Understanding the Enemy

[numinus]

Aaaand your still making my point for me. They used the "dogmatic constitution of the church", catholic doctrine, not biblical doctrine. Biblical doctrine established Peter as the leader of the disciples, nothing more.

Are you brain-dead or something?

Catholic doctrine is an INTERPRETATION of biblical text in the same way that hadith is an INTERPRETATION of the koran.

While you can make the distinction between bible and catholic dogma, you can't seem to make the distinction between koran and hadith.

Logic has much to do with a CONGRUENCE RELATION. Your inability to discern congruence leads to the reasonable conclusion that you have no logic, whatsoever.

 

[jb_1430]

Are you brain-dead or something?

Catholic doctrine is an INTERPRETATION of biblical text in the same way that hadith is an INTERPRETATION of the koran.

While you can make the distinction between bible and catholic dogma, you can't seem to make the distinction between koran and hadith.

Logic has much to do with a CONGRUENCE RELATION. Your inability to discern congruence leads to the reasonable conclusion that you have no logic, whatsoever.

And you are about as dumb as a rock. "Interpretation"?? A tortured interpretation that has little to nothing to do with the actual text. And what you dont understand is that the hadiths are words and deeds of Muhammad, written by others, just like the New Testament . Jesus didnt write a book. Muhammad did. And its called CATHOLIC doctrine, not christian doctrine for a reason. Its purely a doctrine of the catholic church.
Like I said, if

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'
18 'In truth I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

is the best you have, I couldnt ask for a better demonstration of my point.

 

[numinus]

And you are about as dumb as a rock. "Interpretation"?? A tortured interpretation that has little to nothing to do with the actual text. And what you dont understand is that the hadiths are words and deeds of Muhammad, written by others, just like the New Testament . Jesus didnt write a book. Muhammad did. And its called CATHOLIC doctrine, not christian doctrine for a reason. Its purely a doctrine of the catholic church.
Like I said, if

What a ***** you are!

Mohammed didn't write the koran.

is the best you have, I couldnt ask for a better demonstration of my point.

And here it is obvious that you can't comprehend the gravity of the text.

Forgiveness of sins is a radical departure from judaism. It was one of the 'evidence' (according to the bible) that condemned jesus in the eyes of the sanhedrin. It is one of the reasons why no synthesis between christianity and judaism is possible today.

 

[jb_1430]

What a ***** you are!

Mohammed didn't write the koran.

He couldnt read or write so he recited the words to a scribe. Did you have a point? or just a need to respond?

 

[Coyote]

And you are about as dumb as a rock. "Interpretation"?? A tortured interpretation that has little to nothing to do with the actual text. And what you dont understand is that the hadiths are words and deeds of Muhammad, written by others, just like the New Testament . Jesus didnt write a book. Muhammad did. And its called CATHOLIC doctrine, not christian doctrine for a reason. Its purely a doctrine of the catholic church.
Like I said, if

is the best you have, I couldnt ask for a better demonstration of my point.

You are playing semantical games here.

Catholicism and Christian were synonomous for centuries. There was no distinction as they were the dominant - by far - sect in the world and the first main Christian Church. Catholic doctrine WAS Christian doctrine and vice versa. It wasn't until the advent of Martin Luther that that changed and Christianity was viewed seperate from the Catholic Church.

 

[jb_1430]

You are playing semantical games here.

Catholicism and Christian were synonomous for centuries. There was no distinction as they were the dominant - by far - sect in the world and the first main Christian Church. Catholic doctrine WAS Christian doctrine and vice versa. It wasn't until the advent of Martin Luther that that changed and Christianity was viewed seperate from the Catholic Church.

It was the printing press and the distribution of bibles(christian doctrine) that lead to the reformation. Anyone reading the actual text could see the catholic church was full of shiite.

 

[Coyote]

It was the printing press and the distribution of bibles(christian doctrine) that lead to the reformation. Anyone reading the actual text could see the catholic church was full of shiite.

Unfortunately no. Reading the actual text is what such warm fuzzy groups as the Christian Reconstructionists do.

All it means is that there are more possible interpretations of doctrine since everyone can now interpret it for themselves. In otherwords - they're all full of shiite.

The problem with doctrine in the Koran, NT, OT - both Christian and Muslim - is that it contains numerous passages that can be interpreted to condone violence and bloodshed and intolerance. It also contains numerous passages that can be interpreted to condone peace, tolerance and compassion.

In the end - it doesn't matter - not a bit - which is more violent. As long as you will have people selecting those passages to justify bloodshed, they will. As long as you have people selecting only those passages that promote peace - they will. And it's all doctrine and it's irrelevent until someone interprets it to justify an action.

