Jump to content


Photo

Koranic Law Versus Sharia Law - two different Islams


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Koranist

Koranist

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 26 January 2014 - 07:33 AM

16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message


 
4:79-80 Say: ‘Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe.... Hence, we have not sent you with power to determine their Faith

24.54. Say: "Obey God, and obey the Messenger, but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach

64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away there from and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant," It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance

39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

67:25 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."


As we can clearly see, many of the verses that talks about obeying the prophet also emphasizes the prophet's limited authority, something that the Islamic sects do not recognize. The ruler to them has the authority to punish people for what they consider sins like drinking alcohol, eating pork, not fasting Ramadan, watching pornos etc.

The Koran meanwhile focuses on crimes against another like stealing, killing, slandering of women falsely and oppression. It gave the believers the right to fight against those who fight them but not to transgress. It also gave people the right to defend themselves against evictions from their lands. There is no talk about punishing people for something that does not concern somebody else's right.

Adultery is the only place where the Koran diverted from this due to the fact that a adultery affects another party. Here the Koran sees adultery as affecting the other partner in a marriage. It’s a betrayal and a breaking of oath. But even then it placed strict standards on that but was lenient when it came to punishing slanders of women. Adultery needs four witnesses but the slander can get punished just from opening his mouth without four witnesses. It’s clear that the verse made it very difficult to implement on adultery but very easy to implement on the slanderer. Further reading of the verse about the Zani and Zania shows us that the issue came up concerning slandering of one of the prophet’s wife presumably. But adultery still affects another party as its a breaking of an oath between a man and a woman and is an act of betrayal.

The Koran cannot order the prophet to punish people for sins, that God's job. The Koran gave people the right and freedom to disbelieve let alone sin. Plus how the Koran understands sins is very different than how the sects understand sins.

In the end the sects had no choice but to abrogate many of these verses, usually invoking the "sword verse". They claim that many of these verses that gave the prophet limited authority(over those who chose to disobey him) has been abrogated by verse 9-5 or verse 9-29.

However these verses were about the wars with the pagans, and verse 9-13 and many other verses makes it clear who instigated these battles and why. The Jizya verse (9-29) also was claimed by the sects to be a tax to be paid by non Muslims in an Islamic state for protection. However Jizya never came concerning the Medina community where the prophet and his followers had a community. And only came upon the believers entering of Mecca. Jizya could have easily been compensation for the loss of property and homes that the believers suffered after being forced into exile. The Koran forbade prophets from seeking any form of reward. They can however accept charity on behalf of the believers.

But the Sunnah claimed otherwise. In it the prophet was ordered to fight the people till they acknowledge monotheism and also in it the prophet ordered the execution of those who apostate. That’s why they abrogated many of the verses that limited his authority. Then they simply transferred that authority to the Muslim ruler by default. The Ridda war story about Abu Bakr is a case study of this. In that story Abu Bakr apparently fought people for not paying Zakat. Now the authority was transferred from God to the prophet to one of his companions. This made it very easy to then transfer that authority to the ruler. This is why you see places where Shariah law is implemented filled with such concepts like searching cars for alcohol or flogging people for watching pornos or not wearing proper attire. None of this should concern anyone but it has become a punishable sin. God only punishes those who did not get caught and punished in this world. The sects claimed that once punished the sin falls away and disappears. You will not find such a concept in the Koran. There God punishes in a million ways and does not need humans to punish for him. I think the sects introduced this conc3ept to make people more accepting of this by making them think its better for them since God's punishment is more severe. They also introduced stoning the adulterer by claiming the Zina verse in the Koran is concerning fornification and not adultery. They claimed that the verse about stoning was lost and is not included in the Koran but the ruling remains.

This of course violated not only the freedom aspect of the Koran but also an eye for an eye and a life for a life. In the Koran, any punishment must be reciprocal and proportionate to the crime and it also must be targeted towards the actual perpetrators of the crime and not someone else associated to the criminal as the case with tribal laws that simply targets anyone from that tribe. They broke this by lower the bar for executions. Some Sunni scholars also gave the authority to execute homosexuals and enslave female prisoners and execute male prisoners. Something the Koran forbade. The Koran gave two options for prisoners, either freedom or ransom of some sort. They gave this authority to the ruler. This is all very sad as the taking of someone’s life is no easy matter in the Koran. God should take life and not humans, but if a person takes a life then he lost his right to live, but even then the Koran gave exile from the community as another option for murder especially if the person shows repentance. So an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth somehow ended up being an eye for an eye lash and a tooth for a jaw.

To be fair the Sunni orthodoxy rarely practiced some of these laws. We know of no time in history where adulterers were stoned to death. Apostasy was rarely practiced, unlike the Christians in Europe that practiced these laws left and right. So the Sunni jurist knew that some of these laws could be controversial and therefore they tended to avoid them.

Its very unfortunate the current Islamist in Iran and Sudan and the Salafis in generally never understood why these laws were controversial. But in doing so they exposed much aspect of the sects that people were not aware of. The Sufis provided a convenient cover as they shunned legalism. But even the clerics understood that these laws were controversial. Its not easy in Islam to execute outside of murder. But this wise tradition was broken. That’s very unfortunant as now we see the culture of death has spread among Muslims till Islam became synonymous with violence and killing. Once you lower the bar it spirals out of control.

One thing is crystal clear from all this. The Koran's take on human authority and freedom is RADICALLY different than how the Sunni/Shia sects understand it. Therefore the biggest difference between a Koranic state and a Sunni or Shia state will come in the form of the state's authority over the masses. It is this, more than anything else, that separates the Koran from the Sunnah. That’s why the Abbasids championed the Sunnah over the Mutazilites. The Mutaziltes couldn't find the ink inthe Koran to give them such draconian authority. The sects did that by first bringing the divine authority from God to prophet, then propet to Caliph (companions) and now that authority is in Omar Al Bashir, Khamenei, Mullah Omar and Al Saud. And that’s very sad.

