{MFAI}WELCOME! Learn and ask your questions about Islam here

[bucky]

Just wanted to say, thankyou for this topic kirby :) I learnt how biased and just plain wrong some of my views/ideas about Islam were. You obviously put a lot of work into this, and I appreciate it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also it's nice to see the relative lack of flaming on this topic. Evidently there are some people on this forum emotionally mature enough to respect other people's opinions :P

[opu]

Wow, impressive topic :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, bas, you got owned :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O, and i do have a guestion, why you have to pray 5 times a day? Where does that 5 come from ? Why not 3 ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:?:

[bas]

Wow, impressive topic :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, bas, you got owned :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O, and i do have a guestion, why you have to pray 5 times a day? Where does that 5 come from ? Why not 3 ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:?:

 

 

 

rofl? please, get a life and stop bothering others on behind your computer.

 

 

 

the only reason i stopped posting on this topic is because he felt that i flamed him. well, then i simply stop. so please, shut your mouth.

[opu]

 

Wow, impressive topic :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, bas, you got owned :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O, and i do have a guestion, why you have to pray 5 times a day? Where does that 5 come from ? Why not 3 ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:?:

 

 

 

rofl? please, get a life and stop bothering others on behind your computer.

 

 

 

the only reason i stopped posting on this topic is because he felt that i flamed him. well, then i simply stop. so please, shut your mouth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"get a life"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ok

[____]

You know guys it is that kind of hopeless threadjacking that gets decent topics locked.

 

 

 

So either take it to pm or both just stay out of this one hm?

[kirbybeam]

 

 

 

What do you make of 1 Samuel 17:12 then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is there to make out of it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe Micah has already changed topics by v6. Bible prophecy (imo) often changes pace - for instance one sentence will be fulfilled, and then the next sentence will be fulfilled hundreds of years later. This is even a paragraph apart.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is Micah 5:4-7 (and note, the NIV is being misleading by deliberately separating verse 5 into two pieces, while the KJV doesn't)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 He will stand and shepherd his flock

 

 

 

in the strength of the LORD,

 

 

 

in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God.

 

 

 

And they will live securely, for then his greatness

 

 

 

will reach to the ends of the earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 And he will be their peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deliverance and Destruction \\ NIV separates for no reason!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When the Assyrian invades our land

 

 

 

and marches through our fortresses,

 

 

 

we will raise against him seven shepherds,

 

 

 

even eight leaders of men.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 They will rule [e] the land of Assyria with the sword,

 

 

 

the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. [f]

 

 

 

He will deliver us from the Assyrian

 

 

 

when he invades our land

 

 

 

and marches into our borders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 The remnant of Jacob will be

 

 

 

in the midst of many peoples

 

 

 

like dew from the LORD,

 

 

 

like showers on the grass,

 

 

 

which do not wait for man

 

 

 

or linger for mankind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the LORD, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So basicly, this comes down to which Bible you would believe. I prefer the King James Version simply because it is older.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your reasoning is circular. You're assuming you've already proven the Micah passage to not refer to a place (read the Samuel verse) - if Matthew honestly thought (and your judging his intentions is irrational and pointless) that it referred to a place, the paraphrase doesn't seem so guilty anymore, does it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. It isn't circular. You could possibly argue non-sequitur, but certainly not circular.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. That raises some serious issues. If Matthew is prone to make mistakes (which I'm assuming you agree that he did), what does that say about the authenticity of his Gospel? Would the "inspired" word of God contain misquotes???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Jesus (pbuh) was not a military leader, nor did he conquer the Assyrians. He did not fulfil the prophecy.

[Barihawk]

Barihawk: You completely misread his post. He said that John that Baptist was neither Christ, Elijah, or the Prophet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TS: I do have a question about #11 though. When you referred to Christianity becoming corrupted, were you speaking of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ and Trinity, or the political corruption of the Church after it became wealthy, or both?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did not misread it...look at it again. He blatantly says these passages refer to Christ when they refer to a completely different person.

[Astralinre]

 

Barihawk: You completely misread his post. He said that John that Baptist was neither Christ, Elijah, or the Prophet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TS: I do have a question about #11 though. When you referred to Christianity becoming corrupted, were you speaking of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ and Trinity, or the political corruption of the Church after it became wealthy, or both?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did not misread it...look at it again. He blatantly says these passages refer to Christ when they refer to a completely different person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's look at it again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He said

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?"

