Islam, Am I right?

[Postmaster]

Hello, I have questions about the Islam religion. Like most religions in the world there teachings are often found to contradict different parts of it. I’ am Greek Orthodox, interdominational, so I respect all religions of the world and I often try and learn more about them. I know in the recent media Islam has been hit hard and many Muslims across the world condemn these acts of violence in the name of Islam. People such as the Palestinians (who I personally support in some sense) kill themselves in the name of Allah and in doing so they are also killing others to accomplish there aim. There state of mind is the thought of going to paradise and also the victims are also dieing for the cause and that its there god given fate to die in such conditions. I know that these are just a part of the Muslim community creating such humanity crimes, just as the KKK of the Christians. But regardless of all of this I want to draw my attentions to the Islam teachings. I must point out I'm not educated about Islam and I must also point out that what I say might be ignorant I only hope to be enlighten by members here. But I have heard things about Muslim teachings which I find very disturbing. Like the mention of the sword! This is a symbolic item of war and violence, yet the Islamic teachings clearly states “jihad of the sword;”. And also negative remarks towards Christians and in fact negative remarks towards all different faiths including Judaism. Like I said earlier in my post, all religions contradicts itself and also Islamic teachings, I personally know also that Islam promotes peace and love to all. But still such remarks should not (in my view) be found in any religious teachings to any extent and only Islam does. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

“jihad of the sword;”.
This means "holy war of the sword (sword symbolic for violence and force)" to force including killing? Anyone that turns his back on the Islamic teachings and in the name of any part of the Islamic teachings will be consequence to holy war of the sword?

 

[Postmaster]

Anyone to challenge me? Does this mean that it’s correct? Also Jesus is seen as a Prophet in Islam. Jesus said to love your enemies and to forgive all who do harm to you unlimited times, Jesus ideas are very eastern almost similar to Buddhism and yet Islam has its seal of approval towards him because they accept him as a prophet. But he said he was the human form of God, so how can Islam accept him as a prophet but not accept what he says that he was the human form of God? Also regarding Mohamed I have read there is a lot of controversy towards him a lot exposed in The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie who has been given a death sentence by the Islamic society does Islam also preach that?

 

[Friend]

Al Salaamu Alyckum​

One of the many shortcomings which have arisen in the West, is judging Islaam by the conduct of a minority of its people. By doing this, segments of Western society have deliberately played off the desperate actions of many Muslims, and have given it the name of Islaam. Such behavior is clearly not objective and seeks to distort the reality of Islaam. For if such a thing was done (judge a religion by the conduct of its people) then we too could say that all Christianity is about is child molesting and homosexuality ,while Hinduism was all about looting and break up mosques .​

Generalizing in such a manner is not seen as being objective, yet we find that the Western world is foremost in propagating this outlook on Islaam. So what is the reality of Islaam? How does one dispel the myths which have been created and spread so viciously? The only way to examine Islaam is to simply examine its belief system. Look at its sources, the Qur'aan and Sunnah, and see what they have to say. This is the way to find the truth about what Islaam says about terror, terrorist. One who is sincerely searching for the truth, will do it no other way.

The very name Islaam comes from the Arabic word 'salama' which means peace. Islaam is a religion which is based upon achieving peace through the submission to the will of Allaah. Thus, by this very simple linguistic definition, one can ascertain as to what the nature of this religion is . If such a religion is based on the notion of peace, then how is it that so many acts done by its adherents are contrary to peace? The answer is simple. Such actions, if not sanctioned by the religion, have no place with it. They are not Islaamic and should not be thought of as Islaamic.

The word Jihaad sends shivers down the spines of many Westerners. They readily equate this term with violence and oppression. However, it must be said that the meaning of Jihaad, as "holy war" is something which is totally foreign and not from Islaam. If anything, such description belongs more so to Christianity and its adherents. It was terms like this which were used to justify the slaughter and pillage of towns and cities during the crusades by the Christians. By simply looking into the sources of Islaam, one is able to know the true meaning of Jihaad is to strive or make effort in the way of Allaah. Thus, striving in the way of Allaah can be both peaceful and physical. The Prophet Muhammad (PUH) said: "The best Jihaad is (by) the one who strives against his own self for Allaah, The Mighty and Majestic" .

In the Qur'aan, Allaah also says (which means): "So obey not the disbelievers, but make a great Jihaad (effort) against them (by preaching) with it (the Qur'aan)" (Al-Furqaan 25:52).