 



#2 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 26 January 2014 - 10:48 AM

Who the &*%*#$% is this clown ?** How and why did they choose to spread their garbage here, as if we dont have enough of our own?
Would our fearless leaders please choose to delete or hide it?
**One MAN is already too many to spread this kind of garbage disguised as religion.

#3 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,771 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 January 2014 - 11:07 AM

Arpa calm down there is nothing serious about it, at least the guy is showing the hypocrisy of their leaders how they changed it for their own benefit. This shows one thing which is today's Muslim practice is very different from one area to another and it's interpretation is suspect.   



#4 man

man

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 846 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 26 January 2014 - 01:30 PM

Dear Muslim member Koranist, thanks for your post and never mind member Arpa who likes to play the rabid dog, the watchdog in this forum, sniffing and attacking any new member, with bites and profanities, to see if they are a Turk or a sect member (sects to him are all others than his Armenian Apostolic church), he is old of age now and toothless so no need of fear but he gets mad if something none-Armenian or not related to Armenian nation is posted in this forum and correctly so because this forum is about all things Armenian, so if you do not have anything Armenian to discuss here then please do not post. The watchdog is apparently a mason because as masons he believes not in the name of Jesus and wants to change that name to the name of god of the masons. Here in the link below:
http://visitbethelch...not-a-freemason
Pastor Mike Hoggard created this video (Why I Am Not a Freemason) in response to popular request as a tool for witnessing to Freemasons. Just click to play in one hour video, it will open your eyes.

And since you, dear Koranist, brought the subject of the Islamic law, kindly go to this link to expand on that subject and you would not need reading some excerpts that I quoted from that link articles, here...
https://www.google.c...-a&channel=fflb

"The scholarly insurgency in Islamic Studies challenging the traditional orthodoxy made its breakthrough about four decades ago, after an extended period of intellectual stagnation amongst traditionalists, in a classic example of a paradigm revolution. As Harald Motzki notes in his review of “Alternative Accounts of the Qur’an’s Formation” in The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an (2006), there was very little development in Western scholarship concerning Islam until 1970 when some very important work emerged to challenge the accepted wisdom about the early history of the religion. A revolutionary paradigm had emerged suddenly to challenge the dominant one."
https://quadrant.org...-did-not-exist/

"Another scholar drawn into the revisionist camp was Gerd R. Puin, a German authority on ancient Koranic manuscripts. Puin was the head of a restoration project commissioned by the Yemeni government to examine and catalogue a vast hoard of Koranic and non-Koranic fragments discovered in Sana’a in 1972. Amongst the material was a palimpsest which appears to contain the oldest Koranic texts in existence. Significantly, the older of the texts can be radio-carbon-dated to no later than 660 AD. This was after the canonical Koran was supposedly settled, and yet it exhibits significant textual variations that suggest a process of formation of the Koran that differs markedly from the traditional account, and is especially challenging for Muslims who believe that the Koran is the eternal word of God and arrived in this world perfect and fully formed. Based on this and evidence derived from the other material, Puin and his associates concluded that the proto-Islamic religious movement must have been in constant flux in its early years and that the Koran is an amalgam of texts from various sources that were apparently not fully intellectually assimilated even at the time of Muhammad, and may date from at least a century before. In particular, Puin detected a Christian substrate in the material from which may be derived an entire “anti-history” of the origins of Islam.

"Professor Suliman Bashear was a leading Arab scholar (Studies in Early Islamic Tradition, 2004) who was badly injured after being thrown out of a classroom window by fundamentalist students enraged by his revisionist argument that Islam evolved as a religion within the matrix of Judeo-Christian monotheistic thought that prevailed in the Middle East in Late Antiquity, rather than appearing abruptly as the result of a prophetic revelation. Professor Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd also ventured too far into this type of inquiry (Rethinking the Qur’an: Towards a Humanistic Hermeneutics, 2004). He was one of Egypt’s leading Koranic scholars and a very rare liberal Islam theologian who developed a humanistic form of Koranic hermeneutics that he used to argue that Islam could accommodate itself to modernity. Consequently, and despite his exemplary scholarly achievements, he was refused promotion at his university, declared an apostate from Islam, forcibly divorced from his wife, sentenced to death by Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and driven into exile. Mention might also be made of Professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a German convert to Islam who taught Muslim theology at the University of Munster, but saw his career and his faith evaporate when he announced that his research had convinced him that Muhammad never existed.

https://www.google.c...-a&channel=fflb

 "Robert Spencer (a Jew) in his book: Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins, builds on the work of earlier dissenting scholars, including Aloys Sprenger (1813–93), Ignaz Goldziher (1850–1921), Henri Lammens (1862–1937) and Joseph Schacht (1902–69), as well as more contemporary figures whose work is discussed below. His book also complements several recent sets of related essays and readings, including those edited by Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd R. Puin on The Hidden Origins of Islam (2010), and by the pseudonymous Ibn Warraq on The Quest for the Historical Muhammad (2000), Which Koran? (2007), and Virgins? What Virgins? (2010). These have sought to raise the profile of the revisionist perspective and to challenge the rather inertial state of scholarship in this vital field.

"Marshall Hodgson asserted in The Venture of Islam (1974), the revisionists offer a more prosaic scenario. As Warraq says: "Islam, far from being born fully fledged with a watertight creed, rites, rituals, holy places, shrines, and a holy scripture, was a late literary creation, as the early Arab warriors spilled out of the Hijaz [the Western region of Arabia containing Jeddah, Mecca and Medina] in dramatic fashion and encountered sophisticated civilizations—encounters that forced them to forge their own religious identity out of the already available materials, which were then reworked to fit into a mythical Hijazi framework."  

"This included a holy scripture to supplant those of the Jews and the Christians, and a prophetic figure to supersede Jesus Christ. The profound implications of this paradigm shift have been summed up by one leading proponent of the traditional position as follows: “If the hypothesis of Wansbrough and others in his group turns out to be true, it would serve to destroy the very basis of Islamic civilization” (Massimo Campanini, The Qur’an: The Basics, 2007).