 

 

 

He said, "I am not."

 

 

 

"Are you the Prophet?"

 

 

 

He answered, "No."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's one example from the Bible. Exactly WHO is "the Prophet" this passage is referring to, if not Christ (pbuh) nor Elijah (pbuh)? I say Muhammad (pbuh).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You wrote:

 

 

 

I think its funny that you try to convince people that John the Baptist is Christ. You failed at your attempt to misguide people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Listen, as I said, I have no problem with Islam. But if you are going to try to make your case, at least GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John the Baptist was not Christ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So yes, you did misread it.

[insane]

 

 

 

 

What do you make of 1 Samuel 17:12 then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is there to make out of it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12Now David was the son of the Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, whose name was Jesse, and (P)he had eight sons. And Jesse was old in the days of Saul, advanced in years among men.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you go onto read into verse 15, Bethlehem is clearly described as a place (as David tends sheep at Bethlehem), and David was the son of an Ephrathite, and Christ comes from David.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So basicly, this comes down to which Bible you would believe. I prefer the King James Version simply because it is older.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it doesn't matter. You're assuming the "He" (the military conquerer) in v6 is the "He" in v2-4. It seems that the "He" in v2-4 is described as one whom already exists ("His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity" (NASB)), and one whom will come in peace. Doesn't sound like a non-messianic military conquerer to me. Therefore, I don't believe that it is the same person being talked about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore I don't believe Matthew made a mistake and so any argument concerning such is irrelevant.

[Barihawk]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So yes, you did misread it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now that he has edited it to make more sense, I stand down. In its raw, unedited form, it was phrased differently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you Kirby for making that distinction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although I still think this topic is turning from a discussion on Islam into a quiet flame war.

[hohto]

Don't know if you already answered to these (didn't bother reading whole fight about the bible and your belief :P), if you have then just don't answer :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. You said that it's wrong for women not to wear the hijab. Just a week or 2 ago read an article written by a muslim woman saying that it isn't needed to wear it. She said something that there's no parts in Coran or Sharia that forces women to wear them. Why's this? Is it right or wrong not to wear it and what does the Coran say?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Family seems to be important in Islam. Can it somehow be seen in daily life? What does the Coran or Sharia say about family relations?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. The last questions and these are a bit more personal ones. Turkey is trying to get to EU. What's your personal thoughts on that? Do you see it as a right thing or as a bad mistake? What about the Israeli's situation? Jews are threating muslims really badly there, not to mention that they first stole our soil.

[ktheboywonder]

Why don't you get a proper translation of that. grrr. It does not say in the Quoran "kill all non belivers" thats just rubbish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bible on the other hand...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exodus 22:20 - You must kill those who worship another god

 

 

 

Deuteronomy 13:12-16 - Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you.

 

 

 

Mark 6:11 - Any city that does not receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this made me look it up. in my bible it says

 

 

 

Exodus 22:20: He who sacrifices to any god, except to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. (not saying kill them, but saying they wont go to heaven and their life will suck.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deuteronomy 13:12-16 : 12 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅIf you hear someone in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell in, saying, 13 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâCorrupt men have gone out from among you and enticed the inhabitants of their city, saying, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅLet us go and serve other godsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[kirbybeam]

