I'm Norwegian and I have nothing against Islam

[indivision]

However old it might be.. The Quran was not for only the stone age people it was for all the generations that were going to come after it..

And also.. the fact that what science is discovering today was written in the quran 1400 years ago makes it even more authentic for even more generations to come.

Quran and Mordern Science

does it predict pop-ups and spam?

i cant seem to navigate to anything from that link without getting spin-off pages.

[ViRGo_RK]

I don't know, most holy books generally preach pretty eternal things, like don't murder or rape or steal. You know, the good stuff.

That isn't exactly obsolete.

[DaVulf]

Virgo, I don't think a book as thick as the quoran only talks about those little things. Look at Iran, they run their country based off that book, apparently it dictates all matters of life.

I personally think this whole matter is blown way out of proportion, muslims all over are pissed at these morons who burn flags. So the Danish made a cartoon, they took it off the press, no harm no foul. Don't go hating the entire populace of that country for it.

Is it just me, or does anyone else notice that those people seem to always need someone to hate? Maybe that is how they avoid stagnation, they just hate someone else. It's possible that this propaganda helps reduce the questioning of the way in which they live.

Prophet Muhammed did not write it.. The Quran was sent by Allah to the prophet. and 1400 years is not a long time to keep a track on changes..

Well, forgive me for not falling in line, but how the hell does a book get sent by some Allah fellow? I have to agree with Geezer on this one. I guarantee that this book has been modified to keep the people who are in power, in power, and to keep the people who are oppressed, oppressed. (and then have them believe everything is perfect on top of it all)

[Ask The Geezer]

No, and those things are not only taught in biblical books. Stone age societies were fairly peaceful, took care of their people and got along fine, long before any pulpit punchers ever came along. While many of todays laws, and western human rights ideas came from the christian bible, the western world is and always has been just a small portion of the whole. many eastern religions are not even religions as we know them, and they were far more socially advanced than the west or middle east ever hoped to be, and still are.

Any morality play that dwells so much on what you can and can not do to an enemy is lacking something very basic when it comes to just living. Besides, isn't a religions concerns focused on the soul, and not on the physical world? Then why do they also want to control everyday life and minds? You have to ask why?

[atRax]

one soul - one man - one world - human

[gerbick]

the bible and Qu'ran are basically extended sets of common laws, Laws of Hammurabi for instance pretty much laid down the same 10 principles as the 10 commandments.

I personally disagree with all major religions when it comes down to origin. I don't believe that the Bible was God's word... it's as collection of stories about God. And I say this as a Christian.

The fact that the Qu'ran hasn't changed in 1400 years, I actually can see and agree with that. A lot of other things have lasted that long without change - scrolls and the like from the Apocrypha are older than Jesus supposed birthdate. And parts were just recently discovered - Dead Sea Scrolls for instance.

Unchanged... mainly because they were either unfound, disregarded, or the opposite, regarded too highly.

With that said... it's all how you wish to regard it. The Bible, I know it was changed... anything with "version" attached to it sounds like it was under the editing knife a bit too much to be considered original.

The Qu'ran was heeded as "the word" from the moment it came forth. Changes to it would have popped up, even for the greedy people - say again, like an Henry the 8th wannabe in muslim times - it would have been suicide to alter it. That's why the mullah's shouldn't be taken too seriously... they "interpret" the Qu'ran in some rather devious ways to get people to do what they want.

But then again... so did Jim Baker, Swaggart, and that Benny Hinn dude. All of what comes out of their mouth... wrong as hell, corrupt as hell.

[DaVulf]

Emm: I don't mean to be offensive, but I think you opinion may be slightly biased.

Call me crazy, but I don't think an objective person would be making those statements.

[Ask The Geezer]

The Quran was not for only the stone age people it was for all the generations that were going to come after it

You say that as if you think people or the world are never going to change.

[DaVulf]

You say that as if you think people or the world are never going to change.

Yea, but didn't you get the memo, we actually don't change and history repeats itself...

I think that neither side is going to agree though, you just can't argue with religious fanatics.

[emm_eye]

You say that as if you think people or the world are never going to change.

people and the world are bound to change and may be so.. but if it would.. there definetely is a sign of it in the Quran or Hadiths.


@davulf: call me fanatic.. call me biased... but the fact is, i just have strong faith in the teachings of Islam.


Ps: Don't know what happened to that link. anyways.. here are some basic facts. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A6865743



edit: This might also be a good read if you are interested..
The Bible, The Qur'an and Science

[XU1]

edit: This might also be a good read if you are interested..
The Bible, The Qur'an and Science

Very interesting indeed.......one day I would really like people like Mr:Bias to actualy speak to some one who knows and understands the Bible, as to his conclusions....

The Qur'anic Revelation has a history which is fundamentally different from the other two. It spanned a period of some twenty years and, as soon as it was transmitted to Muhammad by Archangel Gabriel, Believers learned it by heart.

I mean, excuse me for having a slight suspicion of Mr Bias here..all that is needed is a Bible student not a theologian ( many of them don't even believe in God) to show him from the Bible many of the things he calls contradictions....

Any way back on the Wild Monkey Scenes...