A Muslim is NOT free to leave their religion, they are binded and shackled hand and foot to their religion and are subject to death if they change their religion by their human relatives and not by God. The real God is one of freedom to those living on earth. Thereby you should know the true from the false. Jesus said: "...night is coming when no one can work to spread My message" John 9:4 and

you see nowadays, after the Arab Spring, how Christians in the Middle East are being killed by the night in order to extinguish the Light of Jesus Christ. And particularly to us Armenians whose whose life and land was subjected to genocide by Muslims and we do not like to see an apologist attitude from muslims, we know and have details of what happened; so first go and study the Armenian Genocide.



#5 Koranist

Koranist

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 26 January 2014 - 08:07 PM

I will respond to your article soon and see what are the issues raised in the links you provided. . Right now I am heading to work.



#6 hagopn

hagopn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 26 January 2014 - 11:40 PM

Arpa calm down there is nothing serious about it, at least the guy is showing the hypocrisy of their leaders how they changed it for their own benefit. This shows one thing which is today's Muslim practice is very different from one area to another and it's interpretation is suspect.   

 

One of our best writers, Karvarents, who lived in Persia at the turn of the 20th century, fully demonstrated that Islam is merely a religion that leveraged greed and ambition to advance itself.  I have no respect for it/



#7 hagopn

hagopn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 January 2014 - 06:40 PM

 

One of our best writers, Karvarents, who lived in Persia at the turn of the 20th century, fully demonstrated that Islam is merely a religion that leveraged greed and ambition to advance itself.  I have no respect for it/

 

My mistake.  The writer's name is Hakob Karapents http://hy.wikipedia....



#8 Koranist

Koranist

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 01 February 2014 - 11:29 AM

As far as Islam's orgins is concerned, Western scholars now are almost unananimous in their belief that the Hadith literature (oral traditions) that was compiled two centuries and more after Muhammad are not reliable. The Oral traditions, known as hadiths, form the bulk of what is known as Shariah law. It has the same place in Islam as the Talmud has in Judaism. However, Western scholars now believe that the Koran is more or less what Muhammad has left behind. So they believe that the Koran is a reliable source that can be traced to Muhammad.

 

I enjoy the works of Joseph Schacht. Jospeh Schacht believed Shariah law was a later invention and he believed that the hadith literature was a way to give Shariah law Islamic legitimacy. He believed many hadiths were a fabrication. He did believe however that the Koran we have today is Muhamedan in origin. Ignaz Goldziher pretty much said the same thing. There were some Scholars like Patricia Crone who question the Koran's Muhamedan orgins but she later retracted that claiming that she now believes that The Koran we have today is what Muhamamd left behind.

 

I also enjoyed Tom Holland's work and his great documentary that caused a stir in the UK.

 

I don't pay attention to Robert Spencer because he strikes me as a Neocon who has a politcal agenda.

 

As far as the Koran's divine origins or not, I think this is a question of faith.


Edited by Koranist, 01 February 2014 - 11:31 AM.


#9 hagopn

hagopn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 February 2014 - 02:23 PM

Fascinating.  Are the various Hadith, schools of jurisprudence, roughly speaking, then, the equivalent to the Jewish talmudic tradition? 

 

Are you saying that the legalism of the Hadith is the groudwork for the Sharia, which in turn is a possible corruption of the original Muhammadan concept or "revelation" of Islam?



#10 Koranist

Koranist

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 02 February 2014 - 09:26 AM

Fascinating.  Are the various Hadith, schools of jurisprudence, roughly speaking, then, the equivalent to the Jewish talmudic tradition? 

 

Are you saying that the legalism of the Hadith is the groudwork for the Sharia, which in turn is a possible corruption of the original Muhammadan concept or "revelation" of Islam?

 

Yes. I bellieve Shariah law existed before the hadith literature. Hadith came to give it islamic legitimacy. Its very likely that this concept was taken by the Arab dynasties from Judaic infkuence. They saw in oral traditions a way to change Islamic interpretations.

 

Jospeh Schacht summarization by Herbert berg PhD

 

Schacht asserts that hadiths, particularly from Muhammad, did not form, together with the Qur’an, the original bases of Islamic law and jurisprudence as is traditionally assumed. Rather, hadiths were an innovation begun after some of the legal foundation had already been built.

 

“The ancient schools of law shared the old concept of sunna or ‘living tradition’ as the ideal practice of the community, expressed in the accepted doctrine of the school.” And this ideal practice was embodied in various forms, but certainly not exclusively in the hadiths from the Prophet. Schacht argues that it was not until al-Shafi`i that ‘sunna’ was exclusively identified with the contents of hadiths from the Prophet to which he gave, not for the first time, but for the first time consistently, overriding authority. Al-Shafi`i argued that even a single, isolated hadith going back to Muhammad, assuming its isnad is not suspect, takes precedence over the opinions and arguments of any and all Companions, Successors, and later authorities. Schacht notes that:

 

Two generations before Shafi`i reference to traditions from Companions and Successors was the rule, to traditions from the Prophet himself the exception, and it was left to Shafi`i to make the exception the principle. We shall have to conclude that, generally and broadly speaking, traditions from Companions and Successors are earlier than those from the Prophet.

 

Based on these conclusions, Schacht offers the following schema of the growth of legal hadiths. The ancient schools of law had a ‘living tradition’ (sunna) which was largely based on individual reasoning (ra’y). Later this sunna came to be associated with and attributed to the earlier generations of the Successors and Companions. Later still, hadiths with isnads extending back to Muhammad came into circulation by traditionists towards the middle of the second century. Finally, the efforts of al-Shafi`i and other traditionists secured for these hadiths from the Prophet supreme authority."

 

Herbert Berg PhD on Jospeh Schacht

 

So Western Scholars generally saw Shariah law as a later invention with hadith created to give it an Islamic legitimacy. However after the 70s and 80s their influence in world affairs declined probably due to the rise of fundementalist Islam and the neoconservatives in America. Today very few legitimate Islamic scholars are sought and instead there are just critics like Ayaan Ali, Robert Spencer and Wafa Sultan.