"If you go onto read into verse 15, Bethlehem is clearly described as a place (as David tends sheep at Bethlehem), and David was the son of an Ephrathite, and Christ comes from David. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said Bethlehem isn't a place, I said that there is also a clan of Bethlehem. And in Micah 5:2, it is referring to the clan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, Christ didn't come from anyone. He has no lineage besides God and Mary, and Mary's lineage isn't really recorded (women weren't recorded).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it doesn't matter. You're assuming the "He" (the military conquerer) in v6 is the "He" in v2-4. It seems that the "He" in v2-4 is described as one whom already exists ("His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity" (NASB)), and one whom will come in peace. Doesn't sound like a non-messianic military conquerer to me. Therefore, I don't believe that it is the same person being talked about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you mind explaining how you arrive at the conclusion that this passage is referring to more than one "he"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now that he has edited it to make more sense, I stand down. In its raw, unedited form, it was phrased differently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you Kirby for making that distinction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know what you are talking about, I never edited my message...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. You said that it's wrong for women not to wear the hijab. Just a week or 2 ago read an article written by a muslim woman saying that it isn't needed to wear it. She said something that there's no parts in Coran or Sharia that forces women to wear them. Why's this? Is it right or wrong not to wear it and what does the Coran say?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off, all Muslim women are required to wear hijab, it is a tautology. Hijab's definition is the clothing that women must wear as required by Islam.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, who is she?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Family seems to be important in Islam. Can it somehow be seen in daily life? What does the Coran or Sharia say about family relations?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what to say, this question is a little too vague.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. The last questions and these are a bit more personal ones. Turkey is trying to get to EU. What's your personal thoughts on that? Do you see it as a right thing or as a bad mistake? What about the Israeli's situation? Jews are threating muslims really badly there, not to mention that they first stole our soil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Turkey - I don't really have an opinion, but I'd say that Turkey should be let in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Israel - return to pre-1967 borders, no more fighting.

[Triplets_KGB]

 

Now that he has edited it to make more sense, I stand down. In its raw, unedited form, it was phrased differently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you Kirby for making that distinction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know what you are talking about, I never edited my message...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think he's talking about clarifiying the Koran, simplifying it so that us Westerners can understand the basics :) (Or something....)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two questions; Do you play RuneScape? (Just curious... :oops: ) and also, How many times must you pray every day, and the reasons behind each individual prayer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amazing thread, I understand a bit more about Islam now, thankies! :P

[kirbybeam]

Two questions; Do you play RuneScape?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, either on my main (Kirbyteam) or my pure (run2lumbynub).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Just curious... Embarassed ) and also, How many times must you pray every day, and the reasons behind each individual prayer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 prayers every day, and the reason for each one is the same; getting close to God.

[McOwned]

Very nice read. :)

[insane]

 

"If you go onto read into verse 15, Bethlehem is clearly described as a place (as David tends sheep at Bethlehem), and David was the son of an Ephrathite, and Christ comes from David. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said Bethlehem isn't a place, I said that there is also a clan of Bethlehem. And in Micah 5:2, it is referring to the clan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, Christ didn't come from anyone. He has no lineage besides God and Mary, and Mary's lineage isn't really recorded (women weren't recorded).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I'm saying Micah 5:2 is referring to the place. Shown through the verse in Samuel where there were Ephrathites living in Bethlehem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's Biblical evidence for Mary being of King David... I'll find it in a sec, and even if I don't, concluding that Mary isn't from King David is denying the antecedent. Just because there isn't evidence Mary comes from King David, doesn't mean it isn't true. And while I'm at it, we can also point out that since Mary and Joseph were wed, Christ became the legal son of Joseph, and therefore became part of King David's lineage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you mind explaining how you arrive at the conclusion that this passage is referring to more than one "he"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly. The first "He" is said to be eternal, timeless, and coming in peace. A mere military conquerer would not be eternal, timeless, and definatley wouldn't come in peace. There.

[kirbybeam]

And I'm saying Micah 5:2 is referring to the place. Shown through the verse in Samuel where there were Ephrathites living in Bethlehem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so... are you trying to say that the Bethlehem clan doesn't exist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's Biblical evidence for Mary being of King David... I'll find it in a sec, and even if I don't, concluding that Mary isn't from King David is denying the antecedent. Just because there isn't evidence Mary comes from King David, doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't mean it isn't true, but then there is not rational reason to believe it then. Theology is a fortress, the smallest crack can destroy it. And the thing is, it is irrelevant whether Mary is a descendant of King David, I'll explain below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And while I'm at it, we can also point out that since Mary and Joseph were wed, Christ became the legal son of Joseph, and therefore became part of King David's lineage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol no, that's not how the Jews saw ancestry back then. First off, women didn't have any ancestry, period. It doesn't matter about the woman, the man is the one that decides what the child is according to Jewish culture at that time. That's why in the Old Testament, Moses commands the Israelites to rape all the non-Israelite women. That's because they only care that the father is Jewish; patrilinal descent. There was no such thing as "adoption" back then. According to the Jewish culture of his time, Jesus has no lineage, because he has no father. Joseph doesn't become the "legal father" of Jesus, that's nonsense. It's the same reasoning as to why kings often had to divorce their barren wives to have a child. They couldn't just "adopt" a kid and proclaim. "Yeah, this is my heir". :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so... Jesus cannot possibly considered part of King David's "lineage" at that time. Nowadays the definitions are different, and the NIV and the other new Bibles exploit this in exchange for gilded legitimacy.

