Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Converting to Islam or other religions
- Thread starter Classik
- Start date
A
Aardverk
Guest
He has inserted, "I've given my response but I'll find out" as if I wrote that. Take a look at my post; I made it crystal clear that my interpretation was mine alone but this makes it look as if I am backing down.
We could assume that it was just his innocent typing error but, as it changes my meaning, it needs to be removed.
I see it now. It has been removed.
wayseer
Member
Yes ... and ... ?
How do I pervert the doctrine of Christ? God did not write the Quaran. The whole Islamic religion was founded on hatred towards Jews and Christians as Arab countries from the time of Ishmael on up the lineage to Mohammed have always tried to destroy Israel. If you think a religion that believes and carries out it's Sharia Law and has a self proclaimed prophet named Mohammed who was a thief, rapist and murderer, but hid it under the name of religion, and only thinks Christ was nothing more than a prophet of God but is dead and in his grave then you go right ahead and defend their religion. I can't think of any other religion that would actually kill those followers who left in order to come to Gods grace by that of receiving Christ as their Lord and Savior.
wayseer
Member
Going back to post #34 - my response to you is outside your quote block clearly indicating that it is my words and not your words - well it is on my browser window.
wayseer
Member
You take a text or two out of context, add something of your own and then highlight something that has no real basis. If you want any examples go to and of the numerous Christian hate Islam sites and see it gets used.
Nor the biblical texts.
Quite the opposite. The animosity that developed later involved Jew, Christians and pagan Arabs which have historical and tribal/clan roots.
Hang about. Was it not Joshua who moved his army across the Jordan and invade an otherwise peacefully Palestine (Canaan)? You have a slippery grip on history.
Again you seem to forget history somewhat conveniently. Have you read what the so-called Crusaders did to Jews, women and children? And that was before they even got to Jerusalem. The Spanish Inquisition, which had the task of dispossessing Jews and Muslims, along with their sympathisers, of their property and wealth all in the name of God, was no finally stopped until the mid 19 century.
Don't wave your hate banner in front of me.
I can give you many texts out of the Quaran that comes against God, but you would only say I was taking it out of context so I will not waste my time posting them. And no, it's not a cop out as it would only be me banging my head against the wall debating you on this.
I think you need to read Joshua as you will see that God instructed him and his army to take back the promised land of Canaan that was taken over by Gods enemies.
Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girga++++es, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.
We are not talking about the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition or even what the Holocaust did to the Jews as within all of these things even exist that of the same thing Jihad Muslims are doing towards Jews and Christians today as their hatred is fuel by them and has always been since Ishmael who lost his birthright.
Never said I hated Muslims just as God does not hate the sinner, but hates the actions of their sin as we are to pray for our enemies. Maybe you need to do a search on Mohammed just to see who he was even before and after he started his religion. At least when God sent his armies out to defeat the enemy it was for the purpose of keeping His covenant promise to Abraham, but with Mohammed it was for greed an lustful desires of his heart, and I do not only mean lust of women, but lust of anyone's possessions that would make him a wealthy man.
wayseer
Member
Ok - I said I would get back to address the matters raised by Aardverk.
First, I acknowledge Aardverk's gracious apology. I am heartened by his ready acceptance of responsibility which augers well for the future. Thank you.
Second, I have been on a bit of an adventure tracking down the background to the matters raised. On one hand I was a 'suspect' with respect to Islamic sites and treated with distain while others proved helpful. I did fall into the cesspit of any number of Christian anti-Islam sites which left me feeling in need of a bath. There are horrendous swamps of rotting waste. I am appalled at their venom and hatred.
But, now all cleaned up, I offer something of what I have found.
The thing here is that we all too often fall into the trap of imposing 21st century Western values on events happen 1500 odd years ago. We inevitably judge by our standards and not those who subject of the texts involved.
We are now faced with the image of 'total' war. It appears nighty on the TV with some politician explaining about 'collateral damage' - an euphemism for the killing of women and children. But among what was an essentially clan based society there never was total warfare - there were limits. The mention of 40 000 dying on one day in a battle in the OT is highly exaggerated - no community back then could sustain such casualties and no army could be mustered to achieve such numbers. Similarly with the 'battles' engaged in by Muhammad - the numbers were small and probably amounted to no more than a couple of hundred in total.
