0

no muslim make any cartoons of jesus , but non-muslims make cartoons of our prophets , why there is no rules for them , why international media not taking any steps against them ,in israel if someone say , hitler is good man then there is death for him ,

You are perfectly welcome to do cartoons of jesus. Many atheists do just that, because it's fun to ridicule religious beliefs. The rule is the same for everyone and every subject, you are allowed to say whatever you want (as long as it is not a death-treat or a direct and explicit invitation to violent actions) in whatever form of media available to you (speech, drawing, editorials, blog posts, etc.). That's it. If people say things you disagree with, then you can express that disagreement with your own rights of free speech, or you can simply ignore them. There are no "illegal" subjects of discourse, you can speak about whatever you want and say whatever you want. Of course, there are "taboo" subjects, but these are not illegal, simply not discussed a lot because it is offending to many, but if they are spoken about, nobody gets arrested for it, let alone killed for it.

If, in Israel, someone says that Hilter was a good man, that person should suffer no legal consequences or any kind of physical harm as a consequence of that. He would not get murderered, and if he did get murdered by someone who was offended by his speech, then that murderer will be put in jail for a long time. Of course, a person making such a statement in Israel will probably have a very difficult time getting along with his neighbors, because he will have offended them all. Of course, here, I assume Israel functions as a western democracy with similar free-speech laws, which is not the case, but I don't know enough about israeli society to know for sure what would happen. At least, what I described is what should happen in a free society.

At my university, which has a fair amount of jewish people, there used to be a guy, an evangelical Christian, who used to stand at the entrance gates of the campus every tuesday and thursday for couple of hours around lunch-time. He stood there with large signs ("sandwich-man") with various hateful message directed at the Jews, more or less to the effect that they are demons, rotten, and basically the scum of the earth. During the four years of my undergraduate degree, I never saw him once getting any kind of physical or violent altercations. Nobody took him seriously, of course, and everybody who actually stopped to read the messages were offended by them, but no one would ever dare to challenge his right to express those views. That's what it means to live in a civilized society. When you know that your own freedoms are dependent on your willingness to accept what other people do with their freedoms, it all makes perfect sense.

but what if someone making fun of our prophet ?
what if someone want to burn our quran ?

Then ignore them and go on with your life. That's what Christians do when we ridicule their religion or religious figures. You have to accept that some people do things that you don't agree with, but that doesn't give you any rights to forbid them from doing it. And if you say that such actions are blasphemous, and that in your religious beliefs these are very bad things to do, well, that's your problem.

Remember, if, as a consequence of being offended by a cartoon or a burnt Qur'an, you issue death-treat or carry out any kind of violent actions against the author, then I (and hopefully most, at least, in the western world) would consider your actions to be criminal, and you ought to be arrested and convicted. There is no crime that can be justified as a retaliation against an exercise of free-speech. To me, those muslims who were issuing death-treats after the Danish cartoonists, Salman Rushdie, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, are criminals under the law. While, of course, cartoonists and authors are well within their rights to write or draw about whatever they want. If you don't like them, ignore them, boycott their books, or whatever else, within the bounds of the law (including anti-harrassement laws).

1

That's what Christians do when we ridicule their religion or religious figures

It's not my intention to ridicule anyone's religious beliefs, Christian, Muslim or otherwise (except perhaps for snake-tossers and creationists who believe dinosaurs and man coexisted). However, when blatantly false statements are made then I feel obliged to respond.

0

Ok, well, count that as a slip of the tongue, I meant "we" in an impersonal sense (one of the side-effects of being a native French speaker, where "we" and "one" are the same pronoun).

Ridiculing people's religious beliefs is not something I tend to do much either, I have other things to do or talk about. But I don't consider it off-limits though. For me, it's a matter of honesty, I find the belief that Elvis is still alive just a ridiculous as to believe a man can survive 3 days in the belly of a giant fish, ridiculing one while "respecting" the other just seems dishonest to me.