What matters is not what the doctrine actually says - it's what people think it says.

 

[numinus]

He couldnt read or write so he recited the words to a scribe. Did you have a point? or just a need to respond?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koran

Verses in the Qur'an originated from verbal tradition, as Islam holds the text was almost entirely memorized by Muhammad's companions as Muhammad recited them, although some verses are believed to be written by Muhammad's companions during Muhammad's dictation. In the Sunni tradition, the collection of the Qur'ān took place under the Caliph Abu Bakr, this task being led by Zayd ibn Thabit Al-Ansari.

What a complete bonehead!

 

[jb_1430]

The problem with doctrine in the Koran, NT, OT - both Christian and Muslim - is that it contains numerous passages that can be interpreted to condone violence and bloodshed and intolerance.

Notice how you CONSTANTLY make this claim and rarely if ever supply any evidence regarding Christian doctrine. When I make any claims regarding Islamic doctrine I can supply more verses from the koran and hadiths than anyone would take the time to read that clearly and unequivically demonstrate my point, and writings from Muslims that interpret the verses literally.
Youve provided TWO!, two verses from the New Testament, that we might presume are the best or only evidence you could come up with.

In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.
So if you can't redeem them, break their necks.
Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.

Mark 7:9?? well, I guess if you ignore what it actually says you might come to that conclusion. Jesus is quoting Moses and accuses the pharisees of being hypocrites. He is quoting Moses.
'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' from Exodus 21:17 and Lev. 20:9.
and he abrogates the jewish law regarding diet-
14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "

Luke 19:22-27???? Your charachterization above is made up BS. Thats the Parable of the Ten Minas. Its a parable about a nonexistant king who orders people killed. Jesus did no such thing.

11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable,...

The fact that this is the best and only evidence you have DEMONSTRATES my point. Sure, if like you, you ignore the text, make up some shiite in its place, then you can come up with such interpretations. Islam makes it difficult to come to any other interpretation other than a violent one.
Did you make up the above interpretations or did someone else do it for you.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=7&version=31

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=19&version=31

 

[jb_1430]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koran

Verses in the Qur'an originated from verbal tradition, as Islam holds the text was almost entirely memorized by Muhammad's companions as Muhammad recited them, although some verses are believed to be written by Muhammad's companions during Muhammad's dictation. In the Sunni tradition, the collection of the Qur'ān took place under the Caliph Abu Bakr, this task being led by Zayd ibn Thabit Al-Ansari.

What a complete bonehead!

Did you have a point? If only a portion was recited to a scribe from muhammad, and the rest was recited by muhammad to others who later recited to a scribe, whats the point? And the Muslims believe differently than wikipedia towel head.

The Quran was revealed over a period of twenty-three years and was written down in its entirety during the Prophet’s lifetime, although the verses were not gathered together in one volume at that time (Al-Katani, V.2, p.384).
http://www.quran.net/quran/PreservationOfTheQuran.htm

Unlike the Sunnah, the Qur'an is quite literally the Word of Allah, whereas the Sunnah was inspired by Allah but the wording and actions are the Prophet's. The Qur'an has not been expressed using any human's words. Its wording is letter for letter fixed by no one but Allah.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

 

[numinus]

Did you have a point? If only a portion was recited to a scribe from muhammad, and the rest was recited by muhammad to others who later recited to a scribe, whats the point? And the Muslims believe differently than wikipedia towel head.

Its quite futile for you to ask the point since you are incapable of comprehending ANY point.

How do you think that is different from the gospels of matthew and mark, academic opinion of which suggests an earlier, eye-witness account as their source, hmmm?

Fact is, you do not even know the difference between authorship and oral tradition. What you have demonstrated is your utter ignorance on the very topic you pretend competence in.

 

[jb_1430]

Its quite futile for you to ask the point since you are incapable of comprehending ANY point.

How do you think that is different from the gospels of matthew and mark,

The Quran was revealed over a period of twenty-three years and was written down in its entirety during the Prophet’s lifetime. The New Testament was written 100-300 years after Jesus' lifetime.

 

[numinus]

The Quran was revealed over a period of twenty-three years and was written down in its entirety during the Prophet’s lifetime. The New Testament was written 100-300 years after Jesus' lifetime.

That would be the oldest surviving copy. Almost all biblical scholars agree that this copy was itself copied from a source that is within the window of an eye-witness account. That document is the hypothetical Q document.

Certainly, this is more credible than the assertion that the koran is a a faithful and verbatim account of mohammed's words, handed down through oral tradition.

The temerity with which you presume to teach me is astounding. In fact, your logical abilities is nothing more than the cumbersome plodding of a pachyderm.