By controlling and fighting against one's desires, the Muslims can then also physically exert themselves in the path of Allaah. It is this physical or combative Jihaad which receives so much criticism. Because of the sheer ignorance of this type of Jihaad, Islaam is regarded as terror, Muslim are regarded as terrorist. However, the very purpose of this physical Jihaad is to raise the Word of Allaah uppermost. By doing this, it liberates and emancipates all those who are crying out for freedom all over the world. If the likes of the pacifist of this world had their way, then the world would indeed be full of anarchy and mischief. The combative Jihaad seeks to correct this as Allaah says in the Qur'aan (which means): "And if Allaah did not rectify one set of people by means of another, the Earth would be full of mischief. But Allaah is full of favors for the worlds." (Al-Baqarah 2:251)

Such would be the corruption on this Earth if there had never been a combative Jihaad, than Allaah says (which means): "For had it not been that Allaah rectifies one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allaah is mentioned much, would surely have been torn down. Indeed Allaah will help those who help His (cause). Truly Allaah is All-Powerfull, All-Mighty." (Al-Hajj 22:40).

This combative Jihaad being both defensive and offensive, is something which Allaah commanded the Muslims. Through this command the oppressed and weak are rescued from the tyranny of the world. Allaah says (which means): "And what is the matter with you that you do not fight in the cause of Allaah and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women and children whose only cry is; "Our Lord, rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors, and raise for us, from you one who will protect, and raise for us, from you one who will help.'" (An-Nisaa' 4:75)

Anyone who knows the early history of Islaam, will know that all those nations and empires which came under the fold of Islaam were indeed previously oppressed. When the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (PUH) went out for the offensive Jihaad against the Egyptians, the Persians and the Romans, we find that the people did not resist against them at all. Rather, they accepted Islaam on such a scale, that it is inconceivable that the Jihaad of Islaam could be anything other then a liberation for these people; a liberation from centuries of tyranny. In fact, with the Byzantine Egyptians and the people of Spain, the Muslims were even beckoned to come and liberate these lands from the oppression of their kings. This is the glorious track record of the Muslim Jihaad.

Compare this with the brutal track record of warfare in the Western world over the centuries. From the crusades against the Muslims to the days of colonial warfare, the Western world has killed, destroyed and plundered everything which has come in its way. Even today this merciless killing goes on by the Western nations. While claming to be about world peace and security. Western nations are ready to bomb innocent civilians at the drop of a hat. The classic example of this is the recent bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. Whilst claiming that Sudan and Afghanistan were havens for the Islaamic terrorist, the bombings of these two nations could not have come at a better time for the American president Bill Clinton. The destruction of innocent lives which were a result of these bombings clearly seem to have been an attempt by Clinton ot avert attention away from his sexual misdemeanors ,something which he so often gets caught up in. Without doubt this was the reason for such terror from the American Military upon innocent people. This is the same American military which claims to enter the world trouble spots under the disguise of being peace keepers. But Allaah says (which means): "...When it is said to them; 'Make not mischief on the Earth', they say: ' We are only peace makers'. Indeed they are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive it not." (Al-Baqarah 2:11-12)

Not transgressing the limits means not to kill women and children, for the Messenger of (PUH) Allaah "forbade the killing of women and children."

Not transgressing the limits means that the elderly, the sick, monks, worshippers, and hired laborers are not attacked. Not transgressing the limits means not killing animals wantonly, burning crops and vegetation, polluting waters and destroying homes, monasteries, churches and synagogues. Allaah said (which means): "Allaah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion, nor dove you out of your homes. Indeed, Allaah loves those who deal with equity." (Al-Mumtahinah 60:8)

After reading such passages from the Qur'aan and knowing about what Islaam commands and prohibits in Jihaad, the rules of warfare are given a new meaning; a meaning of justice. How sad it is then, that while Islaam is condemned for striking terror into the hearts of the people, the likes of the Serbs, the Indian army in Kashmire and the Israeli soldiers in Palestine are left untarnished for the atrocities they have committed in the name of warfare.

So what about suicide bombing, is this too a part of Jihaad in Allaah's path? From what has already been stated above, it can be deduced that this is not part of the religion. However, unfortunately many Muslims have taken suicide bombing as being a virtuous act by which one receives reward. This could not be further from the truth. The Prophet (PUH)said: " Those who go to extremes are destroyed" .