If someone comes up to you and says he worships Zeus and believes Hercules was His son, the one true savior of the world, you would probably have trouble containing your laughter. Why is it different when people say they worship Allah the one true god and believe that Mohammad is His prophet? The body of evidence is the same for both, only the number of people who believe it is different, which I don't care about.

Edited by mike_2000_17: edit

0

Ok, well, count that as a slip of the tongue,

I'm glad you got the chance to clarify that. I have trouble reconciling why someone can scoff at ancient peoples for being so gullible as to believe in Zeus, Mercury, Odin, etc., yet wonder in amazement at how you and I cannot accept God or Allah as the almighty.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

I can't help but notice that the OP, Hani1991, decided to leave rather than answer some tough, but simple questions. His response to posts that proved his original statements were false was to say

Sorry I can't get in touch with you any longer. I may stay absent for long time. I'm sorry this is because of some bad circumstances.

The bad circumstances, I suspect, were that he could not defend his statements and he chose to leave rather than continue along a line that might cause him to question his faith. I see also that waqasaslammmeo has not responded with answers to three simple questions that were put to him. I'll ask one more time to give him, or anyone else, a chance to reply.

Can you please give me a yes/no answer to the following questions.

  • Do you believe the Qur'an is the word of Allah as handed down to Mohammed?

  • Do you believe that the Qur'an is infallible?

  • Do you believe that Islam, as laid out in the Qur'an preaches a creed of non-violence?

I would not have started this thread, but I feel that in response to the claims made by the OP I have the right to ask these questions. If no one cares to reply then I suspect I have my answers and the thread will die out.

0

These are some pretty potent questions, however, I wouldn't expect a "good muslim" to answer anything but yes, yes, and yes (well, the last answer might not be "yes"). I would be more interested in the underlying assumptions and implications of the questions:

  • Do you believe the Qur'an is the word of Allah as handed down to Mohammed?

    • What are the characteristics of this being you call Allah? Omnipotent? Omniscient? Benevolent? Eternal? Time-less? In what realm does He reside? How does He interact with this world?
    • How did Allah communicate his words to Mohammed?
    • What are the reasons for excluding the possibility that Mohammed made up the "words of God"?
    • Who was Mohammed? What do the contemporary non-quranic records of his existence tell? If any exist.
  • Do you believe that the Qur'an is infallible?

    • Or is Allah infallible? Or both?
    • If passages of the Qur'an were found that contradict other passages of the Qur'an, how do you determine which is true? And how do you resolve the apparent non-infallibility?
    • If passages of the Qur'an were found that contradict well-established modern scientific facts or theories, which one will you believe?
  • Do you believe that Islam, as laid out in the Qur'an preaches a creed of non-violence?

    • If yes, how should the violence in the Qur'an be considered? As teaching lessons (about what not to do)? As justified under certain circumstances? Which circumstances?
    • If yes, is there any difference between the attitude to have visa-vi muslims, non-muslims and non-believers? If yes, what?
    • If no, then is Islam a religion of peace? If yes, how so? If no, then what differentiates Islam from a fanatical and totalitarian creed such as Nazism?
1

I am expecting either no response, or YES, YES and YES. If the latter then I want to stay focused on the justification and get responses to statements from the Qur'an that are either scientifically wrong, contradictory, or completely opposed to the statement.

It doesn't matter if the Qur'an contains accurate statements. If the Qur'an is supposed to be the infallible word of Allah then any blatantly false statement that proves it is fallible shoud settle that discussion. It won't, obviously. But in science (and logic) finding a single case that invalidates the hypothesis is sufficient and the OP wanted (based on the thread title) to argue logic.

I am tired of the faithful telling me that I am wrong for not believing. I am tired of people crying "media bias" for reporting the facts. I do not limit myself to the religious faithful. I also oppose blind faith in political or economic ideology as well as blind faith in junk science such as homeopathy. Basically any belief without thought.

