not knowing any better. It gives one a sense of Superiority of Belief. As if these people are ignorant of their own idolatry. They don't really understand that God doens't like their use of the Cross because it's idolatry. I really think some Muslims like the idea that Christians have the Cross - - because it makes them feel like Islam is better. More "proof" so to speak. What do you think?
According many secs of Christianity the Cross is not a Christian Symbol.
Which IMO is as asinine as saying the Crescent and Star is not an Islamic Symbol.
Anyway, that's not really the point. The point is Muslims adopted earlier religious symbolism into Islam - which is why you'll find said Symbolism on top of Mosques all over the world.
Now, one must wonder, why are these things "Pagan" whereas other Pagan stuff, like the Pagan Epic of Gilgamesh etc... are not? :shrug: My point is Islam has adopted, via Christianity, many more earlier Pagan beliefs that are indeed Islamic - as they are found in the Qur'an.
IamJoseph,
See, I'm thinking we need more archeological evidence to sort this stuff out. You know, a lot of Palestinians were Jewish. Some people came and kicked them out of their houses. I mean a real house - like one people are actually living inside of today. They didn't do anything to deserve that to have happened to them.
If I were Palestinian I'd move to the USA, convert to Judaism and move back to Israel and sue to get my house back. Is that possible legally?
See how crazy it is, religion? People are crazy enough without needing to add to the crazy.
See, I'm thinking we need more archeological evidence to sort this stuff out. You know, a lot of Palestinians were Jewish. Some people came and kicked them out of their houses. I mean a real house - like one people are actually living inside of today. They didn't do anything to deserve that to have happened to them.
If I were Palestinian I'd move to the USA, convert to Judaism and move back to Israel and sue to get my house back. Is that possible legally?
See how crazy it is, religion? People are crazy enough without needing to add to the crazy.
Why is it that anytime I make any sort of joke or talk to SAM, I get you guys saying "hey! god damn't you stay way! ahhh! stay away, hissss" and all this.
Are you guys her secret service? Have sworn to protect the package? :shrug:
Really now? Care to prove this? Because I have honestly not heard any Christian against the cross and against the cross being a symbol for Christianity. Every single Orthodox, Coptic, Catholic, Protestant, etc. that I have ever talked to has never stated this at all.
I think you think to much and don't read as much. I say this not as an insult but because I get the feeling from a lot of your posts all of this is just coming of the top of your head and are based in large part if not solely upon your own opinion.
The comparison is shit mate, honestly.
Earlier religious symbolism? Who said it was a religious symbol? Not only this, your not getting the point. I understand your trying to argue your point and you seem very convinced in this but your not listening to what the fuck I am saying.
It is condoned by the Islamic authorities, and takes place openly and without sanction, among millions of Muslims in some quite important Muslim regions.ja'far said:
You've got your opinion, millions of Muslims have another - they act on theirs. We have to deal with the Islam that is, not your opinion of how it should be.ja'far said:
It is Islam characteristic, famously so (see the advice to female travelers from Western to Islamic countries), and adopts certain forms under Islamic influence that are very rare, or not present at all, otherwise. The bag clothing in a northern climate and Western metropolitan area, for example.ja'far said:
In my neighborhood, it arrived with the Muslim immigrants - before they came, women could walk down the street outside my then dwelling with only occasional and minor harassment, in clothing of their own choice - and is "explained" or "justified" by the harassers as founded in Islam.
Tell that to the Rochester, MN, school board, in their dealings with the local Muslim cleric and Islamic sharter school. Quite a bit of money and trouble involved, there, in a time when schools were struggling for funding.ja'far said:
Noah and his Flood are in the Quran. Perfect book, right? Believe everything you read in it?
And as I have pointed out a few times, we have to deal with the Islam that is, not your version of what it should be. Your "ummah" there, all of it, in all its inhomogeneity, is the Islam we face.ja'far said:
At some point, you must come to realize that you registering your disapproval and disagreement does not make realities go away.ja'far said:
The difference between "popular" and "religious" seems especially blurred among Muslims (a characteristic that is usually presented as a virtue, by Muslims to me) - the parallels between the crescent and the cross, in daily use, are obvious and significant to Muslims as well as Christians. The crescent and star now often symbolize Islam, not just "Muslims" in some separate sense.SAM said:
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
iceaura this thread is not a place for your hate message. Actually you're spamming the same kind of opinions after being refuted.