Suicide bombing is undoubtedly an extremity which has infiltrated the ranks of the Muslims. In the rules of warfare, we find no sanction for such an act from the behavior and utterances of the Prophet Muhammad or his blessed companions. Unfortunately, today some of the less-knowledgeable Muslims believe that such acts are paving the way for an Islaamic revival and a return to the rule of Islaam's glorious law. However, we fail to bear in mind that the Prophet (PUH) said: "Do not be delighted by the actions of anyone, until see how he ends up."

So, for example what is the end of a suicide bomber in Palestine? A leg here, an arm there. Massive retaliation by the Israeli's in the West Bank and Gaza. More Muslims killed and persecuted. How can we be delighted with such an end? What really hammers the final nail in the coffin of this act, is that it is suicide; something which is clearly forbidden in Islaam. The Messenger of Allaah (PUH)said: "He who kills himself with anything, Allaah will torment him with that in the fire of Hell" .

Some are under the misconception that by killing oneself for an Islaamic cause, one commits an act which deserves Paradise. Once when a man killed himself, the Prophet said: "He is a dweller of the fire". When the people were suprised at this, the Prophet said: "A person performs the deeds which to the people appears to be the deeds befitting the dweller of Paradise, but he is in fact one of the dweller of the fire."

The taking of one's life, which Allaah has given as a trust to the human, is a great sin. Likewise, the unwarranted taking of other lives (which is so often the case with suicide bombing) is also forbidden, as human life is indeed precious. Allaah clarifies (which means): "..If anyone killed a person not in retaliation for murder or for his spreading evil in the land, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind. And (likewise) if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole mankind." (Al-Maa'idah 5:32)

Thus, all other types of extremities such as hostage taking, hijacking and bombs in public places, are clearly forbidden in Islaam.

​

 

[Friend]

. People such as the Palestinians (who I personally support in some sense) kill themselves in the name of Allah and in doing so they are also killing others to accomplish there aim.

Salaamu Alyckum

Postmaster ,Do you sometimes think how are the feeling of frustration and hopelessness ? and why a human like us kill or explode himself ?what was his feeling just before he did that ?

sometimes I can not even imagine that , but I always search about why these things happened in our world ?

I think Palestinians reach the point of hopelessness to get help from other countries ,and they doesn't have anything to resist except their life .
Islam encourage Muslims to resist against who took their land but not by killing ourselves.

 

[thipps]

Also regarding Mohamed I have read there is a lot of controversy towards him a lot exposed in The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie who has been given a death sentence by the Islamic society does Islam also preach that?

Assalam-o-Alaikum
If Rushdie, is your source of information, then no wonder you have questions. By the way, forget us, do you know what he says about 'white' people? I read one page of his book and the gutter language he was using was so disgusting, that i could read no more. Such filthy language that one would not repeat in front of anyone else.
If you want to learn Islam, go to the authentic sources. i.e. Quran and Authentic Hadith.
Hope this clears things up a bit.

 

[Postmaster]

I have never read Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie and I refuse to read it. I see the Palestinian people as a beautiful ancient race, I have actually been to Palestine and "Israel" and with me being Greek Cypriot I understand what they are going through with there divided land. When I look at the situation it does appear that it is unconnected to the Islam teachings because humans will do what humans will do just like the bee which will kill itself to protect its hive. But something in Islam teaching gives them justification. I appreciate all your posts, thank you.

 

[bananabrain]

friend -

i hope you don't mind if i respond here to a number of different comments you've made in various places. basically (for those who haven't picked up on this yet), your opinion appears to be that islam spread peacefully, yet the US (and by extension the "west") is imposing itself by force. now i understand that there are some historians (o'leary being one) who refute the notion of islam having spread by the sword, but it is actually just that, an opinion, rather than an unarguable "fact". part of this case rests upon the notion that islam is unified and has always been so. of course, this hasn't been the case, from the disputed succession of the khalifa onwards. similarly, the ummayads, abbasids and so on and everyone since the "rightly guided" caliphs have been disputed.

by the time that islam arrived in spain, of course, a couple of hundred years have gone past and it is arguable whether *despite* political unification, whether this indeed existed, islam is "one" any more. the rate of expansion alone would argue against this, even if it wasn't done by the sword. quite apart from this, the periodic "back-to-basics" movements that came out of various places within islam represented disunity and have been, in many cases, perfectly capable of "spreading by the sword". take the almohads and almoravids that came out of north africa in the 11th and 12th century - they weren't exactly tolerant of the dhimmis, which is why many jews (including maimonides) left cordoba and went to live in egypt. there is plenty of evidence of "convert or die" and, frankly, to suggest that islam came out of arabia and got all the way to spain without anyone being coerced stretches credibility to beyond the benefit of the doubt. quite apart from this, the idea that in an empire stretching across millions of people, a plethora of cultures and thousands of miles could maintain absolute uniformity without any form of oppression at all, let alone in the absence of advanced communications technology and media is somewhat difficult to accept. with the best will in the world and as well-disposed to islam as i am, i don't see how positions such as o'leary's can be credible.