#11 man

man

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 846 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 02 February 2014 - 04:16 PM

There was a spiritual religious sect located in Yemen, this sect, who called their worship God "Rahim" or "Rahman", was a peaceful group hating violence. Those who brought forth the Muslim religion's written text, took those peaceful verses from the writings of this sect group whose God was "Rahmen Rahim" they were verses dipping with sugar and honey, then they added to them other verses, verses of blood/killing, rape, plunder, torture and terror as we see today in Koran. Take note, in code language, Muslim writing puts the mountain where Noe's ark rested as being located in Yemen.

"Gerd R. Puin, a German authority on ancient Koranic manuscripts. Puin was the head of a restoration project commissioned by the Yemeni government to examine and catalogue a vast hoard of Koranic and non-Koranic fragments discovered in Sana’a in 1972. Amongst the material was a palimpsest which appears to contain the oldest Koranic texts in existence. Significantly, the older of the texts can be radio-carbon-dated to no later than 660 AD. ... it exhibits significant textual variations that suggest a process of formation of the Koran that differs markedly from the traditional account, and is especially challenging for Muslims who believe that the Koran is the eternal word of God and arrived in this world perfect and fully formed. Based on this and evidence derived from the other material, Puin and his associates concluded that the proto-Islamic religious movement must have been in constant flux in its early years and that the Koran is an amalgam of texts from various sources that were apparently not fully intellectually assimilated even at the time of Muhammad, and may date from at least a century before. In particular, Puin detected a Christian substrate in the material from which may be derived an entire 'anti-history' of the origins of Islam."

Then there is of course the influence of the Ebionite Jewish sect on formulation of Koran. In order to know about the Ebionite you have to google that word. They considered themselves "Christians orthodox-Jews" but did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, for them He was just a wise teacher man (as Islam does); moreover they insisted on keeping the laws of Moses, 613 of them (Islam is also based in doing work and keeping laws for attending salvation); those things Jesus did not teach according to the New Testament. Those Ebionites also considered St. Paul as being an apostate. No wonder they made enemies both of Jews because they believed in Jesus and of Christians because they did not confirm to the teachings of Jesus. As to their book, or their only gospel, it was "an incomplete, falsified, and truncated" copy of the gospel of Matthew. After 200 CE not much is heard of this sect because they went underground against strong opposition and apparently made their way into Arabia, and most likely even to Yemen.

'Koranic' member of this forum says: "As far as the Koran's divine origins or not, I think this is a question of faith", but faith based on falsehood is false faith. I am of the opinion that the Kurash tribe that governed Mecca then came up with a plan to have their own empire as the Persians and Byzantine did. When those two empires have exhausted themselves in wars against each other and were weakened consequently, the Arabs saw their chance and the path for an Arab empire was cleared. Those Arabs were clever, they decided to have their own religion, like "the people of the book" did. Arabs have a wide imagination as was shown later on in One-Thousand-and-One-Tales book, it was not hard for them, with the help of the Ebionites and others, to compose an oral tradition of a desert Arab prophet, a tale that was put later on in writing that came to be known as Koran. They apparently took and plagiarized scriptures fromYemen then added to it their own. Only one version of the text was canonized and declared to be true and antithetic, all other variations of those oral tales and written forms were made null and destroyed.

Now I like to direct the attention to an inflammatory research that an American man, Craig Winn, did on Islam, I do not agree with all of his work, in fact I did not read it in entirety because this guy has a grotesque style of writing and is not a scholar. So I would advise to keep away from his work if not able to take ugliness and unscrupulousness. His work is entitled--

Prophet of Doom: Islam's Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad's Own Words  – April 25, 2004
by Craig Winn (Author)
http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0971448124

This guy, Craig Winn, was not a scholar, nor he is of any spiritual caliber, but he was mad after 9/11 destructive terror at New York; so he asked himself why Muslims would do a thing like that? He went to the Middle East in search for answers --he would have saved himself the trip if he just studied the Armenian Genocide-- nevertheless he went, then afterward he did studies in Islamic books and came with his answers in the book that he wrote: Prophet of Doom. His book is not well-known in England (where I think you, koranic, is located) but it's popular in USA, I even saw it in public libraries of USA. The author has a webpage where he offers his work free to be read --both written and in audio versions:  http://prophetofdoom.net/

Craig Winn writes:
"There is but one Islam, a singular correct view of Muhammad, his religion, and his god. It is the one found in the Qur'an and Hadith. There is no independent record of Muhammad in history from which a variant view may be drawn. The Hadith and Qur'an are the sole repository of information on this man, his times, means, and mission. The Muhammad of Islam, the god of Islam, and the religion of Islam must be as these sources present them. Prophet of Doom is dedicated to exposing Islam's scriptures and what Muhammad had to say about himself, his ambition, religion, and god..."
Actually there is an independent record I think it was done by an Armenian Christian of Jerusalem in Armenian language in that city.

Amazon.com Review by Shawn Carkonen:

"Craig Winn's controversial and inflammatory work, Prophet of Doom, begins with this statement: "Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist." Needless to say, the book is certain to offend Muslims for it disparages nearly every aspect of Islam. Winn attempts to deflect such criticism upfront by claiming that he is merely quoting the Qur'an and other Islamic texts and is therefore "just the messenger." Further, he claims that he is unconcerned about being offensive because his goal is to educate people about the root causes of terrorism and the inherent dangers of Islam in the same way that early translators of Mein Kampf tried to warn an unsuspecting world of Hitler's intentions. "If we don’t shed our ignorance of Islam, many more will perish," he writes.

"Admittedly, prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, Winn knew little about Islam. According to the author, the tragic events of that day led him to investigate why Muslims were so intent on killing Infidels, Americans in particular. He also claims to have interviewed members of al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, and Hamas, and studied Islamic texts, referring to five different translations in the process. Blending these translations in order to express the nuances of the writing to further his premise, Winn selectively quotes from the Qur'an, various Islamic texts, and the biography of Muhammad, to make his case that that Islam is the "world's largest and most violent organization" and "rotten to the core." Rather than educate readers about the Islamic faith, the book's sole purpose seems to be to shock and inflame readers---and in that regard it succeeds. --Shawn Carkonen"

Since 9/11 so much books have been written about Islam and terror that a person, if spend his whole life reading them, will not be able to finish all.