Votes + Comments
Bang on!
0

You are assuming that all of us have the mental capacity of great thought processes. Just because you have a Ph.D. in Thought Processes doesn't mean everyone has that capacity. Most people are like sheep who blindly follow a leader.

Belief in a God is really a gamble, and we won't find out whether or not its true until we die. If there is no God and no afterlife, then no harm done. But ... the alternative is pretty awful for someone who believed there is no God. Its too bad we have to wait until we die to find out one way or the other. If no God, then no reason to have morality, and with no morality there would be chaos.

Edited by Ancient Dragon

0

I'm assuming that most people are capable of basic reasoning. I don't have a PhD in thought processes. What I do have is a lifetime (except perhaps for a few years during my teens) of exercising my brain. I don't expect it takes a genius to be presented with the following

  • Islam is a religion of peace

and

  • here are over 500 verses in the Qur'an that advocate violence

and come to the conclusion that the second statement (fact) contradicts the first statement (opinion). It also does not take uncommon reasoning skills to see that when facts contradict opinion then opinion must be wrong.

Belief in a God is really a gamble

We're back to Pascal's wager. If I choose to believe in God and he doesn't exist then I win either way. Belief doesn't work like that. Belief is not a choice. If I pretend to believe in God and he does exist then he'd know I was faking and send me to Hell anyway. Belief requires a basis. When extraordinary claims are made (there is an invisible man in the sky who can do anything) then a rational person should require extraordinary proof. If I made outrageous claims that were not of a religious nature then my sanity would likely come into question. Religion should not get a free pass.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

You are assuming that all of us have the mental capacity of great thought processes.

We are only assuming that when somebody claims knowledge of something, he is also willing and able to think / discuss that claim / subject. If you are not able or willing to reflect upon a subject, you should simply abstain, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it implies not taking any position with conviction. There are many things for which I hold no particular position or only weak inclinations towards one side, these are not subjects I discuss or think about, I leave those subjects to others. What you cannot do is hold a position with strong conviction without being able or willing to defend it, hopefully, with a candide and rational discussion.

Most people are like sheep who blindly follow a leader.

Then bring me the leader, I'll challenge him. But seriously, one of my main reasons for engaging in these types of discussions is to get people not to behave like "sheep". I just have higher hopes for humanity than this pathetic image of "the herd".

Belief in a God is really a gamble, and we won't find out whether or not its true until we die. If there is no God and no afterlife, then no harm done. But ... the alternative is pretty awful for someone who believed there is no God.

This is called Pascal's Wager. There are many problems with this. First, genuine belief is not a choice, and assuming God knows whether you believe for real or just posing, then making the choice of "belief" based on this gamble (belief -> (heaven or nothing), disbelief -> (hell or nothing)) won't be good enough to fool Him. Second, if you choose the wrong God (or wrong "word of God"), you're actually spending your whole life pissing off God. In some sense, the atheist (who "doesn't believe in God" by the way, which is different from "believes there is no God") actually could be taking the safer bet here. If God doesn't care if people worship him or not, or if He doesn't care if people believe in Him or not, but only cares if they lead good lives, then the atheist has a better chance of getting into heaven (if one exists), because he has less chance of doing something bad in the name of God. If God does care about people believing in Him and worshipping, and leading good lives, then the atheist has a chance to argue "I led a good life, and, at least, I didn't worship a false God", while religious folks only have to go by the small, remote chance that their God is actually the right one, and that they actually received, understood and followed His divine commands correctly. In this "wager", the odds are actually stacked against the believer.

Its too bad we have to wait until we die to find out one way or the other.

When your brain dies, everything about you, as an individual, is dead. When parts of the brain dies (e.g., accident), parts of your personality, knowledge and memories disappear completely. There has been a lot of study about this, it would be hard to refute. But, of course, there is always a possibility through some, yet, completely unknown mechanism.

If no God, then no reason to have morality, and with no morality there would be chaos.