 

[jb_1430]

What you or wikipedia think isnt really relevant.

That would be the oldest surviving copy. Almost all biblical scholars agree that this copy was itself copied from a source that is within the window of an eye-witness account. That document is the hypothetical Q document.

Certainly, this is more credible than the assertion that the koran is a a faithful and verbatim account of mohammed's words, handed down through oral tradition.

The temerity with which you presume to teach me is astounding. In fact, your logical abilities is nothing more than the cumbersome plodding of a pachyderm.

 

[jb_1430]

The ultimate goal of the enemy.


http://www.mituk.org/?p=64

The Khilafah system is the dream of most Islamic movements around the world today as an ultimate objective, since the last remnants of this system were destroyed at the hands of Kemal Ataturk on the 3rd of March 1924. Called the Othmani Caliphate at its demise, the Khilafah system of governance existed ever since the lifetime of Messenger Muhammad when he established the first Islamic State in 622 CE. There was then an unbroken chain of Islamic States for 1302 years until its destruction in 1924.

The Khilafah system is not implemented anywhere in the world today, rather every country in the Muslim world today implements a form of capitalism, monarchy or other form of dictatorship or secular system. Unlike the leaders who rule today, the Khaleefah (or Emir/Amir/Ameer) – who has been given authority by the Muslims to rule over the Khilafah – must ensure that only the Shari’ah is implemented internally and that it is also carried to the world as the foreign policy of the State.

The Taliban had the dream of bringing back this unique system of governance. However, beset with civil war and attempts to overthrow them, they came close to reaching this ideal only to be halted in the final stages of their embryonic development.

So why would the West, and in particular George Bush and Tony Blair, be so vehemently against the re-establishment of such a system? Is it because they are concerned at how women were obliged to cover themselves in public, is it because they opposed capital punishment or is it because they understand that establishing the Khilafah means the re-emergence of this beacon of light on the earth and the beginning of the end of man made systems of law?

It is clear that the latter is the real cause for concern. The Khilafah system is in truth an affront to all capitalist or other man made systems of ruling because it rejects all their ideologies, foundations and institutions. It does not accept secularism, democracy, liberalism or freedom and nor does it accept for any body to have any say over it such as the United Nations or their Security Council.

Hence, the Khilafah would be in one camp whilst the rest of the world would be in the other. Sovereignty for God verses sovereignty for man, the law of God verses the law of man, a civilisation based on divine commands verses a civilisation based on the whims and desires of man. This is the real reason why the American and British governments are firmly against its emergence.
...
The Muslim Ummah (community) has been described by scholars as a pregnant woman in her last stage of pregnancy – she has a short time before delivery. The only question is whether it will be a natural birth delivered through public opinion and awareness leading to change or whether it will be carried out via a caesarean operation requiring a military coup or bloody revolution.
...
One such attribute is the fact that the Khilafah state does not have fixed borders; rather, it has always had frontiers which are expanded whenever the Islamic State can launch jihad to remove the obstacles in the way of implementing divine law or when the bordering country accepts Islamic law and order peacefully. This is contrary to the concept of nation states and the United Nations which prohibits annexation of countries and thereby maintains the hegemony of the current larger states over the divided and smaller (often Muslim) ones.

Another problem which the leaders of the capitalist world share is the fact that the Khaleefah, when appointed, will never agree to permanent peace with any nation, rather its foreign policy is built on the basis of temporarily having ceasefires so long as Islam is allowed to be propagated in the other country, though once the time limit expires the Islamic State may advance and annex the land to implement the Shari’ah there without notice. The maximum ceasefire allowed in Islam being 10 years....

Capitalists and the proponents of secularism also know that the strength of a nation is not its physical capability or monetary wealth but rather its thoughts and concepts, its intellect and driving force. They also realise that once the Khilafah is established on Earth there will once again be education for the masses based purely on the revelation from the Qur’an and teachings of the Messenger Muhammad; Western corruption from Hollywood and the pornography, cosmetics and fashion industries exploiting the procreation instincts will be banned; consuming and trading in drugs and alcohol will be illegal; and monopolising wealth or commodities and engaging in usurious transactions will also be illegal.

Without such time wasting and taming influences, the emerging Islamic State will be able to concentrate on nurturing a nation of people that are willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of pleasing God.

The emerging Khilafah will therefore have a formidable army which will be very hard to confront. Even the few resistance fighters in Iraq with this mindset are keeping the full might of the US and UK armies busy. With no hang ups about what the United Nations might say and nothing to check their actions except the divine Text, the fear of the Khilafah will no doubt reach pandemic proportions.