furthermore, islam may arguably have guaranteed freedom of religion, but being a dhimmi was no picnic - you're still a second-class citizen with less rights than muslims, whether you're a mu'ammin or ahl al-qitab or whatever. it's not equality and freedom as we would understand it nowadays.

as for current oppression, for me the major problem is that i believe islam as i have learned it to be inseparable from *social justice*. an unjust society is *by definition* an unislamic one. i'm quoting an eminent german muslim theologian here, who is a personal friend. thus it is that i say, again repeating her opinion, that there is no "islamic state" currently existing in the world today - not saudi, not iran and not pakistan. which brings me to my other criticism of your position, namely your criticism of the united states et al.

of course, everyone seems to agree nowadays that the spread of christianity throughout europe and the rest of the world was mostly done by force. as a jew i certainly have nothing very nice to say about how they used to behave. where i must strongly differ, however, is that you cannot equate the united states and the west with the crusades. it's a completely specious and self-serving comparison. what we are talking about here is democracy, free speech, human rights and many other things that go with a modern political system. democracy is not "christian". it is not western. there is no reason whatsoever that democracy cannot operate in an islamic country whatever the relationship of islam is to the state. the turks are certainly working on it (although they have a long way to go) as are the afghans, the iranians have some semblance of it, the iraqis are hopefully on their way - and as of yesterday, the palestinians have made an important step away from despotism and personal rule towards a democratic society. if that's what you call the "USA want[ing] to transmit its life system and its belief to other countries by force", i don't see how this is a bad thing.

of course what you are referring to principally is the invasions of iraq and afghanistan. i'm a big fan of "the west wing" (which i recommend you watch, actually) so i think i should quote the "bartlett doctrine" at you - in an age where you can build a bomb [read WMD] in your country and bring it to mine, what goes on in your country becomes my business. in other words, overwhelming military might is no longer a guarantee of safety, as the americans (and the israelis as well) have discovered. therefore, to be safe, it follows that a "friendly society" is the best guarantee of safety. in the past, this has been done by installing a US or western-friendly ruler (like saddam, the saudis, the pahlavis, sadat etc) and letting the actual people of the countries go to hell because, hey, we're getting the oil, let them do our dirty work for us. this is no longer a viable strategy, as iran and afghanistan proved. therefore, to have normal international relations with a country, it is now recognised that you must now make peace with the actual inhabitants of the country, not just a dictator who runs the place for you. i'm not suggesting that this means invading anywhere you want, because that ain't sustainable either and to suggest that this is what the US is up to is to display complete ignorance of its electorate and political realities. people are wise to "grab the natural resources" nowadays - but only in a democracy can you bring your rulers to book for their crimes. give me the choice of that or "rule by the righteous" any time and i know what i'd pick. given their own choice, uninfluenced by invasions, oppressions and maniacs, this is what people will do, just as the palestinians are proving and as, hopefully, the iraqis will do as well if the jihadis fail to terrorise them into submission.

in other words, you can condemn the US all you like, i know it makes you feel better to parrot this crap and toe the party line, but show me a better example of a political system that is working right now in the islamic world. all over the region, forward-looking rulers are trying to democratise, whether you think that's under threat or not. look at musharraf in pakistan, abdullah in jordan, the turks and even assad jr in syria (although it will be a while before he is truly in charge). look at abu mazen. there is hope in democracy, not in force. there has been enough ragged demagoguery, wasted life, corruption and misplaced pride for people to wise up and realise that democracy is actually the system most conducive to being able to live your life according to islamic values. as winston churchill said, the "worst option - until you see the other options".

as for "postmaster" - why do you put israel in quotes? are the jews not also an ancient people? sheesh. as a greek cypriot, you really ought to know better.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[table]

Anyone to challenge me? Does this mean that it’s correct? Also Jesus is seen as a Prophet in Islam.

Jesus is considered a Messenger of Allah.

Jesus said to love your enemies and to forgive all who do harm to you unlimited times, Jesus ideas are very eastern almost similar to Buddhism and yet Islam has its seal of approval towards him because they accept him as a prophet.