With no God, there are lots of reasons for morality, like making our short and only life more pleasant for ourselves and those we love. Morality predates religion, that's a historical fact. There is a negative correlation between the level of disbelief and crime rates. In prison populations, atheists are vastly under-represented compared to society at large. Most laws and governments in developed countries are largely secular with no significant influence from "divine teachings". Most of the main human rights charters (or similar documents) that were drafted throughout history were draft in times of low religious influence, or against religious influence. And modern documents of law, rights and liberties in most countries are far better (in the quantity of details and in the completeness of coverage) then all religious laws that exist in any scriptures. Morality is part of the favorable traits that get passed on by evolving generations of any social species (and all social species of animals develop moral behaviors as a natural part of living together).

The point is, ask any serious sociologist, he will tell you that the "God hypothesis" is not needed or even useful to explain morality or moral behavior. All evidence points to the fact that whatever moral teachings appear in holy scriptures, the teachings are merely a "frozen picture" of the typical (secular) codes of law that were current at the time when the scripture was written. Holy scriptures rarely contain anything that goes against or beyond the established "moral laws" of the culture from which it emanated, except maybe for the New Testament which did contain a number of "revolutionary" ideas (I mean "revolutionary" in the sense of "Che Guevara", as in, against the established power structure), especially amongst gnostic christians, but those ideas were quelled rather quickly (not so surprising, since the christian church rapidly became a power-structure).

1

Ok brothers jim and mike .
Let me begin with the name of Almighty Allaah.
After reding this article for a long time i concluded that probably both of you don't beleive in the existence of God ,faith in Islam is a secondary thing.Also I concluded thaat both of you are very intelligent and researchers in character.Also I feel that you are hardworking too.You are open minded and not narrow minded like many of the fellows in this present world.This favours you to be invited to my religion.
I am a muslim named Rouf ,beleive me or not your ideology shaked my mind and that too bitterly.Personally thought much about eternity and God and i came to this conclusion.
May we all have the best understanding of the purpose of life and be led to the best destination through the best way.
Following is the conclusion about God and eternity hope that you will like it and if you find faults please convey
We thing god to be a being like us leave this thinking first.
Then think of his being in a different way.let me illustrate it a bit...
Have you ever thought of energy .The first law of thermodynamics postulates that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed.This is an example of the eternity.This means energy has been there ,energy is there and will be there.Now think of the things that energy can do, maybe anything.It can create a thing destroy it but these things are not eternal as energy candestroy them anywhere any time.I am not trying to say energy is God but trying to remove the confusion.
God is to be thougth in terms of this ideology not in terms of a narrow things relating to things of this world.
This is also answer to jims ideology of God bing eternal and not this universe.
This also explains why many things in this universe happen drastically,for example death of stars , collision of planets etc.To show us that these things are not eternal but perishable so that we are protected from false beleif.
Also according to second law of thermodynamics the entropy is increasing and tends to be highest.That we call Dooms Day and end of this universe to prove that this universe is not eternal but pershable.Thus that you were thinking to be chaos in this universe is actually best order when thought deeply
Lets think and let you storm my ideas by more questions:))))))))

Votes + Comments
great bro :) Allah Bless You
0

And say, "Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood, [by nature], ever bound to depart."

That's what I am trying to do here - get at the truth.

Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment.

This says I don't believe because Allah won't let me. And for this I will be punished. Doesn't seem quite fair does it.

After reding this article for a long time i concluded that probably both of you don't beleive in the existence of God

You finally figured that out. And I see you are still refusing to answer my three questions. My three questions are clear and concise. They require a simple yes/no answer. They are not trick questions. But instead of answering them you continue to dodge them by asking questions about energy and thermodynamics. You can't answer a question by asking another question.

If I say "the Qur'an states that two plus two equals five. How do you reconcile that with mathematical fact", you cannot respond with "according to second law of thermodynamics the entropy is increasing and tends to be highest". That response says "I cannot defend my faith so I'm going to change the subject".