Further, these battles were not about some dark ideological goal - they were about resources, or access to resources. People were more held for ransom more than for anything else (I'm paraphrasing Karen Armstrong here). Traditional women were part of a man's estate and women captured in battle were property of the victors. Paternity was therefore more often an unknown quantity as men did little towards any responsibility for rearing children.
This all changed under Muhammad. The social revolution instigated by the Qur'anic recitations moved society towards acceptance of legal responsibility - something entirely new. While these laws now seem not only outdated but in some cases bizarre, their instigation was for the benefit of the whole community. If men were killed in battle, or lost at sea, any number of women could be widowed at any one time. Without any means of social welfare the fact that a man could marry up to four women was in fact, a 'new social' welfare package that meant women and families were no longer destitute.
There are similar stipulations laid out in Deuteronomy 21: 10-14 with respect to women taken as slaves - and women take as part of the spoils of war were slaves. In fact, the men were followed into battle by the women who cleaned and mended their clothes and set up camp and cooked and ...
With respect to Qur'an 4:24 and the hadith, Dawud 2150, we see instances of social reform. In both cases, these texts demonstrate the change in social relations as instigated by Muhammad. In other words, these texts cannot be read as a license to rape or denigrate women. While they might appear abhorrent to our 21st century sensibilities, these rules, which became part of the Sharia, were, given the times, a great step forward. Muhammad did meet stiff opposition and much of that opposition had little to do with religious practices, after all, who really cares if you are not religious, but more to do with changing social arrangements and on that score he was bitterly opposed at times for changing social norms and rules.
First, I acknowledge Aardverk's gracious apology. I am heartened by his ready acceptance of responsibility which augers well for the future. Thank you.
Second, I have been on a bit of an adventure tracking down the background to the matters raised. On one hand I was a 'suspect' with respect to Islamic sites and treated with distain while others proved helpful. I did fall into the cesspit of any number of Christian anti-Islam sites which left me feeling in need of a bath. There are horrendous swamps of rotting waste. I am appalled at their venom and hatred.
But, now all cleaned up, I offer something of what I have found.
The thing here is that we all too often fall into the trap of imposing 21st century Western values on events happen 1500 odd years ago. We inevitably judge by our standards and not those who subject of the texts involved.
We are now faced with the image of 'total' war. It appears nighty on the TV with some politician explaining about 'collateral damage' - an euphemism for the killing of women and children. But among what was an essentially clan based society there never was total warfare - there were limits. The mention of 40 000 dying on one day in a battle in the OT is highly exaggerated - no community back then could sustain such casualties and no army could be mustered to achieve such numbers. Similarly with the 'battles' engaged in by Muhammad - the numbers were small and probably amounted to no more than a couple of hundred in total.
Further, these battles were not about some dark ideological goal - they were about resources, or access to resources. People were more held for ransom more than for anything else (I'm paraphrasing Karen Armstrong here). Traditional women were part of a man's estate and women captured in battle were property of the victors. Paternity was therefore more often an unknown quantity as men did little towards any responsibility for rearing children.
This all changed under Muhammad. The social revolution instigated by the Qur'anic recitations moved society towards acceptance of legal responsibility - something entirely new. While these laws now seem not only outdated but in some cases bizarre, their instigation was for the benefit of the whole community. If men were killed in battle, or lost at sea, any number of women could be widowed at any one time. Without any means of social welfare the fact that a man could marry up to four women was in fact, a 'new social' welfare package that meant women and families were no longer destitute.
There are similar stipulations laid out in Deuteronomy 21: 10-14 with respect to women taken as slaves - and women take as part of the spoils of war were slaves. In fact, the men were followed into battle by the women who cleaned and mended their clothes and set up camp and cooked and ...
With respect to Qur'an 4:24 and the hadith, Dawud 2150, we see instances of social reform. In both cases, these texts demonstrate the change in social relations as instigated by Muhammad. In other words, these texts cannot be read as a license to rape or denigrate women. While they might appear abhorrent to our 21st century sensibilities, these rules, which became part of the Sharia, were, given the times, a great step forward. Muhammad did meet stiff opposition and much of that opposition had little to do with religious practices, after all, who really cares if you are not religious, but more to do with changing social arrangements and on that score he was bitterly opposed at times for changing social norms and rules.
wayseer
Member
Please stop your ravings and read more than hate mail coming out of anti-Islamis sites.