What Christians say "Jesus said" is not necessarily acceptable for Muslims. Muslims will not accept any "Jesus said" statements if it contradicts the teachings of Islam.
For example, "to love your enemies and to forgive all who do harm to you unlimited times" is only acceptable up to a certain extent say if you're being treated badly or any other non-life-threatening situations. But it is compulsory for a Muslim to defend his religion, self, property, etc. if it is under enemy attack. In that case, it is an obligation for a Muslim to repel the attack and get rid of the attackers.

But he said he was the human form of God, so how can Islam accept him as a prophet but not accept what he says that he was the human form of God?

A Muslim will never believe that Jesus said he was "the human form of Allah". This is considered a slander to Jesus. Muslims believe that Jesus called his people to worship Allah, but Jesus will never claim divinity or equality with Allah, because it would contradict monotheism itself.

Muslims believe that there is a Supreme Being, a Creator of the Universe. Muslims call it "Allah" (English-speaking ppl call it "God"). Muslims only worship and submit to Allah, and never ever submit to any of His creations. Jesus is a man; Muslims will never worship a man. Once there is an association with the Creator, the Supreme Being, then monotheism fails. It breaks and you can no longer call it monotheism. It's polytheism.

Also regarding Mohamed I have read there is a lot of controversy towards him a lot exposed in The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie who has been given a death sentence by the Islamic society does Islam also preach that?

In Islam, if you say something about someone, you ought to prove it. If you make a public statement (e.g. publishing a book) and you cannot prove it, then a judge will sentence you accordingly in a court after you've been tried. There is no death sentence for slander.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Table.

You said:
"Muslims believe that there is a Supreme Being, a Creator of the Universe. Muslims call it "Allah" (English-speaking ppl call it "God"). Muslims only worship and submit to Allah, and never ever submit to any of His creations. Jesus is a man; Muslims will never worship a man. Once there is an association with the Creator, the Supreme Being, then monotheism fails. It breaks and you can no longer call it monotheism. It's polytheism."

I must say that I have heard this so many times and I understand that when people say it they do not understand the concept of God in Christianity. So I would like to educate you breifly.

God, Allah, Jehovah, YHWH .. One God. Christianity Judaism and Islam worship one God. Christianity recognizes God as the Father of us all.. The creator. Jesus is God in the flesh as the Son of God. God walked upon the earth as a Man our salvation our forgiveness our hope. The Holy Spirit is God in the spirit... who is responsible for our understanding of God.. Our communication with God..our conviction of God. our power through God. The 3 are ONE GOD.

God = The Father, The son Jesus. The Spirit which is 3 aspects of God.

No its not polytheism.. We do not worship men.. We do not worship multiple Gods.. We consider all three ONE GOD.

I would also say that there are some who claim Christianity that do not believe in the trinity. They may either say Jesus is not God or that the Spirit is not God. I cannot speak of their beliefs I can only speak of my own.

Thank you
Faithful Servant

 

[table]

No its not polytheism.. We do not worship men.. We do not worship multiple Gods.. We consider all three ONE GOD.

When Christians say they worship One God, Muslims can accept this without any problems. But there is a problem when a Christian try to explain his idea of One God, because apparently the idea of One God in Islam and Christianity are a bit different.

In Islam, One God means that there is absolutely no association with God. When a Christian says Jesus is also God, this is considered absurd by the Muslim because in his point of view, Jesus is plainly a man. Since it is forbidden for Muslims to worship anything other than The Creator, he automatically rejects this idea of Jesus the man being worthy of worship.

For Muslims, once you say something is God, you're automatically creating another god. It is no longer a monotheism, but polytheism.

I guess this is because the idea of monotheism in Islam is a very simplistic one. "One" means ONLY one, never more.

 

[mirrorinthefog]

I think what Faithful means is that what is worshipped is not the person of Jesus, but the spirit of God within-what makes him divine, as opposed to mortal.

Anyone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong I don't want to offend anyone's beliefs.

 

[Vajradhara]

Islam encourage Muslims to resist against who took their land but not by killing ourselves.

then you had better start getting after the U.N., which created the Modern nation of Israel.

or..better yet... you can go after Rome, which took Judea from the Jews and renamed it Palestine.

fighting over dirt.

 

[thipps]

Assalam-o-Alaikum bananabrain,
If what the historian De Lacy O’Leary has said is an 'opinion', then what all you have said is, at best, an 'opinion' as well.
I dont know if you have read 'Firend's post at:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1834
Its "Friend"'s 3rd post in that thread. Please read the 13 points there. I dont want to bore everyone here with more quotes from more historians to add to those 13, i believe they are more than enough.