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia’s top cleric called on the world’s Muslims to reject apologies for the “slanderous” caricatures of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed and demanded the authors and publishers of the cartoons be tried and punished, Saudi newspapers reported Saturday.

Thousands of Muslims, meanwhile, took to the streets in London and several other European cities to protest the drawings that were first published in a Danish newspaper in September and recently reprinted in other European publications. One depicted the prophet with a turban shaped like a bomb with a burning fuse.

Denmark also announced it has temporarily withdrawn its ambassadors from Syria, Iran and Indonesia because their safety was at risk in the wake of the controversy.

Speaking to hundreds of faithful at his Friday sermon, Sheik Abdul Rahman al-Seedes, the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, called on the international community to enact laws that condemn insults against the prophet and holy sites.

“Where is the world with all its agencies and organizations? Is there only freedom of expression when it involves insults to Muslims? With one voice...we will reject the apology and demand a trial,” Al Riyad, a Saudi daily newspaper, quoted al-Seedes as saying.

Al-Seedes said the cartoons “made a mockery” of the Islam and the Prophet and called them “slanderous.”

aahhh, I had a suspicion that an apology was not enough....I guess killing them for Allah to then roast them in an eternal torment of fire makes the heart grow fonder for some eh?.

Yahoo News

iTony

[DaVulf]

I wasn't calling you fanatic, I was saying (objectively) that it is impossible to argue with fanatics as they will never agree to see sense as their beliefs are too deeply ingrained.

As for the bias, by reconfirming that you have strong faith in your religion you asert that you are indeed influenced by it in the discussion. Your arguments are not objective ones, and this hinders your side of the argument. I don't hold it against you, as I think it is great that you have found something to believe in. Unfortunately, I think the methods that your people have chosen to show the rest of the world that they dissaprove of cartoons are severly misguided.

Also, I'm pretty sure all of the articles you have posted have been written by supporters of Islam. Again, the bias.

[emm_eye]

As for the bias, by reconfirming that you have strong faith in your religion you asert that you are indeed influenced by it in the discussion. Your arguments are not objective ones, and this hinders your side of the argument.

True, this discussion here is heavily influenced by my faith.. because what is being disucssed here is my religion and the misconceptions most of you people have about it, which i was only trying to clear.

As for the methods of those few people over the disapproval of the cartoons. Most of the Muslim world condemns that.. and i think i've said it earlier..

Again.. its the western media. giving this small group all the hype.. which is why we have this long discussion going on here.

[indivision]

I wasn't calling you fanatic, I was saying (objectively) that it is impossible to argue with fanatics as they will never agree to see sense as their beliefs are too deeply ingrained.

As for the bias, by reconfirming that you have strong faith in your religion you asert that you are indeed influenced by it in the discussion. Your arguments are not objective ones, and this hinders your side of the argument. I don't hold it against you, as I think it is great that you have found something to believe in. Unfortunately, I think the methods that your people have chosen to show the rest of the world that they dissaprove of cartoons are severly misguided.

Also, I'm pretty sure all of the articles you have posted have been written by supporters of Islam. Again, the bias.

Your argument here is a fallacy because you pre-suppose that you are aware of a proven "sense." Being objective simply means to not take your individual predispositions into account. It does not mean that you can't make a valid argument on a religious basis. Believing that there is a religious explanation for things is not an instance of bias.

Assuming that the "sense" you refer to is scientific evidence, there are countless examples of holes in our scientific understanding of reality that, once laid out, require as much faith as Islam, Christianity or any other religion to accept as absolute truth. Not to say that having this faith is a bad thing. It's necessary to have some level of faith just to comprehend reality. But, it's simply false that a religious argument is not valid, in comparison to a common "sense" one, on the basis of faith.

I'm in agreement with you about this issue, sentimentally. I just think that making it a sense vs religion argument is never going to go anywhere. It ought to be about what form a society interested in peace should take if its going to consist of people with diverse beliefs. There are times when a groups rights need to be protected. But, in this case, I think the group is the one that needs to adjust and re-consider their actions or they essentially become incompatible with the concept of diversity.

[Orkar]

I am so tired of this crud going on in the world. Some people (and i'm being generous with the word people) believe the sun rises and sets according to what they were taught by religion.

A bunch of empty headed morons (regardless of the specific faith).

By the rules of religions... If I believe you are wrong or you upset me I can beat you to death by the most painful way i can think of. This is my right as a faithful believer.

I call BS on that concept. If you can't behave in the modern world ... well go back to your cave and rot in that hole in the ground.

Learn to think you IDIOTS!

[XU1]

. well go back to your cave and rot in that hole in the ground.

I think the intention here is to bring "us" to the caves.

iTony

[Ask The Geezer]

aahhh, I had a suspicion that an apology was not enough

Imagine my surprise.

[XU1]

Imagine my surprise.

I was blown back as well, it's so out of character for the Mullahs to be so mean and vindictive...Still we have to remember that the leading Cleric in Saudi Arabia is only speaking for the minority......the rest want them beheaded...

iTony

[Ask The Geezer]

Reason #438 why the separation of church and state is a good idea.

[XU1]

Reason #438 why the separation of church and state is a good idea.

The problem is that you cannot separate islam from the body politic....since Islam has two aspects, religious and political.

Hence why the porblems with Muslims will only get worse as time progresses.

iTony