#12 Koranist

Koranist

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 08:47 PM

There was a spiritual religious sect located in Yemen, this sect, who called their worship God "Rahim" or "Rahman", was a peaceful group hating violence. Those who brought forth the Muslim religion's written text, took those peaceful verses from the writings of this sect group whose God was "Rahmen Rahim" they were verses dipping with sugar and honey, then they added to them other verses, verses of blood/killing, rape, plunder, torture and terror as we see today in Koran. Take note, in code language, Muslim writing puts the mountain where Noe's ark rested as being located in Yemen.

"Gerd R. Puin, a German authority on ancient Koranic manuscripts. Puin was the head of a restoration project commissioned by the Yemeni government to examine and catalogue a vast hoard of Koranic and non-Koranic fragments discovered in Sana’a in 1972. Amongst the material was a palimpsest which appears to contain the oldest Koranic texts in existence. Significantly, the older of the texts can be radio-carbon-dated to no later than 660 AD. ... it exhibits significant textual variations that suggest a process of formation of the Koran that differs markedly from the traditional account, and is especially challenging for Muslims who believe that the Koran is the eternal word of God and arrived in this world perfect and fully formed. Based on this and evidence derived from the other material, Puin and his associates concluded that the proto-Islamic religious movement must have been in constant flux in its early years and that the Koran is an amalgam of texts from various sources that were apparently not fully intellectually assimilated even at the time of Muhammad, and may date from at least a century before. In particular, Puin detected a Christian substrate in the material from which may be derived an entire 'anti-history' of the origins of Islam."

Then there is of course the influence of the Ebionite Jewish sect on formulation of Koran. In order to know about the Ebionite you have to google that word. They considered themselves "Christians orthodox-Jews" but did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, for them He was just a wise teacher man (as Islam does); moreover they insisted on keeping the laws of Moses, 613 of them (Islam is also based in doing work and keeping laws for attending salvation); those things Jesus did not teach according to the New Testament. Those Ebionites also considered St. Paul as being an apostate. No wonder they made enemies both of Jews because they believed in Jesus and of Christians because they did not confirm to the teachings of Jesus. As to their book, or their only gospel, it was "an incomplete, falsified, and truncated" copy of the gospel of Matthew. After 200 CE not much is heard of this sect because they went underground against strong opposition and apparently made their way into Arabia, and most likely even to Yemen.

'Koranic' member of this forum says: "As far as the Koran's divine origins or not, I think this is a question of faith", but faith based on falsehood is false faith. I am of the opinion that the Kurash tribe that governed Mecca then came up with a plan to have their own empire as the Persians and Byzantine did. When those two empires have exhausted themselves in wars against each other and were weakened consequently, the Arabs saw their chance and the path for an Arab empire was cleared. Those Arabs were clever, they decided to have their own religion, like "the people of the book" did. Arabs have a wide imagination as was shown later on in One-Thousand-and-One-Tales book, it was not hard for them, with the help of the Ebionites and others, to compose an oral tradition of a desert Arab prophet, a tale that was put later on in writing that came to be known as Koran. They apparently took and plagiarized scriptures fromYemen then added to it their own. Only one version of the text was canonized and declared to be true and antithetic, all other variations of those oral tales and written forms were made null and destroyed.

Now I like to direct the attention to an inflammatory research that an American man, Craig Winn, did on Islam, I do not agree with all of his work, in fact I did not read it in entirety because this guy has a grotesque style of writing and is not a scholar. So I would advise to keep away from his work if not able to take ugliness and unscrupulousness. His work is entitled--

Prophet of Doom: Islam's Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad's Own Words  – April 25, 2004
by Craig Winn (Author)
http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0971448124

This guy, Craig Winn, was not a scholar, nor he is of any spiritual caliber, but he was mad after 9/11 destructive terror at New York; so he asked himself why Muslims would do a thing like that? He went to the Middle East in search for answers --he would have saved himself the trip if he just studied the Armenian Genocide-- nevertheless he went, then afterward he did studies in Islamic books and came with his answers in the book that he wrote: Prophet of Doom. His book is not well-known in England (where I think you, koranic, is located) but it's popular in USA, I even saw it in public libraries of USA. The author has a webpage where he offers his work free to be read --both written and in audio versions:  http://prophetofdoom.net/

Craig Winn writes:
"There is but one Islam, a singular correct view of Muhammad, his religion, and his god. It is the one found in the Qur'an and Hadith. There is no independent record of Muhammad in history from which a variant view may be drawn. The Hadith and Qur'an are the sole repository of information on this man, his times, means, and mission. The Muhammad of Islam, the god of Islam, and the religion of Islam must be as these sources present them. Prophet of Doom is dedicated to exposing Islam's scriptures and what Muhammad had to say about himself, his ambition, religion, and god..."
Actually there is an independent record I think it was done by an Armenian Christian of Jerusalem in Armenian language in that city.

Amazon.com Review by Shawn Carkonen:

"Craig Winn's controversial and inflammatory work, Prophet of Doom, begins with this statement: "Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist." Needless to say, the book is certain to offend Muslims for it disparages nearly every aspect of Islam. Winn attempts to deflect such criticism upfront by claiming that he is merely quoting the Qur'an and other Islamic texts and is therefore "just the messenger." Further, he claims that he is unconcerned about being offensive because his goal is to educate people about the root causes of terrorism and the inherent dangers of Islam in the same way that early translators of Mein Kampf tried to warn an unsuspecting world of Hitler's intentions. "If we don’t shed our ignorance of Islam, many more will perish," he writes.