A
Aardverk
Guest
If aimed at me, this is quite amusing. I have had posts removed in the past on the pretext that I was promoting Islam! I have insultingly been called a 'Muslim', an 'Atheist', a 'Communist', a 'Nazi', a 'Liberal', a 'Sinner', 'Wicked', 'Evil', etc by a few fools on this forum, and elsewhere, because I tend to challenge people who spout propaganda and misleading half-truths. That is why I deliberately emphasized that it was my interpretation. I take full responsibility for my errors if and when they are pointed out. If aimed at me, you are thoroughly out of order.
In this instance all we seem to have from you is....
This is not an alternative interpretation, it is simply a misleading claim that their standards were different from current standards. Just to emphasize how prevalent rape by soldiers was, and probably still is, here is a line from the 'British Army Officers Manual' at the height of the British Empire.
"If the enemy will not come out to fight, burn a few villages and rape their women."
Rape is still used by soldiers. In places where women are treated as possessions, it is so common that people barely even notice. A recent UN estimate said there were approximately 2.5 million young women being trafficked for the sex trade. So, no, our standards are not very different from the standards of the OT and of the Q'ran.
Returning to my interpretation of 'those words' in the Q'ran, I still can see no other way of interpreting them and you have still not offered any alternative interpretation for us to ponder. Perhaps your aim was just to issue insults.
Now I think it is time for you to offer your prompt and clear apology :halo or are we just to assume it was a case of Australian whine. ;)
Classik
Member
I'm just curious about this. You have insultingly been called all these - meaning that you are not any of those or don't like it. Good. Good!!! Apologies on their behalf. However, you are neither a Christian nor a muslim nor an atheist nor a this nor a that...What exactly are you and what exactly is your mission? And you said: you have been insulted elsewhere too. Why are you insulted everywhere and why should people do it for heavens sake
:dunno
A
Aardverk
Guest
I am not any of those. Some people issue insults in the mistaken belief that it helps them make their point. It doesn't, it just makes them look foolish, rather like people who swear rather than think of a more appropriate word.
I certainly don't feel a need to fit into any religious group, I have issues with all of them. I am not an atheist, so what does that leave me? You could call me a heretic if you like. Do remember that I have said many times in these fora that I know nothing.
I have no interest in Party Politics, which seem to me to be the opposite of democracy. I have voted for members of different parties, dependent upon how good I thought the candidates were. Call me a floating voter if you wish.
Please note that I didn't say 'everywhere', you did. I have discussed religions, primarily Christianity, with several people trying to convince me that they were right and I was wrong. It never ceases to amaze me how angry people become if you don't believe the same as they do. :gah As you no doubt know from these fora, I am not slow to challenge bigotry, misinformation and propaganda. If you do that, and I also do it in the real world, 'nice' people start issuing insults.And you said: you have been insulted elsewhere too. Why are you insulted everywhere and why should people do it for heavens sake
Give it a try, you might enjoy pulling the rug out from under some bully and you would undoubtedly be doing someone a favor. :yes I know you generally avoid controversy BUT if everyone does that the bullies and bigots take over.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemoellerbecause I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
Aardverk
Guest
Guy, you really made my day. This is the funniest stuff I have ever read in ages. You are indeed a Special One (not Mourinho). Wooooow. You are none of those. Then you are a god
This feels a bit out of character. Did your team lose or something?
Despite your flattery, clearly I am not a god, so I'll take that as sarcasm. As you have not accepted the true answer, what answer do you think I should have given? Or perhaps you don't really know me better than I do. :gah
Claudya
Member
wayseer
Member
It is aimed at those who are influenced by structure - in the case of this thread - on an ideology that I happen to label Islamophobia - a fear of Islam.
My challenge has been in response to one post, not yours, that claimed 4: 24 was the green light to go ahead and rape women.
You then followed up my objection with your support for the matter of rape as legally sanction and produced a hadith supposedly in support of that position.
I have challenged that position as well.
I have also suggested, and have since provided detail, that such 'interpretations' are unsustainable - yet you keep on banging away.
The point I am making is that it is all too easy to follow some particular thinking without having actually done the hard work and confirmed that is our thinking matches reality.
The philosophy of Christ set us free from dogmatics.
No one is denying rape happens - that is not the issue - try and stay on track. The issue is that there is a perception, fuelled by hatred, that the Qur'an legitimizes rape.
You are clutching at straws in an effort to legitimize your ideology.
Bye.