[kirbybeam]

Certainly. The first "He" is said to be eternal, timeless, and coming in peace. A mere military conquerer would not be eternal, timeless, and definatley wouldn't come in peace. There.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait... what? Where does it say eternal? That's gross misinterpretation. Nowhere is the word eternal used. And nowhere is timeless to be found. And also, "coming in peace" is so ambigious it could mean anything. And like I said, Jesus did NOT come in peace; he caused a whole load of trouble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I fail to see how a military conquerer could not be eternal, timeless, and not come in peace, because

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

[runescapeplayer2005]

omg i rlly cant read all that even if i tried to. :shock:

[kirbybeam]

giving this a bump from the second page!

[sushi54]

Very nice forum topic, just a few questions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What are your view on atheism ? (im muslim just curious about ur pt of view)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where are you from ? ( nothing personal just curious)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there a site that has some of the "7adeeth el rasool" ? (dnt know how to say in english sry)

[hohto]

First off, all Muslim women are required to wear hijab, it is a tautology. Hijab's definition is the clothing that women must wear as required by Islam.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, who is she?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll look that tomorrow, I got that article in a paper form and don't feel like trying to find it at 2.00 am just to find one name. Anyways, a little googling gave me this link:

 

 

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/146/story_14617_1.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think of it? The article I was talking about was pretty much like that, basically it could be just a translation of that text.

[kirbybeam]

What are your view on atheism ? (im muslim just curious about ur pt of view)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where are you from ? ( nothing personal just curious)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there a site that has some of the "7adeeth el rasool" ? (dnt know how to say in english sry)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off, Peace Be Upon You.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheism - I have nothing against atheism really. As long as they don't bother me and leave me in peace, then I do the same to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where I'm from - I'm from Iran; I'm Persian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"7adeeth el rasool"- do you mean Hadith? Here, try this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll look that tomorrow, I got that article in a paper form and don't feel like trying to find it at 2.00 am just to find one name. Anyways, a little googling gave me this link:

 

 

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/146/story_14617_1.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think of it? The article I was talking about was pretty much like that, basically it could be just a translation of that text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bleh, that article is just that--- an article. She calls herself a "Sunni Muslim with Sufi beliefs" when the Noble Qur'an clearly states that sectarianism is forbidden. And she said one of the important reasons that she was a Muslim is because her parents were. That's totally wrong and goes against what the Noble Qur'an says. The Noble Qur'an states that people should not follow their parent's religions blindly. Now, I'm not the one to judge, but from that article, it seemed as if that women just didn't study Islam as much as I have. Anyone can write a book, that doesn't make you credible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I said, the Noble Qur'an states that women must wear hijab, just as men have to do it. Wearing a headscarf with a long-sleeved shirt and jeans is fine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And one more thing, she states in the last paragraph of that article that the zero was invented by Arabs. It was the Hindus which developed it independently at an earlier date, and they should be the ones that receive credit for it.

[insane]

 

Certainly. The first "He" is said to be eternal, timeless, and coming in peace. A mere military conquerer would not be eternal, timeless, and definatley wouldn't come in peace. There.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait... what? Where does it say eternal? That's gross misinterpretation. Nowhere is the word eternal used. And nowhere is timeless to be found. And also, "coming in peace" is so ambigious it could mean anything. And like I said, Jesus did NOT come in peace; he caused a whole load of trouble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I used the NASB, which is commonly known (amongst Bible readers) to have aimed more at accuracy than the NIV. Eternal ~ timeless... I was just reiterating it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I fail to see how a military conquerer could not be eternal, timeless, and not come in peace, because

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay then. That verse can be used to explain away anything.