"Admittedly, prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, Winn knew little about Islam. According to the author, the tragic events of that day led him to investigate why Muslims were so intent on killing Infidels, Americans in particular. He also claims to have interviewed members of al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, and Hamas, and studied Islamic texts, referring to five different translations in the process. Blending these translations in order to express the nuances of the writing to further his premise, Winn selectively quotes from the Qur'an, various Islamic texts, and the biography of Muhammad, to make his case that that Islam is the "world's largest and most violent organization" and "rotten to the core." Rather than educate readers about the Islamic faith, the book's sole purpose seems to be to shock and inflame readers---and in that regard it succeeds. --Shawn Carkonen"

Since 9/11 so much books have been written about Islam and terror that a person, if spend his whole life reading them, will not be able to finish all.

 

The problem is the sources you rely on are Neocon sources. Hadith is important to them since it is hadiths that makes Islam easy to criticize.

 

You did point out Puin who is a legitimate Islamic scholar. The variants he talks about are spelling variants and not text. Arabic has no vowels like English so there can be difference in how words are pronounced and therefore spelled. It can change meaning in some cases.

 

So a term like "Muhammad" in Arabic is written MHMD. It can be pronounced Muhammad, it can be Mihammid, it can be Mahummad, it can Mohommid depending on how the vowels are supposed to be. In some cases the meaning can change due to different words being singular. Vowels like a, e, i, o, u etc have letter representation in Arabic.



#13 man

man

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 846 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 04 February 2014 - 11:12 PM

 

Puin and his associates concluded that the proto-Islamic religious movement must have been in constant flux in its early years and that the Koran is an amalgam of texts from various sources that were apparently not fully intellectually assimilated even at the time of Muhammad,

No Koranic, I disagree. It says "texts" and not phrases or words or letters with vowels or without. Text is text, which certainly refers to entire paragraphs if not chapters. Why they did not let those Yemani versions of Koran be published?

 

As to Neocons, it looks to you any Zionist or Zionist sympathizer is a neocon, you can not generalize like that. Just because someone is pro modern state of Israel does not mean that someone is wrong, not reliable upon, and because of his motivation his conclusions are wrong. Not all Zionists are biased and in general Jews have the freedom of self-criticism.

 

Most Armenians do not like Zionists, and Zionists hate us and they call us names. In this forum we stay away from conspiracy things and we shun the conspiracy realm, so do not get into that.

 

I hope the Ebionite sect have caught your attention. They were not alone, there were the Nestorians near Arabia in Iraq, and the Arianism sect; all of which did not believe in divinity of Jesus, nor of His being the Son of God, they believed that the New Testament scriptures have been corrupted and changed from the original; and of course they were of one mind that God is one --exactly what the Muslims believe and what is tought in Islam, so those things were not Islamic revelations but mere repetition of what those three Christian-Jewish sects preached.

 

It is sad that real Christians did not go to Arabia to preach but only members of those three sects mentioned went and gave the false image of Christianity to the Arabs who later composed their own book of religion (first orally then in written form), and after that they united the tribes and went for conquest and building an empire. The mongol Ghengis Khan also after uniting the tribes of Mongolia went conquering the world by his army; also the pagan Armenian king Tikgan the Great united the kingdoms of Armenia then build an empire. Same for the Romans who after uniting the tribes in Italy went building an empire. So the secret is not the religion but the force that comes from unity.

 

 


Edited by man, 04 February 2014 - 11:17 PM.


#14 hagopn

hagopn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 05 February 2014 - 02:01 AM

Most Armenians do not like Zionists, and Zionists hate us and they call us names. In this forum we stay away from conspiracy things and we shun the conspiracy realm, so do not get into that.

 

 

Correction.  Most Zionist organizations or affiliates work for, or at least favor, Turkey's and Azerbaijan's interests, and therefore Armenians react.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.


Edited by hagopn, 05 February 2014 - 02:01 AM.


#15 Koranist

Koranist

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 06:40 PM



No Koranic, I disagree. It says "texts" and not phrases or words or letters with vowels or without. Text is text, which certainly refers to entire paragraphs if not chapters. Why they did not let those Yemani versions of Koran be published?

 

As to Neocons, it looks to you any Zionist or Zionist sympathizer is a neocon, you can not generalize like that. Just because someone is pro modern state of Israel does not mean that someone is wrong, not reliable upon, and because of his motivation his conclusions are wrong. Not all Zionists are biased and in general Jews have the freedom of self-criticism.

 

Most Armenians do not like Zionists, and Zionists hate us and they call us names. In this forum we stay away from conspiracy things and we shun the conspiracy realm, so do not get into that.

 

I hope the Ebionite sect have caught your attention. They were not alone, there were the Nestorians near Arabia in Iraq, and the Arianism sect; all of which did not believe in divinity of Jesus, nor of His being the Son of God, they believed that the New Testament scriptures have been corrupted and changed from the original; and of course they were of one mind that God is one --exactly what the Muslims believe and what is tought in Islam, so those things were not Islamic revelations but mere repetition of what those three Christian-Jewish sects preached.

 

It is sad that real Christians did not go to Arabia to preach but only members of those three sects mentioned went and gave the false image of Christianity to the Arabs who later composed their own book of religion (first orally then in written form), and after that they united the tribes and went for conquest and building an empire. The mongol Ghengis Khan also after uniting the tribes of Mongolia went conquering the world by his army; also the pagan Armenian king Tikgan the Great united the kingdoms of Armenia then build an empire. Same for the Romans who after uniting the tribes in Italy went building an empire. So the secret is not the religion but the force that comes from unity.

 

 

 

Puin, and his colleague Graf von Bothmer, have published only short essays on the Ṣana'a find. In a 1999 interview with Toby Lester, the executive editor of The Atlantic Monthly website, Puin described the preserved fragments by the following:


"Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam's first two centuries—they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What's more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God."