 

[Postmaster]

then you had better start getting after the U.N., which created the Modern nation of Israel.

or..better yet... you can go after Rome, which took Judea from the Jews and renamed it Palestine.

fighting over dirt.

The Palestinians were the philistines. The Jews always claiming they are a lost race.. It’s recently been proven by DNA that Jews are actually were philistines too, Jesus was also a Philistine Jew. The only difference is the religion but the reason why they went different ways was because they were from the Israelite tribe. The Jewish people originally from Palestine where they were kicked out of there land and forced to seek refuge in Europe, where many did inter breed with Europeans, that’s why you get fair looking Jews of all walks of life and they also had many problems in a predominantly Christian population who persecuted and killed them. The Jewish man learnt to survive by becoming an extremely good business man. That’s why Many top companies in Europe and the USA are Jewish owned and also the fact that they help each other out. The Jews deserve a tiny tiny slice of Palestine because all they were was a tiny Israelite Tribe originally but the dominating Jew with his pockets full of money is getting his way

 

[table]

I think what Faithful means is that what is worshipped is not the person of Jesus, but the spirit of God within-what makes him divine, as opposed to mortal.

Anyone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong I don't want to offend anyone's beliefs.

Christians actually do worship the person of Jesus.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Yes we do.. he Is God.

We sing praises to him we pray to him we submit our lives to him for he is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. We take communion in his name. He is our Savior. Yes we worship him.

 

[table]

Yes we do.. he Is God.

We sing praises to him we pray to him we submit our lives to him for he is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. We take communion in his name. He is our Savior. Yes we worship him.

Why worship Jesus? Heaven and Hell belong to God anyway so Jesus can't do anything to influence God's decision, says the Muslim. For a theist, I don't find anything wrong with what the Muslim is saying.

 

[Postmaster]

Jesus was the human form of God (in my view). Obviously Islam teachings will twist things, just as Christianity does.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Postmaster,

thank you for the post.

The Palestinians were the philistines. The Jews always claiming they are a lost race.. It’s recently been proven by DNA that Jews are actually were philistines too, Jesus was also a Philistine Jew.

what is your source for this view?

The only difference is the religion but the reason why they went different ways was because they were from the Israelite tribe. The Jewish people originally from Palestine where they were kicked out of there land and forced to seek refuge in Europe, where many did inter breed with Europeans, that’s why you get fair looking Jews of all walks of life and they also had many problems in a predominantly Christian population who persecuted and killed them.

i don't even know what you are saying here. the Jewish people are from Judea, Palestine was created by the Romans. naturally, the Babyalonian Captivity had nothing to do with Europe.

i think that i should point out that Judiasm isn't an ethnicity, it's a religion.

The Jewish man learnt to survive by becoming an extremely good business man.

so... if anyone is a proporous business person they practice the Jewish religion? that's an odd position to take.

The Jews deserve a tiny tiny slice of Palestine because all they were was a tiny Israelite Tribe originally but the dominating Jew with his pockets full of money is getting his way

crikey.

what makes you think they "deserve" something? it sounds like you think that they are entitled to this land because there was a tribe there before. if that is so, what is your position on all the other native peoples that have been displaced when they were conquered?

the land was their's until the Romans took it and renamed it and destroyed the Temple and all of that sort of thing.

however, your allegation of "the dominating Jew with his pockets full" smacks of anti-Semitism and bigotry, which we don't condone on this forum.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Why worship Jesus? Heaven and Hell belong to God anyway so Jesus can't do anything to influence God's decision, says the Muslim. For a theist, I don't find anything wrong with what the Muslim is saying.

It would do no good to quote the bible to you. I have tried in the past when I am discussing these same issues with Muslims. I always get the same response.. That man has corrupted the word.

Jesus is God and his role in Christianity is savior and advocate of man. Without him none of us can acheive heaven to be with our heavenly Father. therefore his influence is greater than anything. We do have biblical reference in the bible and we believe that the bible is 100% accurate.

I understand what your saying.. from the Muslim point of view. It would be hard to understand the diety of Christ if you listened to the words of one man and didnt have the conviction of believing as we do.

If you cannot accept that Jesus is God. Then all I would ask is that you respect us as a people of great faith and accept that we worship our God the way we would. The accusation of polytheism is offensive to us.

Thank you
Faithful Servant