Answer the three questions. I am but an ignorant infidel searching for enlightenment. I do that by asking questions. I can see you believe that by your statement

You are open minded and not narrow minded like many of the fellows in this present world.This favours you to be invited to my religion.

0

Thanks for your input Rouf!

Although I do think that Jim's questions merit a more direct response, I also enjoy flailing ideas around, so let me jungle with yours a bit:

If I understand correctly, you use "energy" as an analogy for how God permeates everything and can do anything (kind of like "The Force" in Star Wars). It's a poetic view of energy, I'll give you that, but the main problem I would have with this is "intelligence", as in, how can this "energy" or universal force develop a will of its own and constitute a sentient being? Without "intelligence" within this universal force, it isn't much of a God, so that becomes a pretty critical point. I'm not excluding the possibility that there is some sort of intelligence binding everything, and if there is a mechanism by which this is possible, I'll be all ears if you can demonstrate that mechanism.

How does one detect intelligence? One answer is: the presence of choices, because that is the exercise of intelligence. Of course, this implies the ability or freedom to make choices (acts motivated by some thought process), without that ability, the "intelligence" is just a passive observer with no detectable signs of intelligence (e.g., a person who is completely parallized and cannot communicate in any way, but still has a working brain, he is "intelligent", but that intelligence cannot be detected or be useful). So, following that train of thought, the million dollar question is: Is there room in the universe for God to make choices? The short answer is: no. From all we know thus far, everything seems to work based on a simple set of laws and properties of things, such as the laws of thermodynamics. If God is this universal force, then his very existence is contingent on those laws, and thus, they could not have been created by him. Even with intelligence and a will of its own, this universal force has no way to bend the laws on which its own existence depends, and thus, there is no way for us to definitively detect its presence.

Now, for some factual things:

Have you ever thought of energy .

Yes, I'm an engineer, energy is all I think about, in one form or another.

The first law of thermodynamics postulates that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed.

Correct. Energy (or, equivalently, mass) cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. At this point, this is one of the most irrefutable laws in all of science, second only, maybe, to the second law of thermodynamics.

This is an example of the eternity. This means energy has been there ,energy is there and will be there.

Correct, for all we know, all the "stuff" that the universe contains is eternal, there is no hint of a "beginning" or an "end" to what it contains, there are only transformations occurring naturally (e.g., the Big Bang, from a very dense cloud to today's universe).

Now think of the things that energy can do, maybe anything.

Now, that's where I start to have trouble. Energy doesn't really do anything at all. First of all, energy comes in many forms, all of which are attached to fundamental forces (gravity, electro-magnetism, weak or strong interactions, etc.). Energy is a property that is directly linked to the state of a system subject to certain forces. Such as the compressed state of a spring, which is made of a deformable solid with a metallic crystalized structure with a specific equilibrium configuration that balances its internal inter-molecular electro-magnetic bonds. When two systems interact, one system can be released from its high-energy state by raising the energy level of the other system. This is like taking energy in the form of complex chemical bonds (fuel), turning that into simpler chemical bonds plus lots of temperature and pressure, and then turning the temperature and pressure into the movement of a car. It is merely the act of letting one energetic system release itself into another (and you always pay a price along the way, that's what the second law says).

The point is that energy isn't a thing of its own, nor does it have any choice in where it's going to get transferred. In fact, beyond all the different laws of classical mechanics, relativity, quantum mechanics, and all sorts of other domain-specific theories, there is one principle that trumps everything else (one "law" to rule them all, so to speak), and that's called Hamilton's Principle. It's fairly simple in principle (although applying it requires pretty hard-core math skills, except in the most trivial cases). It literally summarizes in one equation the basic rule by which energy is coherced, by nature, to flow between "systems" (or types of energy storage). And solutions are unique. So, energy cannot "do anything", it can only flow the way nature makes it flow, with no "wiggle room".

It can create a thing destroy it but these things are not eternal as energy candestroy them anywhere any time.