[citation needed]

The mathematician Jeffrey Lang wrote a letter to the editor of The Atlantic Monthly about the interview:


[I]t should be mentioned that the article's alarmist tone concerning the discovery of the Yemeni manuscripts seems totally uncalled for. Lester admits that so far the manuscripts show some unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment. However, the past existence of such manuscripts is well known to Muslims and those that did not completely agree with the Uthmanic text were eliminated in various ways. The recovery of an ancient manuscript dating back to the earliest history of Islam that differs in minor ways from the Uthmanic text and that was eliminated from circulation will hardly cause Muslims to feel the need to rewrite their history; if anything, it will only confirm it for them."[11]

In another interview, Puin said:


"So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Qur'an is Allah's unaltered word. They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Qur'an has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Qur'an has a history too. The Sana'a fragments will help us accomplish this."[3][12]

Puin claimed that the Yemeni authorities want to keep work on the Ṣana'a manuscripts "low-profile"."[3]

In 2000, The Guardian interviewed a number of academics for their responses to Puin's remarks, including Dr Tarif Khalidi, and Professor Allen Jones, a lecturer in Koranic Studies at Oxford University. In regard to Puin's claim that certain words and pronunciations in the Koran were not standardized until the ninth century, The Guardian reported:


Jones admits there have been 'trifling' changes made to the Uthmanic recension. Khalidi says the traditional Muslim account of the Koran's development is still more or less true. 'I haven't yet seen anything to radically alter my view,' he says. [Jones] believes that the San'a Koran could just be a bad copy that was being used by people to whom the Uthmanic text had not reached yet. 'It's not inconceivable that after the promulgation of the Uthmanic text, it took a long time to filter down.'

http://en.wikipedia...._the_manuscript

 

 

 

Of course Muslim authorities will claim that these copies found were the reason Utham (the Caliph) ordered a making of an "official" copy and all other copies to be destroyed since some Quranic scriptures were private copies of people who wrote down how they memorized it and some may have made mistakes. Mslim authorities will use these accounts to prove their point. Muslims claim that during Uthman's era variants were found even more than what Puin is talking about and that is the reason Uthman ordered an official copy to be made.

 

As a Koranist there are some problems with these type of discussions.

 

First: When I say faith, what i mean is that many of Muhammad's early followers in Mecca followed him even when most of the Quran was not revaled. Jesus' followers believed in him without divine scriptures and Jesus used healing and raising the dead as signs. Moses was sent to Pharoah with two signs, the hand and the rod turning to snake. A person of faith will see it as God's signs, other will see magic and sorcery and in Muhammad's case, a brilliant poet. So it boild down to faith.

 

Scriptures are one of God's many signs. Solomon had command of the jinns. David had command of the wind. Noah had the flood and Abraham had his own signs.

 

Finally God only judges a person by what he has possesion of. Not what he is supposed to have. So from a Koranic point of view, this debate is between Sunni Islam and orientalist. Once again Sunni Islam won since it proved their point that their historic accounts are reliable. Whats important is what the Koran has to say. This part is completely missing in such debates.



#16 man

man

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 846 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 06 February 2014 - 11:03 AM

 

1-the Yemeni hoard. 2-Puin claimed that the Yemeni authorities want to keep work on the Ṣana'a manuscripts "low-profile" 3-Finally God only judges a person by what he has possession of. Not what he is supposed to have.

in reply to 1 & 2:

Puin did not examine and document ALL the Yemani HOARD. Only some. And why? 2- because the Yemeni authorities did not let him do further study on them, they told him to pack his things and leave, which Puin did, leaving his work unfinished there.

 

As to 3: God gets angry when His Words are twisted and made to meant opposite of what He indents. If someone is a blind follower of what has on hand and clueless that is not for me to say what God will do with him. God was angry on ancient Israelite because they asked God's representative  "What are You doing?" [Ezekiel 12:9]. So I will neither ask God or His true rep.: what are you doing? The reality was twisted in Arabia by some Christian sects and Jesus Christ was stripped of His divinity and of His Sonship, that is a sure thing and was very wrong, period.

 

It's said that  a relative of his first wife was a Christian or was familiar about the Christian religion and indicated what angel visited the Muslim prophet at the cave. Also that the first wife was a Christian and not a pagan when she married the Muslim prophet. Now we may ask what kind of Christians were they? Those Arabs learned from those Christian sects i mentioned (like Ebionotes, Nestorians, and Arians) and not much were converted because truth was not by those sects and the Arabs did not have the revelations from the Holy Spirit who Jesus talked about. So until now, Muslims are not able to distinguish between the truth and the false, the wrong from the right.

http://midnightwatch...il-and-demonic/
http://midnightwatch...-way-of-sharia/
http://www.wnd.com/2...-face-of-earth/

 

So the Arabs for political reasons decided to have their own monotheist god since monotheism was the fashion then or they thought monotheism has more future than the worship of myriad idol gods. This thing in Arabia was prophesied in the Old Testament, though there is no mention of a person like Mohamed coming. In Isaiah 21:9 "..fallen, fallen is Babylon; and all the images (idols) of her gods are shattered on the ground". Babylon in Bible refers to false pagan religion, and Mecca took many of its idols from Babylon, from the areas of ancient Iraq. 

Regardless what Puin writes, the oral religious book of Islam, or the revelations since the word "book" was not mentioned early on, those revelations were most-likely fabrications, made (or adopted) by certain Arabs with (or under) the influence of those sectist Christian teachings. In north Africa for example, the Catholic teaching was preached only (except in Egypt) and it was so until Arab wild hoards overrun north Africa. While the real disciples of Jesus went to Syria, Greek, Macedonia, Asia Minor (including Armenia) and of course Rome. Some stayed in Palestine of course.



#17 man

man

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 846 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 06 February 2014 - 11:51 AM

 

So until now, Muslims are not able to distinguish between the truth and the false, the wrong from the right

‘Christianity should be destroyed and wiped from the face of the earth,’ al-Mohammedi said. ‘It is an evil demonic and Anti-Christ system, all Christians are in complete Ignorance.’
http://midnightwatch...il-and-demonic/

 

While in this link they consider Islam being the Anti-Christ system and the muslims being the ones in complete ignorance:
http://shoebat.com/
http://tedshoebat.com/

Anyone with eyes and heart, clearly can see Islam had much more bloodshed in hands than Christianity (do not even try to tell an Armenian on the contrary..this is not in reference to the Genocide by the Turks only but even before that when the Arabs conquered Armenia) ...presently there are examples in hand what the Christians are going through in the Middle East, specially in Syria, after the Arab Spring.