This is pointless, I give you an answer and then you dismiss it as "ideal Islam," because apparently anything that doesn't match up with your own hegemonic image of Islam as defined by you, by giving the bullshit argument that "it's the Islam that 'we' have to deal with." I could do the exact same thing with Atheism however this argument is bullshit on it's face because in both cases, X isn't an inherent part of X.
This practice was not done during the time of the Prophet (saw) nor was it practiced by the early ummah. No where does this practice exist outside of the states in Africa. This is a practice that has no place, significance, importance, etc. outside of the African states in which it is practiced.
Again just because X is practiced by a Muslim or a group of Muslims doesn't mean that Islam condones this practice. Some argue against smoking tobacco and say that it is haram on the basis that it harms the body. Sunni Muslims argue against the practice of zanjir ma'tam on the basis, again, that it harms the body. It's would be very easy to see that cutting of the clitoris would also be haram on the basis that it harms the body. It's not practiced anywhere else except here. So what if they use Islam as justification for this practice, you can use anything to justify anything.
Oh, I see. Let's see what al-Qur'an has to say:
"You shall spend in the cause of GOD; do not throw yourselves with your own hands into destruction. You shall be charitable; GOD loves the charitable."-Al-Baqarah, 2:195, al-Qur'an.
"O you who believe, do not consume each others' properties illicitly - only mutually acceptable transactions are permitted. You shall not kill yourselves. GOD is Merciful towards you."-An-Nisa, 4:29, al-Qur'an.
"Anyone who commits these transgressions, maliciously and deliberately, we will condemn him to Hell. This is easy for GOD to do."-An-Nisa, 4:30, al-Qur'an.
You can't twist this with your bullshitery. It says clearly "you shall not kill yourselves." My "ideal Islam," my fucking ass.
But wait, I'm not even finished yet.
"Killing is only obligatory when facing warfare and armed combat not when facing kufr. For this reason, neither women are to be killed nor children, or the elderly, nor the blind nor those worshippers who do not fight, rather we fight against those who fight us. This was the way of the Messenger of Allaah in dealing with the people of the earth, he used to fight those who fought against him until they either entered into the deen, make an agreement or treaty with him or came under his authority via paying the jizya. This is what he used to instruct his armies if they fought against their enemies, as has preceded from the Hadeeth of Buraydah."-Ibnul Qayim, "Ahkaam Al Udh-Dhimmah," Vol 1, Page 17.
"About the saying of Allaah: "Fight in the way of Allaah against thse who fight you and do not trangress the limits. Indeed, Allaah does not love those who trangress". (Qur'an 2:190). The killing of women and children is included within this, and so are those who are not involved in warfare."-Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, "An Nawaadir wa'z-Ziyaadaat", Vol 3, Page 57.
"As for intending to attack those who are not fighting such as women, children, the elderly, those in monasteries, churches and the like - then this is not permissible, as long as they neither provide a benefit (to the enemy troops) via their views or strategies nor have committed murder."-Shaykh Abdullaah Al Basaam, "Tawdeeh ul Ahkaam bin Buluughil Maraam", Vol 6, Page 385.
"As for those who are not from the people who help and fight, such as women, children, the worshipper, the elderly, the blind, the disabled and the likes then they are not to be killed according to the majority of the Ulama' unless the person participates in fighting (against the Muslims) with speech or action. Even though some Ulama' permitted the killing of all merely on account of kufr, except for women and children which become for the Moslims. The first opinion (that non-combatants are not to be killed or fought against at all) is the most correct opinion, because fighting is only against whoever fights us when we want to manifest the deen of Allaah, just as Allaah says: "Fight in the way of Allaah against thse who fight you and do not trangress the limits. Indeed, Allaah does not love those who trangress". (Qur'an 2:190). In the Sunan is a Hadith from the Prophet that he passed by a woman who had been killed within a battle and the people had gathered around the body. The Prophet said: "This is not one who should be fought against", and sent the men away saying to one of them: "Tell Khalid not to kill children or workers". Also reported from him is that he said: "Do not kill a frail elderly man or a young child or a woman."-Ibn Taymiyah, "As Siyaasah Ash Shariyah", Page 177.