Energy doesn't destroy anything. Because everything is energy in one form or another (E = mc2), and energy only gets transferred by the laws of nature. Everything is eternal if energy is eternal.

I am not trying to say energy is God but trying to remove the confusion.

Sure. And I'm just removing your confusion about what energy is. Just so that you know that this analogy doesn't really work once you know what energy is or does. But I understand what "idea of God" you wanted to convey with this analogy.

Also according to second law of thermodynamics the entropy is increasing and tends to be highest.

That's not a particularly good statement of the second law. That's the weird thing about that law is that it can be stated in a gizillion different ways (in fact, in my introductory thermodynamics course, one of the exam questions was to identify, from a list of statements, which ones where valid statements of the second law, and which were not). One valid statement is that heat can only flow from high temperatures to low temperatures. Another valid statement is that all transfers of energy causes energy to get dissipated. Basically, this is the law that makes perpetual motion machines impossible. As for entropy, people like to equate it to disorder, in fact it is more analogous to a kid which is pumped up on sugar and has nothing to (no activity to spend his energies on), he will then behave eradictly and make a mess of things. That's more or less what happens when you pump energy into a system which has no "structured" place to put it, it then becomes excited, and we usually measure that as "temperature". In essence, yes, because all transfers of energy cause a "leaking" of energy into entropy, eventually the entropy will be highest it can be, and there will be no more energy to be transferred from anywhere to anywhere. So, in principle, the universe should reach that point eventually, but my knowledge of physics is too weak to know what that will look like (or if there is anything that can reverse it or something like that), but one thing is for sure, we still have many billions (or probably trillions) of years to go before such a state is reached.

But remember also that the second law doesn't mean that all things become more and more chaotic (or high-entropy), just the universe as a whole. Things that transfer energy outwards decrease their entropy, and received energy can also be stored in a way that decreases the entropy. This is what allows complex structures (low entropy) to arise, but of course, entropy is formed in larger quantities than is decreased, but that entropy can be evacuated elsewhere (just like the cooling system on a car engine). For example, the death of a star is a massive explosion that generates an astronomical amount of heat, and thus, entropy, but it also generates complex elements (of the periodic table) that eventually find their way to floating rocks (planets), accrete on them, and eventually form a rich chemical environment where life can develop, creating even more processes by which energy can be absorbed in useful ways.

To show us that these things are not eternal but perishable so that we are protected from false beleif.

How is your conclusion (protection from false belief) related to your observation (perishable universe)? Or did I misunderstand this completely? Or is it that the fact that there is an end to the universe (at least, apparently) an indication that there is a God? How are these two things related? And given the fact that the universe will certainly far out-live us (human beings), I don't see how it matters, if the universe was eternal, it wouldn't make much of a practical difference to us, nor to God if His main preoccupation is human beings (maybe it is not, if He created the whole universe, would He even notice that pale blue dot, let alone its inhabitants?).

0

@AD, you said that belief only matters once we die. Then we find out whether or not we were right to believe in God. I like to see it as something else... Why can't you live a fullfilling life anyway. Religion doesn't necessarily mean we ought live a life of dullness and misery. The Bible/or whatever religious book is open to subjective opinion anyway.

The only thing that worries me is if my actions are moral or not. Normally, it is just a gut reaction as to how I determine this, but the laws of modern society seems to encompass these quite nicely.

0

but the laws of modern society seems to encompass these quite nicely

Do you mean like the law that says a hedge fund manager who makes hundreds of millions a year gets to pay only 15% tax while a middle class earner pays over 30%? Or do you have a different definition of moral where this is OK? But let's not get off topic. This thread is about Islam, not US laws and how they reflect morality.

And I'm still waiting for answers to the big three questions. Rouf? waqasaslammmeo? Hani?

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

Does any other religion retain its membership by threatening to kill anyone who leaves?

Well the Christian Church did, Spanish Inquistion, Crusades, Burning of "Heratics" etc.