 

But you can read about those bloodshed history from India to Spain shed by Islam when the neocons of America did not exist then. If someone living in the middle east or any muslim country or sympathetic to muslims that someone can not be informed about those blood shed or his own blood will be shed. In America, specially after 9/11, many serious research have been done openly and books have being written in the hundreds on the subject of Islam and Islam's bloodshed with no repercussions because of the free-speech in America.
 


Edited by man, 06 February 2014 - 11:53 AM.


#18 man

man

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 846 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 06 February 2014 - 01:40 PM

 

when the Arabs conquered Armenia

Armenian in the Middle East living in Arab countries never are told their true history under the Arabs. That part is banned to them and censored so that it makes Arabs to them looking like angels doing much good to them and not any harm when they overrun Armenia. Not so in the Republic of Armenia where the real history with records are kept and they are free to study, research and write; something forbidden to Armenians in Arab countries.

 

As a correction, only one real apostle/disciple of Jesus Christ went to India, Thomas and his legacy is still alive there. He never harmed or killed anyone but by the power of the Holy Spirit was able, in the part he went to, to make them Christians who still are Christians and worship there in churches. Contrary to Arab wild hoards who when they came to India slaughtered and massacred millions of Hindu (this also is not told in Arab countries) who refused to convert to Islam. The Hindu that converted to Islam, later on the British separated them to western part of India in modern Pakistan. 

 

If we look from the prism of Islam of what happened to the Soviet Union when Russians from Moscow dissolved it peacefully without bloodshed (except what happened in Armenian Karabagh with Muslim Azeris), then the Russians according to the Muslim rules or religion --should have massacred and slaughtered all the people living in different Soviet countries in Asia, in Caucasus, and in eastern Europe, and then called their countries Russian land and property after most of their inhabitant have been killed. But luckily the Russians were Christians at heart even though they were under Communist system physically.

 

In Islam they teach that if they conquer a country that country from then forward is Islamic and the lands belongs to them, given to them by their god, and if the population is not Christian or Jewish then they have to accept Islam or all are killed by Muslims. If people are Christians or Jewish then they should be subjugated, humiliated  and made to pay special taxes in order for Muslims to allow them to live. However this agreement between them is not for forever and Muslim feels they are entitled to kill the non-Muslims any time they like provided a Muslim religious imam or the Caliphate himself orders it. But in Syria we see the killing of Christians is going on even without an order from imam or mufi as they believe killing Christians and Jews will open the paradise to them.



#19 Koranist

Koranist

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 13 February 2014 - 06:14 AM

No Koranic, I disagree. It says "texts" and not phrases or words or letters with vowels or without. Text is text, which certainly refers to entire paragraphs if not chapters. Why they did not let those Yemani versions of Koran be published?

 

As to Neocons, it looks to you any Zionist or Zionist sympathizer is a neocon, you can not generalize like that. Just because someone is pro modern state of Israel does not mean that someone is wrong, not reliable upon, and because of his motivation his conclusions are wrong. Not all Zionists are biased and in general Jews have the freedom of self-criticism.

 

Most Armenians do not like Zionists, and Zionists hate us and they call us names. In this forum we stay away from conspiracy things and we shun the conspiracy realm, so do not get into that.

 

I hope the Ebionite sect have caught your attention. They were not alone, there were the Nestorians near Arabia in Iraq, and the Arianism sect; all of which did not believe in divinity of Jesus, nor of His being the Son of God, they believed that the New Testament scriptures have been corrupted and changed from the original; and of course they were of one mind that God is one --exactly what the Muslims believe and what is tought in Islam, so those things were not Islamic revelations but mere repetition of what those three Christian-Jewish sects preached.

 

It is sad that real Christians did not go to Arabia to preach but only members of those three sects mentioned went and gave the false image of Christianity to the Arabs who later composed their own book of religion (first orally then in written form), and after that they united the tribes and went for conquest and building an empire. The mongol Ghengis Khan also after uniting the tribes of Mongolia went conquering the world by his army; also the pagan Armenian king Tikgan the Great united the kingdoms of Armenia then build an empire. Same for the Romans who after uniting the tribes in Italy went building an empire. So the secret is not the religion but the force that comes from unity.

 

 

 

My experience with the Jewish community is similar to the Muslim community in the sense they do not welcome self criticism. Jews may not mind criticism of Judaism since many may not have faith, but issues regarding Jewish ethnicity and interest they generally do not welcome self criticism.

 

I do not have a problem with zionism. My problem is Judaism. And in many way Sunni and Shia Islam are very similar to Judaism.

 

The problem I have with zionist in America is how they like to sell the case for Israel. I have found many of them who are active in media for example as not honest about whats realy happening in the ground in Israel and Palestine. They sell Israel as "the only true democracy" in the Middle East. But I know Judaism is deeply ethnocentric and Israel is more an ethnocracy than a democracy. It does not treat its citizens equally. The settlements they are building for example is only for the Jewish subjects of the state. I am talking about groups like the ADL, American Jewish Committee and AIPAC and so forth who many times conceal to Americans what is going on there.

 

As far as the Turks, they have a problematic history but i generally focus on religion and the Sunni orthodoxy. Because not everything the Islamic rulers do is motivated by religion. I can see you have a grudge against Islam because of what you believed the Turks did to Armenians. The problem is Muslims can counter about the French and British and what they did to some Muslim nations and so on. This kind of debates go in circles. That is why I avoid such debates.

 

Finally there is nothing called a conspiracy. They are activist and groups who promote certain agendas. Just like you have Islamist who try to promote Shariah and are involved in politics, there are Jewish actvist who try to sell the case for Israel. What makes the Jewish actvists in America unique is the almost unlimited access they have with mainstream media and politicians. A remarkable achievement for a community that is barely 3% of the US population.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users