"The foundation is that the blood of Bani Aadam is sanctified and inviolable and no one is killed except with right. Killing due to kufr is not something which the legislations have agreed upon at any one time of the Shariah, such as killing the one who sits out of combat, for this is something that the legislations and intellect do not differ over. The blood of a disbeliever during the early history of Islaam was sanctified and inviolable just like the original sanctity of a person. Allaah prevented the Muslims from killing such a disbeliever."-Ibn Taymiyah, "As Saarim Al Maslool 'Alaa Shaatim ir Rasool", Page 104.
"Killing a women merely on account of kufr is not permissible and we do not know that it was allowed to kill any disbelieving women at any time whatsoever. Rather, the Qur'an and the sequence of its revelation prove that it is not allowed at all, because the first verses revealed about fighting: "Permission to fight has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allaah is competent to give them victory. They are those who have been evicted from their homes without right". (Qur'an 22:39 and 49). So it was allowed for the believers to fight in defending themselves and to retaliate against those who evicted them from their homes and prevented them from tawheed of Allaah and His worship, and women are not included from those who do this. Then it was prescribed for them to fight absolutely and this is explained in His saying: "Fight in the way of Allaah against those who fight you". (Qur'an 2:190). So those people who are not people of combat are not permitted to be fought against."-Ibn Taymiyah "As Saarim Al Maslool", Page 101.
It's not permissible (haram) to kill non-combtants, namely, women, children, the elderly, etc. You're ignorance doesn't negate this and I'm sorry this conflicts with your own fucked up version of Islam.
This argument of "it's your version of Islam, bitch, bitch, bitch," doesn't work, sorry. There is Atheists whom beat their women as well, should I then consider this an inherent part of Atheism and say, "this is the Atheism that we are forced to deal with," and then say after any refutation, "I'm sorry, this is an Atheist charachteristic, we don't have the luxury of your ideal Atheism, this is the Atheism that we are forced to deal with."
What about the verses from al-Qur'an:
"If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient."-Al-Anfal, 8:61, al-Qur'an.
"You shall resort to pardon, advocate tolerance, and disregard the ignorant."-Al-A'raf, 7:199, al-Qur'an.
"GOD advocates justice, charity, and regarding the relatives. And He forbids evil, vice, and transgression. He enlightens you, that you may take heed."-An-Nahl,16:90, al-Qur'an.
And this verse, which I have already posted on this forum:
"O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of GOD is the most righteous. GOD is all-knowing, well-informed."-Al-Hujurat, 49:13, al-Qur'an.
This practice was not done during the time of the Prophet (saw) nor was it practiced by the early ummah. No where does this practice exist outside of the states in Africa. This is a practice that has no place, significance, importance, etc. outside of the African states in which it is practiced.
Again just because X is practiced by a Muslim or a group of Muslims doesn't mean that Islam condones this practice. Some argue against smoking tobacco and say that it is haram on the basis that it harms the body. Sunni Muslims argue against the practice of zanjir ma'tam on the basis, again, that it harms the body. It's would be very easy to see that cutting of the clitoris would also be haram on the basis that it harms the body. It's not practiced anywhere else except here. So what if they use Islam as justification for this practice, you can use anything to justify anything.
Oh, I see. Let's see what al-Qur'an has to say:
"You shall spend in the cause of GOD; do not throw yourselves with your own hands into destruction. You shall be charitable; GOD loves the charitable."-Al-Baqarah, 2:195, al-Qur'an.
"O you who believe, do not consume each others' properties illicitly - only mutually acceptable transactions are permitted. You shall not kill yourselves. GOD is Merciful towards you."-An-Nisa, 4:29, al-Qur'an.
"Anyone who commits these transgressions, maliciously and deliberately, we will condemn him to Hell. This is easy for GOD to do."-An-Nisa, 4:30, al-Qur'an.
You can't twist this with your bullshitery. It says clearly "you shall not kill yourselves." My "ideal Islam," my fucking ass.
But wait, I'm not even finished yet.
"Killing is only obligatory when facing warfare and armed combat not when facing kufr. For this reason, neither women are to be killed nor children, or the elderly, nor the blind nor those worshippers who do not fight, rather we fight against those who fight us. This was the way of the Messenger of Allaah in dealing with the people of the earth, he used to fight those who fought against him until they either entered into the deen, make an agreement or treaty with him or came under his authority via paying the jizya. This is what he used to instruct his armies if they fought against their enemies, as has preceded from the Hadeeth of Buraydah."-Ibnul Qayim, "Ahkaam Al Udh-Dhimmah," Vol 1, Page 17.