ANY reglion can and IS frequently subverted to suit the political ends of those in power or who wish to gain power.

0

@G_Waddell. The key word here is "does". Primitive religions existed partly to promote cohesiveness within a community and partly to give a select few power over the group. As far as I know, Islam is the only religion that still uses the threat of death to prevent people from leaving.

grow out of this logic and religions are not compatible

You got that right. However, the OP is the one who created this thread and named it "Islam and Logic". He accused the media of spreading false facts about Islam when in fact we showed that the OP was guilty of doing just that. Instead of staying and debating that premiss he decided to leave. It looks like Rouf and waqasaslammmeo have done the same. If their faith can be tested by three simple questions then their faith cannot be that strong. A fitting response is not covering your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you".

If they care to respond they know what questions I want answers to.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

Can anyone please tell me the purpose of life and all this drama in this universe?Have you ever thought about it ? Why was this earth created ?Why we were born ?Why so much harderships in the life ?What for all this?Whether we were created by someone or it just happened ?What will happen after death ?Where will we be?Where are we when we are asleep? What is a dream ? What i mean by saying "I"?is it the body i am referring to?Am i in any way similar or different from a machine ? If i am a machine then who created me ?
I am seriously not cionfusing you with the play of words ,but i am sincerely trying to increase your thirst of knowledge?
were we created or just born by overselves , whatever just to eat, live, enjoy and die? Or there is any purpose behind this cycle?
Just when you go to sleep this night try to think on the matter where you are preparing to go?Also think on the afforesaid matter?
Have you ever tried to concentrate on the vastness of this universe?
what really is in this vastness?

then what? which religion to follow? islam claims it is the only right and all others are wrong; and so christianity claims the same; and so does hindoism and budaism and judaism
so they must all be wrong. they are all myths passed over the years from ancient egypt

0

so they must all be wrong. they are all myths passed over the years from ancient egypt

Not necessarily to the first statement and quite likely to the second. I agree that if they all claim to be the one true faith then they cannot all be right. It is possible that they are all incorrect. I can't prove that, however, I shouldn't have to. No religion has any proof that their religion is "the one".

then what? which religion to follow?

How about none?

0

Meh, religion.

Thankfully my country left that behind long ago. I've barely met any religious people at all, except on the internet.

0

what was there when there is nothing ? i mean before the big band , what was there ? jim

Edited by M.Waqas Aslam

0

what was there when there is nothing ? i mean before the big band , what was there ? jim

We don't know. Please answer my three questions.

0

@ JIM

decided to leave. It looks like Rouf and waqasaslammmeo have done the same

Brother i didn't leave the thread but i am with it and will be with this matter of solving the mystries till they are solved once forever for me.I love discussing and researching on this topic,But the problem here is that we are having our examinations so i lack time for the discussion and still in these busy hours i keep reading your ideas , but replying is not possible.Sorry!!!!!!!
But kee this in mind that your ideas are reaching me :))))))

0

You had time to respond with 81 words. You could have answered my three questions using three words. You are not answering because you know that because a "true" Muslim would have to answer yes to all three and that three yes answers cannot be defended. You are doing the same thing Hani did. You are making claims then refusing to defend them.

I love discussing and researching on this topic

Too bad you are doing neither. You are doing nothing but spouting the same nonsense. If you are serious about discussing this then answer the three questions. All it takes is three words.

0

jim , what are your questions , i will try to answer them if i cant then i will ask those question to others to get best answers for you.

0

I don't mind repeating them.

Can you please give me a yes/no answer to the following questions.

  • Do you believe the Qur'an is the word of Allah as handed down to Mohammed?

  • Do you believe that the Qur'an is infallible?

  • Do you believe that Islam, as laid out in the Qur'an preaches a creed of non-violence?

The questions do not require any research on your part to answer. I can't imagine that you would have to consult anyone else as to your opinions or beliefs.

Edited by Reverend Jim

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.