BennaJain.
I must express my generalized gratitude that this is not your forum.
Hadj hello, and thank you for starting this thread as I have learned things about Islam i didnt know before.
I was wondering my grandpa told me (not a reliable souce 
) that in the Quran it says if you can’t convert your neighbor kill them. Is this just a rumor or is it out of context?
I would also like to say how impressed i am at your patiences with Been. That is the real way to represent your faith, not intolerance and stupid name calling, and you did a great job 
I would have fallen far short of that heh
Hadj,
When I said that God is the only God, I meant that He constitutes - Jesus, Ram, Krishan, Allah, Yahweh, Muhammed, Lakshmi, Ganesh, Parvati, Durga, Kali, etc., and all the rest of the creatures on earth and the universe. Therefore you can choose to call your God Allah but God is not limited to that alone. That is why I said to you that when you say that, ‘there is only one God and that is Allah,’ is wrong! God is not just Allah, but you can call Him that if you want to.
Dev93,
Let me assure you that calling someone names when justified is not wrong because God did not give us the name calling in language to put it inside a vault and lock it. If we do that, compliments will disappear as well. You need to know that. To date, people have mostly criticised me and no compliments anywhere, you think that is not a form of abuse when they provoke me for no reason at all? Think again! Anyway, the point I was trying to make was this - I called Hadj names only because he replied my query with a lot of theory (that I mistakenly said as thesis) and that I find is useless in the face of my argument and just occupies space and satisfies Hadj’s ego. As such where I was justified in doing what I did, Hadj was not. Not only that I never got to see much reasoned argument from Hadj refuting what I said. Now if you see my name calling as unjust but do not see Hadj’s immediate gratification of ego in posting so much unnecessary theory that is irrelevant to the argument and as such constitutes abuse of me and also others, then I have to say this to you my dear - you are not all seeing! 
I disagree with your disagreement. Some rocks are not God. Rocks are just rocks. Statues are just statues. Everything in the entire universe put together is God. Not a pile of rocks. The idea behind pantheism (at least the way I practice it) is that individual things do not have an existance of their own. They only exist as a part of something greater and more complete, that something being God. So really pantheism is anti-materialist if anything, because it denies the existance of material things.
God does not consist of matter. Matter consists of God. In pantheism, the idea is to not separate one thing from another. Like matter and thoughts. Matter and thoughts are the same thing. They are both part of the universe. Therefore, they are both God. Pantheism (once again at least the way I practice it) denies the existance of material things. Only one thing exists, and that thing is God. So really it is anti-materialism. Pantheists do not worship a pile of rocks or a statue. They worship existance itself.
How is that belief ungrounded? Disprove it if you care to. You HAVE to assign some definition to a deity. Islam does. Islam assigns it skygod version 3.5, who is some big man in the sky who gets angry and vengeful with people when they are naughty. How is that a more logical definition then mine? Mine makes a hell of a lot more sense.
Female circumcision is in Islam. I saw it in another thread you wrote. You said the Quran actually tells people to do that.
Sexual oppression is a part of Islam. Islam encourages people to hurt other people who are sexually deviant, and discourages sexual deviance itself. In my book that sure as hell does count as sexual oppression. How about this? In how many Islamic countries is gay marriage legal? What about anal sex? I am not singleling out Islam here, Christian nations do the same thing and are just as bad.
As far as gender segregation, if you think it is for a good reason, then that is your opinion. I think the veil over the face is way extreme. That’s like saying God created beauty, BUT NOT FOR ANYONE TO LOOK AT! I know a girl from Syria that is here in America, is quite a beatiful woman, wears nothing but really skimpy clothes. Loves the freedom that she is now able to actually show people her beauty. Before she just had to keep it to herself, and her piece of shit husband that beat her all the time, because the laws in Syria condone men treating their wives like personal property. If you ask me, that is really sick. Maybe that isn’t a good representation of Islam, but Syria is an Islamic nation isn’t it? Doesn’t it follow Islamic law? Doesn’t the Quran give married women about the same rights as an armchair? From my understanding it does. Maybe I am wrong though.
Alien Corpuscle Bath,
You’re right about those three things, ‘female circumcision, sexual oppressions and male/female segregation,’ they may not be what Quran or Islam dictate but what many muslims follow anyway, the first I think is more prevalent in Egypt, there was an article on it in the Reader’s Digest a few years back in August of some year I think, I think the article is called, ‘A desert rose’. It matters not if Hadj says no to believing all that. You know what ACB? Can I make that into ABC? Couldn’t resist saying that. Anyways, I was saying ACB that Quran and Islam in itself are very good but the way they are interpreted or followed is not wise.
I know for a fact that Islam dictates the latter of the two… I will have to check about female circumcision. That is a practice that I truly do not understand. That is like if when men were born, they just decided to chop their whole penises off.
okay… this is according to hadj here:
The hadith “When the two circumcised parts (of a man and a woman) contact, performing ghusl (for both) becomes a must†indicates that females were circumcised at that time; however, this does not include evidence either for its being mandatory or a confirmed act of the sunnah.
There is another hadith to the effect that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to a midwife: “Reduce the size of the clitoris (of a woman) but do not exceed the limit, for that is better for her health and pleasant for her husband [that is, it would enhance her conjugal relation with her husband].â€
This hadith is not authentic, for all its chains of reporters are weak, although Sheikh Al-Albani considered this hadith to be authentic due to its being narrated with more than one chain of reporters. Nevertheless, one doubts such a way to conclude its authenticity. Circumcision is an issue of interest to every Muslim family that requires clear evidence. This being the case, why is this hadith referred to even though it has weak chains of narration?
Even if one approves of its authenticity, does the way the hadith is expressed refer to the circumcision’s being imperative or recommendable, or does it simply clarify how it should be performed?
I believe that the hadith merely guides women to what is best to be done when they perform female circumcision, and this does not imply that this operation is obligatory or even a confirmed act of the sunnah.
So Islam doesn’t require female circumcision, but it encourages it. Still not very good. Every woman I have dated has treasured her clit, and would hate for anything bad to happen to it. It sickens me that any culture would just remove it, or cut it at all for that matter before the child is old enough to even protest.
Aw come on ACB, why get into details regarding a private thing, it’s so embarrassing on a wonderful and wise forum like this. And I know Islam or Quran do specify in some ways about the separate roles of women and men in society but I don’t think they stress upon sexual oppressions or male/female segregation. As to thier different roles, I do believe it’s right to some extent because the house and family would be looked after amicably and to be honest I can’t argue with a logic like that. But some muslims take the roles to extremes and that is wrong. Mind you, Islam and Quran still do not stress what is actually practised. So in itself, Quran and Islam are both actually very good but they happen to be USED badly by some muslims and used as a weapon by terrorists and yet for solace and internal peace by others.
You deny the existence of matter? How do you drive your car?
A problem I have with the mixed salad that is Protestant theology - if Jesus was killed, was sacrificed by a mob and their sins were transferred onto the shoulders of this sinless lamb, then why do we have to accept Jesus over and over again? Shouldn’t that one time sacrifice be enough to cleanse the soul of man of Adam’s Sin? I mean supposedly it was God’s Freakin’ Son! you’d have to kill God himself to go any further. Shouldn’t we then keep Christ in our hearts, remembering him, as instructed during the Liturgy of the Eucharist?
And if that didn’t work, I’d send men over in brown shirts and black arm bands to beat you up. And If that didn’t work, my people would round you and your family up and put them into little camps. And if that didn’t work, I’d get a big gun myself and shoot everybody dead. and if that didn’t work, I’d kill their pets too. And then I’d talk to myself, but then i’d get all schizo and hysterical because myself kept ignoring myself and then I’d put myself in a half nelson and wrestle myself to the ground, wherein I would pull out a big knife with an eagle on it and I’d stick in myself’s belly. Dammit!!!
hermes the thrice great,
OMG! You rock! LMAO!
Xander
If we would encourage then we had to call it a sunnah but that’s not the case. So Islam neither encourage or discourage it aslong it doesn’t harm the woman physcial and mentally.
Well it is not an automatic “Get-out-of-Hell-Free†card. You have to follow the magical formula. You have to:
Romans 10:9 If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit
You only have to accept Jesus one time, but you have to keep feeling sorry when you do wrong. Feeling sorry is important.
Guilt is the backbone of evangelical Christianity.
Hadj, my apologies for hijacking your thread.
xanderman, are you now or have you ever been a member of an evangelical party?
What I’m specifically thinking about is the whole process of baptizing “adults”, well, thirteen year old kids (The fact that thirteen year old kids arrogantly think they’re saved is hillarious, like the ten year old black belts with two years of experience). See, I understand the baptism of babies anthropologically, like, “this here kid is a member of our tribe and will be raised accordingly.” Where I question is how Jesus can save you if his death in +/- 33 ad rid the world of sin? What the hell is there to be saved from if ol’ Chuey already took sin upon his broad tekton shoulders? Does not the Christ event negate the Adamic Fall entirely, denecessitating the speech-act of salvation? (sorry about the Jargon)
Hadj,
I have only studied a bit of islam, mostly books on heretics and Philosophers (Al Hallaj, Ibn ‘Arabi, Ibn Khaldun, good ol’ Hasan i-Sabbah), but I am aware of the general tendency for Islam to take on the color of the nation in which it finds itself, eg - the Indonesians add their touch and create the shadow plays, the Pathans hate the feminine so they dress their women in the burkha, the Iranians are as old as rocks and are indo-european and behave as such, etc etc. My question is this what do you think of this general tendency for cultures to adapt Islam to their own traditions. It is this particularization that causes such perversions as female mutilations and such, and would seem to argue for a strict and universalizing Islam, but the only such Islam that I have seen like that is Wahhabism, damnable Wahhabism. So it seems that Islam is stuck between being adapted to local uses and being sterilized by universalism
Please enlighten us.
Possession is nine-tenths of the exorcism.
Yes, but it was frighfully dull. Not much of a party at all.
Well, its magic. Or a miracle. The member, or would-be member of the religion has to go through the rituals.
If Jesus’ act transformed the entire world then it would be just a story. Not a religion. A religion separates the saved from the damned. We don’t want out star-bellied children associating with them that has no stars upon thars!
The blessing of Jesus is only potential salvation, not actual salvation. The magical ritual makes the potential salvation into actual salvation. Plus you have to thrown in the complex issue of freewill. The would-be member has to choose to participate in the magical ritual. (Although if he doesn’t then he is going to get such a whuppin’!)
I was raised Baptist and was the first in my age group to choose to get baptized. I enjoyed the ritual but it didn’t have any spiritual feeling to it. I really had no understanding of what I was doing. The Bible was just a collection of stories that I had to memorize. I was good at memorization so it was no big deal. Church service was just a boring hour. It wasn’t too long after I got baptized that I quit going to church all together. The concept of hell bothered me too much. I had too many atheist friends who seemed far too good to deserve everlasting punishment because they didn’t believe in Jesus.