"About the saying of Allaah: "Fight in the way of Allaah against thse who fight you and do not trangress the limits. Indeed, Allaah does not love those who trangress". (Qur'an 2:190). The killing of women and children is included within this, and so are those who are not involved in warfare."-Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, "An Nawaadir wa'z-Ziyaadaat", Vol 3, Page 57.
"As for intending to attack those who are not fighting such as women, children, the elderly, those in monasteries, churches and the like - then this is not permissible, as long as they neither provide a benefit (to the enemy troops) via their views or strategies nor have committed murder."-Shaykh Abdullaah Al Basaam, "Tawdeeh ul Ahkaam bin Buluughil Maraam", Vol 6, Page 385.
"As for those who are not from the people who help and fight, such as women, children, the worshipper, the elderly, the blind, the disabled and the likes then they are not to be killed according to the majority of the Ulama' unless the person participates in fighting (against the Muslims) with speech or action. Even though some Ulama' permitted the killing of all merely on account of kufr, except for women and children which become for the Moslims. The first opinion (that non-combatants are not to be killed or fought against at all) is the most correct opinion, because fighting is only against whoever fights us when we want to manifest the deen of Allaah, just as Allaah says: "Fight in the way of Allaah against thse who fight you and do not trangress the limits. Indeed, Allaah does not love those who trangress". (Qur'an 2:190). In the Sunan is a Hadith from the Prophet that he passed by a woman who had been killed within a battle and the people had gathered around the body. The Prophet said: "This is not one who should be fought against", and sent the men away saying to one of them: "Tell Khalid not to kill children or workers". Also reported from him is that he said: "Do not kill a frail elderly man or a young child or a woman."-Ibn Taymiyah, "As Siyaasah Ash Shariyah", Page 177.
"The foundation is that the blood of Bani Aadam is sanctified and inviolable and no one is killed except with right. Killing due to kufr is not something which the legislations have agreed upon at any one time of the Shariah, such as killing the one who sits out of combat, for this is something that the legislations and intellect do not differ over. The blood of a disbeliever during the early history of Islaam was sanctified and inviolable just like the original sanctity of a person. Allaah prevented the Muslims from killing such a disbeliever."-Ibn Taymiyah, "As Saarim Al Maslool 'Alaa Shaatim ir Rasool", Page 104.
"Killing a women merely on account of kufr is not permissible and we do not know that it was allowed to kill any disbelieving women at any time whatsoever. Rather, the Qur'an and the sequence of its revelation prove that it is not allowed at all, because the first verses revealed about fighting: "Permission to fight has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allaah is competent to give them victory. They are those who have been evicted from their homes without right". (Qur'an 22:39 and 49). So it was allowed for the believers to fight in defending themselves and to retaliate against those who evicted them from their homes and prevented them from tawheed of Allaah and His worship, and women are not included from those who do this. Then it was prescribed for them to fight absolutely and this is explained in His saying: "Fight in the way of Allaah against those who fight you". (Qur'an 2:190). So those people who are not people of combat are not permitted to be fought against."-Ibn Taymiyah "As Saarim Al Maslool", Page 101.
It's not permissible (haram) to kill non-combtants, namely, women, children, the elderly, etc. You're ignorance doesn't negate this and I'm sorry this conflicts with your own fucked up version of Islam.
This argument of "it's your version of Islam, bitch, bitch, bitch," doesn't work, sorry. There is Atheists whom beat their women as well, should I then consider this an inherent part of Atheism and say, "this is the Atheism that we are forced to deal with," and then say after any refutation, "I'm sorry, this is an Atheist charachteristic, we don't have the luxury of your ideal Atheism, this is the Atheism that we are forced to deal with."
What about the verses from al-Qur'an:
"If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient."-Al-Anfal, 8:61, al-Qur'an.
"You shall resort to pardon, advocate tolerance, and disregard the ignorant."-Al-A'raf, 7:199, al-Qur'an.
"GOD advocates justice, charity, and regarding the relatives. And He forbids evil, vice, and transgression. He enlightens you, that you may take heed."-An-Nahl,16:90, al-Qur'an.
And this verse, which I have already posted on this forum:
"O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of GOD is the most righteous. GOD is all-knowing, well-informed."-Al-Hujurat, 49:13, al-Qur'an.
Last edited: