/* */

PDA

View Full Version : What do Muslims want from Non-Muslims.



Woodrow
12-04-2010, 08:35 PM
I am starting this thread to keep the thread "What do Non-Muslims want from Muslims" on topic and not breaking down into a debate. Each of us do want and/or expect something from our non-Muslim members.Let us state them here. In the interest of sharing not of fighting.

Somethings I want from our non-Muslim members.

1. Understand how much respect we have for Allaah(swt), Islam, Muhammad(PBUH) and the Holy Qur'an

2. Know we are not really grouchy, but we do have little tolerance for anything that ridicules our belief.

3. Try to understand we are individuals.

4. Understand that some of us have experienced persecution and as a result will be defensive.

5. Not to try to give the Islamic view in answers to any questions by non-Muslims.

6. Understand we are an Islamic forum and one of our goals is to bring reverts to Islam.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Thucydides1987
12-04-2010, 08:49 PM
I think, in time, you can expect most of those grievances to be respected by non-Muslims. However, something that you probably wouldn't see in the West is the end of religious criticism (which is not ridicule). That is something which is enshrined in secular scholarly and intellectual traditions of the West.
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-04-2010, 09:15 PM
I'm sorry, but most "religious criticism" is pretty much nothing more than ridicule, especially that done by the nonreligious. Not all of it, but way too much not to be an enormous and endless grievance.
Reply

جوري
12-04-2010, 09:19 PM
I want non-Muslims to mind their own business, to take their bases, their filth, their debauchery, their illegal wars, their greed, their evangelism, pagan gods, their w hores and the colonial settler state out of Muslim lands.

:w:
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Thucydides1987
12-04-2010, 09:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I'm sorry, but most "religious criticism" is pretty much nothing more than ridicule, especially that done by the nonreligious. Not all of it, but way too much not to be an enormous and endless grievance.
No, sir. An example of ridicule is the Danish cartoons, or the "Everybody Draw Muhammad" Day -- it's meant to simply anger and make fun of people.

Criticism of Islam is an informed discussion and refutation of Islamic theology, whether from a Christian, or Atheistic, or Secular Humanist, or any other, perspective. So, for example, arguing against the idea of a big bang in the Quran, or questioning the morality of certain Quranic teachings.
Reply

جوري
12-04-2010, 09:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
Criticism of Islam is an informed discussion and refutation of Islamic theology, whether from a Christian, or Atheistic, or Secular Humanist, or any other, perspective. So, for example, arguing against the idea of a big bang in the Quran, or questioning the morality of certain Quranic teachings.

I think you need to define for yourself the term 'refutation' it means a little more than a personal opinion which you are apt at dispensing with-- they're neither evidential nor persuasive!

all the best
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-04-2010, 09:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
No, sir. An example of ridicule is the Danish cartoons, or the "Everybody Draw Muhammad" Day -- it's meant to simply anger and make fun of people.
Those are among the examples. Ridicule doesn't have to be intended as such in order to be ridicule, and not all caricatures are drawn by hand.

Criticism of Islam is an informed discussion and refutation of Islamic theology, whether from a Christian, or Atheistic, or Secular Humanist, or any other, perspective. So, for example, arguing against the idea of a big bang in the Quran, or questioning the morality of certain Quranic teachings.
And as long as that's all they're doing I suppose that's fine. It's often easier to come to the right conclusions when you've seen the wrong ones argued for enough--or it seems that way. But it doesn't matter a great deal whether the Koran says anything about the Big Bang or not, and almost all the "criticisms of the Koran's morality" I've seen are just selective quotations and culturally biased proclamations. There must be people out there who argue ethically and dispassionately, however incorrectly, against Islam (or religion or theism in general, for that matter), but they seem an awful hard breed to find these days.
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-04-2010, 09:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I want non-Muslims to mind their own business, to take their bases, their filth, their debauchery, their illegal wars, their greed, their evangelism, pagan gods, their w hores and the colonial settler state out of Muslim lands.

:w:
Can't you ever just punch a pillow or something?
Reply

جوري
12-04-2010, 09:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Can't you ever just punch a pillow or something?

I go swimming three times a week, it doesn't take care of
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
What do Muslims want from Non-Muslims
all the best
Reply

Alpha Dude
12-04-2010, 09:44 PM
To become Muslim. :p

Seriously though, on this forum, what I would appreciate is if non-muslims didn't debate within topics that weren't intended for debate.

For example, say a muslim creates a thread asking for help with the Islamic method of animal slaughter. It would be nice if we didn't have someone butt into it with an uncalled for attack (e.g. 'this is animal cruelty, inhumane!'). Sure, you are entitled to your beliefs but this specific thread is not the place for you to air your grievance.

The respectful thing would be to create a seperate thread in the comparative religion forum and have a dialogue there.
Reply

GuestFellow
12-04-2010, 09:50 PM
:sl:

I want non-Muslims to enjoy their time on this forum and relax.
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-04-2010, 09:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I want non-Muslims to mind their own business, to take their bases, their filth, their debauchery, their illegal wars, their greed, their evangelism, pagan gods, their w hores and the colonial settler state out of Muslim lands.
Haha, "pagan gods"?? I though those've been gone for a while now. And you need anger management classes.
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-04-2010, 09:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
I want non-Muslims to enjoy their time on this forum and relax.

Dude, I'm trying to have a nice time but it seems to be interrupted by a certain user who can't speak with me civilly.
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-04-2010, 10:04 PM
You weren't speaking to her very civilly either. Perhaps it's time for us all to agree to be more civil.
Reply

جوري
12-04-2010, 10:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
Haha, "pagan gods"?? I though those've been gone for a while now. And you need anger management classes.

nope very much in existence..

here goes in flame 'touch down jesus'



I'd take care of your personal needs first, like coherency and common sense before you concentrate what you can muster of effort on what you perceive a need in others!

all the best
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-04-2010, 10:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
You weren't speaking to her very civilly either. Perhaps it's time for us all to agree to be more civil.
You mean my reference to anger management classes? Well, sure, I apologize for that; but I was merely pointing out that she needs to calm down. Although she was quite rude to me (and for no injury that I have ever caused her), and I tried my best to keep my response as nicely-put as I could -- I could have said much worse things.
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-04-2010, 10:19 PM
Well, you did laugh at her.
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-04-2010, 10:21 PM
Yea...Jesus is not considered to be a pagan god. And I'm sure Christians would have to say a lot about your post.
Reply

Ramadhan
12-05-2010, 05:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
Yea...Jesus is not considered to be a pagan god. And I'm sure Christians would have to say a lot about your post.
so what kind of god is he?
Reply

جوري
12-05-2010, 05:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
Yea...Jesus is not considered to be a pagan god. And I'm sure Christians would have to say a lot about your post.
I'd suggest that you come back and write when you've evolved your writing and thought processes a bit-- your writing is puerile your ideas distracting and non-cohesive at best.
1- you misconstrue criticisms of your logic or lack thereof as insulting or rude, while we beg to differ.. perhaps it is your fragile ego that needs maturation rather than requesting others handle what you write with applause if not kid gloves.
2- Christianity can claim to be monotheistic all it wants, they are in fact a poster religion for modern day paganism. they pray before idols that is a material effigywhich is exactly what we have seen with that 'touch down Jesus' and they worship more than one god which is the very definition of paganism.


good luck with the rest!
Reply

Woodrow
12-05-2010, 05:34 PM
Another addition to the want list.

I would like to see more non-Muslims understand that we do consider trinitarianism to be the worship of 3 Gods. While we love Jesus(as) deeply and have very high respect for him we consider worshiping him to be paganism. Jesus(as) is one of the most beloved of Prophets(PBUT) but he is not a god and should not be worshiped.
Reply

S.Belle
12-06-2010, 01:26 AM
I just want non-muslims to just respect my religion as much as I try to respect their religious beliefs...and to maybe stop thinking Islam oppresses women that really gets under my skin....but any who lets just all TRY to get along and respect one another as best as we can.
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-06-2010, 04:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
2- Christianity can claim to be monotheistic all it wants, they are in fact a poster religion for modern day paganism. they pray before idols that is a material effigywhich is exactly what we have seen with that 'touch down Jesus' and they worship more than one god which is the very definition of paganism.

Praying before 'idols' as you call them is only in Catholicism (and perhaps in Eastern Orthodox sects); if you look at any Protestant sect of Christianity, you'll see there are no idols, or pictures of Jesus.

Why don't you go read up on the history of Christianity, and the Christian faith, before making wild and uninformed statements about the religion.
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-06-2010, 04:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I would like to see more non-Muslims understand that we do consider trinitarianism to be the worship of 3 Gods. While we love Jesus(as) deeply and have very high respect for him we consider worshiping him to be paganism. Jesus(as) is one of the most beloved of Prophets(PBUT) but he is not a god and should not be worshiped.

Don't you think, though, that it would be difficult for Christians to accept your words when you tell them that "Jesus should not be worshipped"? I'm not Christians myself, so maybe some user who is one can comment on this, but I feel like you're telling Christians to respect your idea that their god is false -- that'd be very difficult to do without being offended. It would be no different if a Christian said to a Muslim, "We (Christians) don't think that Muhammad should be considered with any reverence, because we don't believe him to have been a true prophet...but we also want you to respect this view of ours." You see what I'm getting at here?
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-06-2010, 04:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
so what kind of god is he?
Umm, well according to Christians, he is God. I'm not an expert on Christians theology and its history, but you can read a lot of material on that subject. I can certainly tell you that Christians have never considered him to have been a pagan god, since from the beginnings of Christianity during the Roman Empire, the Church had been trying to separate itself from the pagan society within which it had arisen by constantly advocating that its creed is the worship of one God, and that the worship is the many gods of Roman polytheistic society is all false. It's somewhat similar to the beginnings of Islam, and the firm insistence on the worship of a single deity by Muhammad and his Muslim followers -- the breaking of the idols in the Kaaba is, in fact, exactly what was done by Christians inside of the pagan temples throughout the Roman Empire, after they had become the majority and seized power.
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-06-2010, 04:44 AM
I hardly think that's the point. I don't wish to derail the thread any further (he said with no trace of hope of not doing just that thing) but just because someone uses semantics as a cover-up or denial of their beliefs, that does not mean it's not still what they believe. Trinitarianism may not be polytheism in the strict sense but it is still a monument built of words on the foundation of polytheistic logic. The words are piled on, as thick and meaningless as possible, to obscure their pagan bedrock, at least as much to the Christians who say them as to outsiders. Much moreso, in fact. Calling a plurality a singular plurality does not qualify you as referring to an actual singularity; it just makes the plural more incoherent.
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-06-2010, 05:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I hardly think that's the point. I don't wish to derail the thread any further (he said with no trace of hope of not doing just that thing) but just because someone uses semantics as a cover-up or denial of their beliefs, that does not mean it's not still what they believe. Trinitarianism may not be polytheism in the strict sense but it is still a monument built of words on the foundation of polytheistic logic. The words are piled on, as thick and meaningless as possible, to obscure their pagan bedrock, at least as much to the Christians who say them as to outsiders. Much moreso, in fact. Calling a plurality a singular plurality does not qualify you as referring to an actual singularity; it just makes the plural more incoherent.

You make a great point. I certainly would not argue with you in regard to the obscurity of trinitarianism, since I definitely share your view of it being quite polytheistic, as I fail to see how a God with three forms -- the father, the son, and the holy ghost (I don't understand what this third thing is supposed to be) -- can be a single entity.

Having said that though, it's important to make an important distinction in general about Christianity. I see many people on this site talking about trinitarianism as if it is a pan-Christian creed. It's not. As I mentioned already, many Protestant sects reject this -- precisely for the reasons that you have stated.
Reply

جوري
12-06-2010, 05:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
Praying before 'idols' as you call them is only in Catholicism (and perhaps in Eastern Orthodox sects); if you look at any Protestant sect of Christianity, you'll see there are no idols, or pictures of Jesus. Why don't you go read up on the history of Christianity, and the Christian faith, before making wild and uninformed statements about the religion.

I spent my formal years in a christian parochial school. It is a safe bet that I know more of Christianity than you do, as well given your chosen way of life.
Do you have something to impart other than referencing us to vague history and circuitous logic to which you yourself don't subscribe?

all the best
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-06-2010, 05:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I spent my formal years in a christian parochial school. It is a safe bet that I know more of Christianity than you do, as well given your chosen way of life.

Well clearly you haven't been paying attention in your school then. Why don't you check out a few sources, like "The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine", or "The Christian Doctrine of Faith", or "Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture" by Jaroslav Pelikan -- the latter one is quite good in discussing Christianity after the Protestant Reformation.

In fact, you can visit Wikipedia, even, for easy and quick information about this.
Reply

جوري
12-06-2010, 05:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
Well clearly you haven't been paying attention in your school then. Why don't you check out a few sources, like "The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine", or "The Christian Doctrine of Faith", or "Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture" by Jaroslav Pelikan -- the latter one is quite good in discussing Christianity after the Protestant Reformation.

In fact, you can visit Wikipedia, even, for easy and quick information about this.
Again---

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Do you have something to impart other than referencing us to vague history (name dropping) and circuitous logic to which you yourself don't subscribe? all the best
.....
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-06-2010, 05:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Again---
Okay, miss. Then why don't you forward me to a place where I can correct my seemingly ridiculous and absurd views, and so that by the grace of your most enlightened suggestion I can reform my knowledge about Christianity :)
Reply

جوري
12-06-2010, 05:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
Okay, miss. Then why don't you forward me to a place where I can correct my seemingly ridiculous and absurd views, and so that by the grace of your most enlightened suggestion I can reform my knowledge about Christianity

linear thought processes can't be remedied with a course I am afraid. As for reforming your knowledge with Christianity, perhaps for a start you should question why you've chosen atheism as a way of life? Being an atheist already has you at a bias against (well theism) in all its colors!

all the best
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-06-2010, 05:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
linear thought processes can't be remedied with a course I am afraid

It's not really a matter of 'linear thought processes', you can just recommend a book to me, which I'll read -- simple as that ;)

And why have I chosen to be an Atheist? I just don't see where this great being God is; I'm not forcing myself to reject him/her/it, I just don't see or hear or feel such an entity -- now can you really blame a bloke for that?

Also, just because someone's an atheist, doesn't mean that he/she cannot study and understand theology. The assumption that a non-believer ought to be viewed as inferior and misled in his understanding of religion is utter prejudice.
Reply

جوري
12-06-2010, 05:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
It's not really a matter of 'linear thought processes', you can just recommend a book to me, which I'll read -- simple as that ;)
That is exactly what it is a matter of, having an independent thought based on collective knowledge and not a spoon filled distillate as fed you in book form!
And why have I chosen to be an Atheist? I just don't see where this great being God is; I'm not forcing myself to reject him/her/it, I just don't see or hear or feel such an entity -- now can you really blame a bloke for that?
I can't blame you and couldn't careless under either circumstance-- however you can't claim to understand very fundamental tenets of a religion when you in fact don't subscribe to it, under what authority and assertions do you speak? Any outsider looking in at Christians can easily conclude that a triune god is at odds with monotheism, at odds with the laws of mathematics and at odds with the laws of logic. Unless you have personally decoded the christian enigma that has eluded theologians and lay man alike I don't see you as having much to offer.
Also, just because someone's an atheist, doesn't mean that he/she cannot study and understand theology. The assumption that a non-believer ought to be viewed as inferior and misled in his understanding of religion is utter prejudice.
see above response.. I am off to bed

all the best
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-06-2010, 06:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
That is exactly what it is a matter of, having an independent thought based on collective knowledge and not a spoon filled distillate as fed you in book form!
That's not what we were talking about. I asked you to provide me with sources. You see, I'm reasonable guy, so if you show to me a book that is a legitimate academic source, which includes ideas about Trinitarianism that you seem to possess (but which you've been keeping a secret from me so far :p), then I would be persuaded and would change my views -- of course, that is only after I see that most scholars, theologians, and Christian adherents agree on that particular idea first.

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
an independent thought based on collective knowledge
What on earth do you mean by 'collective knowledge' in this context? Scholarly books are a great way of learning about theology; what could be better that? (in case you may be misunderstanding, I'm referring not to high school textbooks but detailed university-level academic sources.)

Sweet dreams :)

P.S. I actually wonder: you said you went to a Christian parochial school, what sect of Christianity did that school belong to?
Reply

جوري
12-06-2010, 06:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
That's not what we were talking about. I asked you to provide me with sources. You see, I'm reasonable guy, so if you show to me a book that is a legitimate academic source, which includes ideas about Trinitarianism that you seem to possess (but which you've been keeping a secret from me so far :p), then I would be persuaded and would change my views -- of course, that is only after I see that most scholars, theologians, and Christian adherents agree on that particular idea first.
sources for what really? I actually have no idea what you want... go ahead and read any book by bart ehrman or watch debates between Ahmed Deedat and Josh McDowell or ahmad deedat and Dr.Floyd E. Clark or ahmad deedat and Pastor Stanley Sjoberg, or Dr. Jeffrey Lang or Dr Laurence B Brown.. what is the point of this exercise in futility? Are you looking to support your own views from what exists of evidence or are you looking to be brain washed of someone else's views because it is academic without a forethought as to why you subscribe to it?
Also I must have maintained a thousand times over that your views should be swayed by logic and conviction not anyone's opinion and that it wouldn't matter to me under either circumstance, you are entitled to your individualism even if it is wrought with error in judgment (amongst other things). Again the mere fact that you subscribe to atheism already has you at a bias to speak with any sort of authority or conviction!

What on earth do you mean by 'collective knowledge' in this context? Scholarly books are a great way of learning about theology; what could be better that? (in case you may be misunderstanding, I'm referring not to high school textbooks but detailed university-level academic sources.)
books are great, transferring the written word to formal cognition and practicality is even more impressive-- unless you are a parrot meant to amuse someone's guests by inane repetitive words?
Sweet dreams :)
indeed.
P.S. I actually wonder: you said you went to a Christian parochial school, what sect of Christianity did that school belong to?
the type that subscribed to a three headed self-immolating ineffectual god!

all the best
Reply

sister herb
12-06-2010, 06:26 AM
I wait tolerance. So many non-muslims have joined to here to looking for information about islam to understand the world they are living with muslims.

This forum is virtual but when you go out, we are there, at real world. In here, at our virtual reality, we are teaching what islam is.
Reply

Ramadhan
12-06-2010, 06:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
Umm, well according to Christians, he is God.
ok.

format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
I'm not an expert on Christians theology and its history, but you can read a lot of material on that subject. I can certainly tell you that Christians have never considered him to have been a pagan god, since from the beginnings of Christianity during the Roman Empire, the Church had been trying to separate itself from the pagan society within which it had arisen by constantly advocating that its creed is the worship of one God, and that the worship is the many gods of Roman polytheistic society is all false.
so are you saying that jesus was already worshipped as God since he was still on earth?

when did all those "church" business started to materialise?
I thought Jesus a.s. was a jew?

format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
It's somewhat similar to the beginnings of Islam, and the firm insistence on the worship of a single deity by Muhammad and his Muslim followers -- the breaking of the idols in the Kaaba is, in fact, exactly what was done by Christians inside of the pagan temples throughout the Roman Empire, after they had become the majority and seized power
exactly.
Jesus a.s. was similar to Muhammad SAW in that both tried to guide people to go back into the tawheed (oneness of God).
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-06-2010, 06:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
when did all those "church" business started to materialise
Well, the Christian Church, as an institution started at around the 2nd century A.D. It was an underground institution, because Christians were only a persecuted minority. It really started to gain momentum and power in the 3rd century, and finally when Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity on his deathbed, Christianity finally had the support of the Imperial court -- so as a result, the Church gained huge political and social influence. From Constantine onward, it was expected for Roman Emperors to be Christian, and to preside in Christian theological matters. So, after the 4th century onward, the Christian Church began to solidify its doctrine into a universal form, because Christianity was very divided at the time (it never had a center before this period). That's how Catholicism was born. But of course, almost a thousand years later, there was the Protestant Reformation, which broke away from Catholic doctrine -- but that's a whole other story :p

With regard to Jesus, there is very little factual information available. What we can piece together though, is that he was a Jew who tried to reform Judaism. Scholars don't believe that he had tried to start a new religion altogether -- that seems to have been a phenomenon that occurred after his death, and involved many different individuals like St.Paul and others.
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-06-2010, 07:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Are you looking to support your own views from what exists of evidence or are you looking to be brain washed of someone else's views because it is academic without a forethought as to why you subscribe to it?
If only you would use the same logic to your adherence to the Quran :)
Reply

titus
12-06-2010, 08:26 AM
I would like to see more non-Muslims understand that we do consider trinitarianism to be the worship of 3 Gods. While we love Jesus(as) deeply and have very high respect for him we consider worshiping him to be paganism. Jesus(as) is one of the most beloved of Prophets(PBUT) but he is not a god and should not be worshiped.
Woodrow,

In this matter I would think it is the view of the person doing the worshiping, not some outsider, that should decide the matter. If a Christian says they believe there is only one God who is anyone else to call them a polytheist? One could easily claim that Muslims pray to a rock 5 times a day, while a Muslim would deny this saying they are praying to Allah while facing a rock. No matter what the non-Muslim says, nor how many times they say it, nor how many people they convince, the fact remains that the Muslim is praying to God, not to a rock.

So you can call a Christian a polytheist all you want, but as long as that Christian believes that there is only one God they are not, no matter the view of Muslims or any other non-Christian group. I find the idea of someone telling someone else they are a polytheist and just don't realize it to be a bit absurd. Even the Quran states that Christians believe in one God (and even back then the majority of Christians believed in the trinity).
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
12-06-2010, 09:46 AM
to get their snidey bs out of here. poowee the forum smells bad because of it. have some mercy people.

and another thing, when debating would you please shorten your replies and make them not so long drawn...they tend to put us to sleep that way. the number of times Ive been put off replying to people becuase of this. it tends to bore the hell out of people.
Reply

Woodrow
12-06-2010, 02:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Another addition to the want list.

I would like to see more non-Muslims understand that we do consider trinitarianism to be the worship of 3 Gods. While we love Jesus(as) deeply and have very high respect for him we consider worshiping him to be paganism. Jesus(as) is one of the most beloved of Prophets(PBUT) but he is not a god and should not be worshiped.

format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Woodrow,

In this matter I would think it is the view of the person doing the worshiping, not some outsider, that should decide the matter. If a Christian says they believe there is only one God who is anyone else to call them a polytheist? One could easily claim that Muslims pray to a rock 5 times a day, while a Muslim would deny this saying they are praying to Allah while facing a rock. No matter what the non-Muslim says, nor how many times they say it, nor how many people they convince, the fact remains that the Muslim is praying to God, not to a rock.

So you can call a Christian a polytheist all you want, but as long as that Christian believes that there is only one God they are not, no matter the view of Muslims or any other non-Christian group. I find the idea of someone telling someone else they are a polytheist and just don't realize it to be a bit absurd. Even the Quran states that Christians believe in one God (and even back then the majority of Christians believed in the trinity).
Titus,

It was not my intent to debate trintarian beliefs.

I find some non-Muslims do not seem to understand we do not believe in the trinity.

It was my desire that some non-Muslims come to understand that we are not trinitarian. It seems to come as a surprise to some and leads to needless arguments.
Reply

جوري
12-06-2010, 03:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
If only you would use the same logic to your adherence to the Quran :)
Your understanding of the Quran is undoubtedly even less than that of the bible..
Please don't waste my time on those oh so clever one liners.. again, if you have something of substance to impart bring it to the table-- we are not here to entertain your preconceived suppositions!

all the best
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-06-2010, 03:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
I find the idea of someone telling someone else they are a polytheist and just don't realize it to be a bit absurd.
Why?? People use the power of jargon to allow them to be in denial about what they're trying to say all the time. I wonder sometimes if that's half the purpose of human language in the first place: to obfuscate instead of elucidate. Do I really have to cite examples?

Even the Quran states that Christians believe in one God (and even back then the majority of Christians believed in the trinity.
Where?
Reply

titus
12-06-2010, 04:14 PM
I find some non-Muslims do not seem to understand we do not believe in the trinity.

It was my desire that some non-Muslims come to understand that we are not trinitarian.
I understand, but when you say "I would like to see more non-Muslims understand that we do consider trinitarianism to be the worship of 3 Gods" you are, in effect, calling the majority of Christians polytheists. I think that claim is what leads to the misunderstandings, not the fact that Christians think Muslims believe in the Trinity.

Where?
[29:46] Do not argue with the people of the scripture (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) except in the nicest possible manner - unless they transgress - and say, "We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our god and your god is one and the same; to Him we are submitters.
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-06-2010, 04:31 PM
That was originally revealed to them, yes, but that doesn't mean they still follow it. We both do worship Allah/Jehovah: the problem is adding two imaginary aspects to Him and relegating His own role and existence to the title of "God the Father".
Reply

جوري
12-06-2010, 04:49 PM
As for the miracles of Jesus, the Qur'an confirms them; so every Muslim must believes in them.

A Muslim also is told beyond a shadow of doubt in the Qur'an that Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) is innocent of the later dogmas of Christianity such as Trinity, Incarnation, Original Sin, etc. as Jesus never taught them; they were added on by the Christians as they came under the influence of pagan religions and cults they came into contact with. May Allah help us all to cling to the pure monotheism (tawhid) preached by all prophets and messengers from Adam to Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them all).

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503549308

God is one, as such even the God of atheists is the same God as that of Muslims, whatever subtractions of additions people do on the side have nothing to do with that precept!

all the best

Reply

IAmZamzam
12-06-2010, 05:06 PM
Some of the Gospels' miracles are confirmed in the Koran, yes, such as, for instance, the healing of the sick and maybe the feeding of the five thousand. Others, such as the walking on water, the Koran is silent about, and other still, such as the animating of the clay birds, are from Gospels not considered "canonical" by Christians. And that's exactly what one should expect of a true account, I think: some things from the usually believed sources confirmed, others denied or unmentioned, a precious few from accounts not usually considered true by most people, and some new information that hasn't been proposed before.
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-06-2010, 06:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Your understanding of the Quran is undoubtedly even less than that of the bible.. Please don't waste my time on those oh so clever one liners.. again, if you have something of substance to impart bring it to the table-- we are not here to entertain your preconceived suppositions!

Well, in your previous post, I really admired your advocacy for independent thought, and firm emphasis on evidence when approaching any written text, or any claim. I just thought that you ought to perhaps engage in the the same exercise with regard to your holy book, for it too is a text -- just like any scholarly work which you tell me I ought to view with suspicion. It's intriguing to me how you choose to suspend this thought-process when reading the Quran.
Reply

جوري
12-06-2010, 06:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
Well, in your previous post, I really admired your advocacy for independent thought, and firm emphasis on evidence when approaching any written text, or any claim. I just thought that you ought to perhaps engage in the the same exercise with regard to your holy book, for it too is a text -- just like any scholarly work which you tell me I ought to view with suspicion. It's intriguing to me how you choose to suspend this thought-process when reading the Quran.
and you know of my' thought suspension' as comes to the Quran and hadith by what baseline and standard?
Reply

Perseveranze
12-06-2010, 08:45 PM
Asalaamu Alaikum,

What I'd want from non-Muslims is to be a bit open minded. Whenever I speak to some that are interested in knowing about Islam, they tend to have that western influenced Jahiliyaa(ignorance) in them, like when they hear "Islam cut people's hands" they have this really negative mood about Islam and when you try to justify it they seem unwilling to comprehend.

I mean, I was born and grew up in the west, studying Islam, I did find the hands cutting harsh, but I didn't close that book there and then, nor did my opinion suddenly become negative. I studied into it a bit more with an open mind and saw the logical reasonings of it. More importantly stealing in Islamic countries with this law is almost non-existent in comparison to the west, I mean in my area it's happening 24/7. So the question was raised, would you rather live in a safe neighborhood extinct of theives or not.

Sure, the westerner will still say it's harsh, but they certainly shouldn't deny the logical reasonings put forth for such a law and not deem Islam "negativily" because of it. The great thing about Islam is, we don't do things "blindly" or without any basis, there's always some kind of reasoning for any of our actions/beliefs. Someone asked me what the logic behind a Muslim postrating to the ground is and I just said, whats the logic when the person meets the Queen and decides to bow down to her? He says, "to show our honour and respect of meeting her". And I said, that's just your queen, we are in the presence of our CREATOR, going all the way to the ground in postration is the best form of worship/respect we can possibly give him. Ofcourse the other reasons would be that the Prophet(pbuh) postrated, and all the Prophet(peace be upon them) postrated aswell before their Lord.

Just ask the non-Muslims to be a bit more open minded and open hearted, try to forget everything you've known about Islam from the media or non-Islam sources and most important, try to see something from our point of view if you can, it's the best way for you to try and understand us.

Anyways, hope I havn't offended any non-Muslims with anything I've said, your not all ignorant or anything like that, if I have hurt anyone then I deeply apologise beforehand as it was not my intention. Thanks to all the people that have come a long way into seeing the Islam that the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) invited and left us all to.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Another addition to the want list.

I would like to see more non-Muslims understand that we do consider trinitarianism to be the worship of 3 Gods. While we love Jesus(as) deeply and have very high respect for him we consider worshiping him to be paganism. Jesus(as) is one of the most beloved of Prophets(PBUT) but he is not a god and should not be worshiped.


^When I watched videos like that I think... How does a Christian not start questioning it? So I really gotta give my hat up for the Priests or whoever is able to somehow cover these questions in a way that keeps the Christian still convinced. Like really, well done.

The Christians believe that Jesus(pbuh) is a God and that he is their saviour whilst everyone else is going to hellfire.

Allah(swt) gives his answer, which is satisfying enough for me;

They are unbelievers who say, “God is the Messiah, Mary’s son.” Say: “Who then shall override God in any way if He desires to destroy the Messiah, Mary’s son, and his mother, and all those who are on earth?” - Quran (5:17)

Check mate.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-06-2010, 10:29 PM
I've been trying to read this thread without commenting. But this needs a comment:

format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
Don't you think, though, that it would be difficult for Christians to accept your words when you tell them that "Jesus should not be worshipped"? I'm not Christians myself, so maybe some user who is one can comment on this, but I feel like you're telling Christians to respect your idea that their god is false -- that'd be very difficult to do without being offended. It would be no different if a Christian said to a Muslim, "We (Christians) don't think that Muhammad should be considered with any reverence, because we don't believe him to have been a true prophet...but we also want you to respect this view of ours." You see what I'm getting at here?

As a Christian, I indeed disagree with the characterization that Muslims have of Christianity as a polytheistic, pagan religion engaged in idol worship. And if they really wish for me to take their posts seriously, they will not fill them with invectives that continually seek to lampoon my faith.

On the other hand, just because I disagree with Muslim's view of Christianity doesn't mean that I can't respect that it is their view. So, when making an "I believe" statement I have no problem that a Muslim calls the Christian faith shirk. I only object when Muslims make "You believe" statements and then assert that with regard to me: "You believe in three gods." I don't. I believe in one God. Muslims may have certain opinions with regard to my beliefs, but they are just that, their opinions. My beliefs are owned by me and not them. Muslims don't get to define for Christians what we believe any more than Christians get to define what Islam is.

Imagine how little progress would be made in understanding one another, not just with regard to theology, but anything else, if every time a Muslim declared "You Christians worship idols." that a Christian responde with "You Muslims worship the moon-god." I don't think that would be a very healthy conversation.

So, I try to accept it as "true" (at least true from the point of view of the individual speaking) when a person tells me about his/her beliefs, whether I personally accept that "truth" or not. Hence, if Woodrow says that he views me as worshipping 3 gods because of my Christian faith, then I accept that he views it this way and I don't have to get angry about it. I would only get angry if he, in some other context, would say, "you polytheists don't even understand your own gods." The difference between those two statements being him giving his verision of truth that Woodrow owns as his own view in the first case, and in the second case Woodrow imposing his view on me and showing no concern with regard to how I might view myself. So, it is not Woodrow's personal beliefs that would make me angry, but the lack of showing any regard or concern for how I view myself that would be what would make me angry.
.
Reply

أحمد
12-06-2010, 10:47 PM
:sl:

I don't really expect anything from non-Muslims, whether it be understanding, or respect. I think once people learn to respect each other due to their own choice, rather than an expectation; its a more sincere change within that particular individual. This applies to any human being, regardless of his or her faith.

:wa:
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-06-2010, 10:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
As a Christian, I indeed disagree with the characterization that Muslims have of Christianity as a polytheistic, pagan religion engaged in idol worship.
Like I said, it is not literally and categorically a pagan, polytheistic religion, but neither is Hinduism. I doubt you see any importance in the distinction that Hindus make between believing in a multitude of gods and believing in a single god in multiple forms or persons or aspects, etc. So why make the distinction with the Trinity? People still call Hinduism a pagan religion, and for good reason. Some fine distinctions are fine precisely because they were drawn with faint and blurry chalk to begin with, probably on purpose. It might be easier to consider the Trinity something other than a feeble and absurd attempt to have it both ways if there was any objective, universally agreed upon, and fully coherent definition of how it works or even what it is (or for that matter, even a definition of “Holy Spirit” which fits those criteria), but it’s all just a contradictory pile of messes of words, which Christians will adamantly defend the full coherency and legibility of one moment and then defend based on its being beyond our mortal comprehension the next, depending on which of the two completely mutually exclusive defense mechanisms is necessary at the particular moment. If you want us to understand the doctrine (i.e. agree with you on it), at least make up your minds whether or not it is understandable at all. If it isn’t, you can’t complain to us about not getting it.

Imagine how little progress would be made in understanding one another, not just with regard to theology, but anything else, if every time a Muslim declared "You Christians worship idols." that a Christian responde with "You Muslims worship the moon-god." I don't think that would be a very healthy conversation.
I would have more respect for this expressed concern of yours to make progress in understanding, Grace Seeker, if you did not talk as though equal understanding by a dissenting party is not inherently possible. And had we Muslims been saying that Allah is only partly a moon god then you would have had a point, assuming that the “moon god” theory were anything other than an easily disprovable missionary tactic shared by practically no one other than missionaries themselves in the first place.

If Woodrow says that he views me as worshipping 3 god because of my Christian faith, then I accept that he views it this way and I don't have to get angry about it. I would only get angry if he, in some other context, would say, "you polytheists don't even understand your own gods."
Is the Trinity comprehensible? Whatever answer you give, I’m going to hold you to it from now on.
Reply

جوري
12-06-2010, 10:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
"You believe in three gods." I don't. I believe in one God.

you keep asserting that, but by the same token assert that there is a god names Jesus (son) god who is a father (in heaven) and a holy spirit (hovering God) that does equal three despite your assertions to the contrary.. as for you comment on 'moon god' well that is what the Quran says of the matter:


041.037

YUSUFALI: Among His Signs are the Night and the Day, and the Sun and the Moon. Do not prostrate to the sun and the moon, but prostrate to Allah, Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve.

notice that the 'moon god' much like the triheaded god is not more but an invention of Christians.. they have a nice active imagination!

all the best
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-07-2010, 01:17 AM
From my knowledge of Early Christian history, there seems to be only one reason why Trinitarianism was accepted to be the mainstream view of Christians. Grace Seeker, correct me if I'm wrong anywhere.

The problem dates back to the 4th century, when the Church was trying to sort out which among the various Christian worldviews was the 'true' one. Trinitarianism was one of the two most popular views, the other being Arianism. In Arianism, the idea was that God was separate from Christ, and existed before the beginning of the universe. It was therefore God who created Christ -- i.e. begot him -- and through Christ, begot the Holy Spirit (which, to me, is still an ambiguous concept).

In the battle between Trinitarianism and Arianism, it was the former that eventually won, primarily because it argued that Arianism's simultaneous claim to God, Christ, and Holy Spirit, was a belief in 3 different and separate entities; hence this was polytheism, and so unacceptable. In contrast to this, therefore, members of Trinitarianism asserted that those 3 elements are all part of one unit; that is, they are interconnected and are merely 3 facets of one being.

I would understand the idea of claiming that Trinitarianism is polytheism, but IMO, the theology is missing some conspicuous polytheistic elements which you would otherwise see in Graeco-Roman religion, for example. I would say that it's not quite polytheistic, although it is surely bordering on being so.
Reply

Ramadhan
12-07-2010, 02:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
I would understand the idea of claiming that Trinitarianism is polytheism, but IMO, the theology is missing some conspicuous polytheistic elements which you would otherwise see in Graeco-Roman religion, for example. I would say that it's not quite polytheistic, although it is surely bordering on being so.
when it come to the truth, there is no such thing as "bordering truth" or "bordering untruth", it is either truth or not truth.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-07-2010, 02:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
From my knowledge of Early Christian history, there seems to be only one reason why Trinitarianism was accepted to be the mainstream view of Christians. Grace Seeker, correct me if I'm wrong anywhere.
This isn't the thread to make all the corrections needed in your post. You're right that Arianism and was one of the major competitors with what today we call orthodox Christianity in the early part of the 4th century. You are also right that Arianism viewed Christ as a created being, but still divine. The counterargument then was that Arianism was even at the time an unorthodox view, and though it held sway in some isolated regions (and even with Emperor Constantine himself) it was never the dominant view.
.
Reply

YusufNoor
12-07-2010, 03:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I've been trying to read this thread without commenting. But this needs a comment:

actually, you have your own thread to make these explanations.

As a Christian, I indeed disagree with the characterization that Muslims have of Christianity as a polytheistic, pagan religion engaged in idol worship. And if they really wish for me to take their posts seriously, they will not fill them with invectives that continually seek to lampoon my faith.

if you want us to stop treating your religion as polytheistic, you will need to remove a few of your gods and STOP engaging in idol worship.

On the other hand, just because I disagree with Muslim's view of Christianity doesn't mean that I can't respect that it is their view. So, when making an "I believe" statement I have no problem that a Muslim calls the Christian faith shirk. I only object when Muslims make "You believe" statements and then assert that with regard to me: "You believe in three gods." I don't. I believe in one God.

your god has 3 parts that you claim are separate but equal, which is of course nonsense. don't blame us if we don't understand your nonsense. we can't help it, IT IS NONSENSE!

Muslims may have certain opinions with regard to my beliefs, but they are just that, their opinions. My beliefs are owned by me and not them. Muslims don't get to define for Christians what we believe any more than Christians get to define what Islam is.

Imagine how little progress would be made in understanding one another, not just with regard to theology, but anything else, if every time a Muslim declared "You Christians worship idols." that a Christian responde with "You Muslims worship the moon-god." I don't think that would be a very healthy conversation.

you have no evidence for your "moon god" quirp, you know that the allegation is made, you repeat the allegation, but you DON'T KNOW of it's evidence.

So, I try to accept it as "true" (at least true from the point of view of the individual speaking) when a person tells me about his/her beliefs, whether I personally accept that "truth" or not. Hence, if Woodrow says that he views me as worshipping 3 gods because of my Christian faith, then I accept that he views it this way and I don't have to get angry about it. I would only get angry if he, in some other context, would say, "you polytheists don't even understand your own gods." The difference between those two statements being him giving his verision of truth that Woodrow owns as his own view in the first case, and in the second case Woodrow imposing his view on me and showing no concern with regard to how I might view myself. So, it is not Woodrow's personal beliefs that would make me angry, but the lack of showing any regard or concern for how I view myself that would be what would make me angry.

it's not our fault that you hold erroneous views.
The counterargument then was that Arianism was even at the time an unorthodox view, and though it held sway in some isolated regions (and even with Emperor Constantine himself) it was never the dominant view.
.
this is simply not recognized as truthful anymore. not only was Constantine baptized by an Arian, but his kids were Arian as well. the VAST majority of the tribes outside the Roman Empire to the north that accepted Christianity were Arian.

perhaps if the Christians here would learn the truth about history instead of fairy tales spread by Jesuit Priests [and Eusebius], they would begin to understand their world view is totally amiss from the current viewpoint of historians.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-07-2010, 03:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
this is simply not recognized as truthful anymore. not only was Constantine baptized by an Arian, but his kids were Arian as well. the VAST majority of the tribes outside the Roman Empire to the north that accepted Christianity were Arian.

perhaps if the Christians here would learn the truth about history instead of fairy tales spread by Jesuit Priests [and Eusebius], they would begin to understand their world view is totally amiss from the current viewpoint of historians.
You're entitled to your views, but not to mis-state mine. I said that Constantine was an Arian. You implied that I said the opposite. And IT IS TRUTHFUL that the counterargument to Arianism is that it was unorthodox. Given that they battle was for the determination of orthodoxy, it seems incredible that anyone would even doubt that counterarguments were always that the other was unorthodox.
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-07-2010, 04:22 PM
I just wanted to quickly express my pleasant surprise at just how many muslims members here have popped in and expressed some very reasonable expectations/requests of non-muslims. At non muslims we SHOULD recognize that all muslims are individuals (as is everyone), we SHOULD recognize that muslim women are not all opressed, and we SHOULD be mindful not to intrude on threads meant to be internal amongst muslim members (which is why I rarely venture out of the general, comp religion and world events subforums). I also agree that we SHOULD speak with respect and recognize that muslims hold their views and Mohammed with great reverence and refrain from mocking etc. So long as I am not told to be dishonest or to not express my views I am happy to accomodate such requests/expectations. Most of them flow from common respect.

We of course have had the usual suspects picking fights and slingnig mud in here (new guy, just learn to ignore them) but it is clear within this thread that they are the minority, however vocal.

I also agree with Grace Seeker's point that we should be careful not to try to cram words into each other's mouths. We should not project views onto people and tell them what they believe or what they argue, when they have made no such statement of belief or argument (this is what is meant by a "straw man"). Nor should we declare and project motives or agendas upon each other. Address what is written without reading something into it that isn't there.

I take Grace Seeker at his word that he believes that the father, son and holy spirit are one. I find this incoherent and I don't believe any of the three are more than fictional characters within hsi religion, but I trust him when he says he believes it. We should let people speak for themselves when they express their views. I have been on boards where islamophobes constantly assert that Islam says its is OK to lie to forward the faith and that muslims who are not rabid terrorists are just faking it to draw us all in and destroy us. Completely unfair. Let muslims tell you what they believe and want and take it at face value. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Same with Christians. Same with Jews. Same with atheists.

It is why I ask a lot of questions instead of assumptions about what people believe. It should also be kept in mind as noted by Woodrow that we are all individuals and even within these religions people will have differing views. It can be interesting to explore those differences.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-07-2010, 04:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
actually, you have your own thread to make these explanations.
Yes, and that thread was filled with responses made by Muslims before I posted here.


Thucydides1987 presupposed how a Christian might respond to Woodrow's post. I addressed that presupposition. Even in a thread sharing what Muslims want from non-Muslims, it seemed appropriate to respond.


I'm amazed at how easily so many Muslims here are threatened. Read more carefully. While I confess my disagreements with Islam, I don't attack it. If my post is against anything, it is to counter what Thucydides1987 wrote with regard to Woodrow's post:
Don't you think, though, that it would be difficult for Christians to accept your words when you tell them that "Jesus should not be worshipped"?

I set that in context, that it all depends on whether one is making an "I" or a "You" statement and that generally I find Woodrow to be one who makes "I" statements. Interesting that while others take public issue with my post, that Woodrow privately thanked me. But that just reflects on the quality of Woodrow's character. As for others who criticize me, well let's look again at what I actually said.

Many are concerned that I made a reference to the allegation that Muslims worship a moon-god. But, again, in what context was that said? It was said it in a context that criticized people who use that allegation as a response to those speak negatively of Christianity. Indeed, I said that "I don't think that would be a very healthy conversation." Yet some of you seem to find it offensive. To me, that is being overly sensitive, as I never actually made any such allegation in what I wrote. (And for your information, I do not personally believe it and just argued against it on a Christian forum earlier this morning.) If you don't like dealing with people saying false things about you so much so that you attack even at its reference, though no allegation of that kind was actually made, perhaps you can better understand why Christians would object to what we perceive as false descriptions that some Muslims project regarding Christian beliefs.

.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-07-2010, 04:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
we SHOULD recognize that not all muslims are individuals,
Is that what you meant to say, or does it reflect a typo?
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-07-2010, 04:37 PM
lol typo, fixed
Reply

GuestFellow
12-07-2010, 05:26 PM
Another thing I want from non-Muslims in general, this forum is not always about debating. Some need to take part in the joke section or the creative section of the forum. It would have been interesting to see a non-Muslim participate in the story competition.
Reply

Tyrion
12-07-2010, 08:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
Another thing I want from non-Muslims in general, this forum is not always about debating. Some need to take part in the joke section or the creative section of the forum. It would have been interesting to see a non-Muslim participate in the story competition.
^Or they could participate in that awesome new thread about zombies... :p
Reply

aamirsaab
12-07-2010, 09:26 PM
The same thing I want from everyone: for them to kiss my ass.

Trolling aside, I just want them (like everyone) to be cool. And not something that rhymes with wicks.
Reply

Zafran
12-07-2010, 09:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
No, sir. An example of ridicule is the Danish cartoons, or the "Everybody Draw Muhammad" Day -- it's meant to simply anger and make fun of people.

Criticism of Islam is an informed discussion and refutation of Islamic theology, whether from a Christian, or Atheistic, or Secular Humanist, or any other, perspective. So, for example, arguing against the idea of a big bang in the Quran, or questioning the morality of certain Quranic teachings.
Your not serious about those two examples? Morality is still being figured out in the west (unless you actually belong to a specifc camp that is) and arguing against the idea of big bang is unheard of.
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-07-2010, 09:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
Another thing I want from non-Muslims in general, this forum is not always about debating. Some need to take part in the joke section or the creative section of the forum. It would have been interesting to see a non-Muslim participate in the story competition.
Those threads and sections for the most part appear off bounds to non-muslims as they are in sections I wouldn't consider welcome in (the zombie thread excepted). I picture this board as a virtual mosque and most of the sections of it as meant for muslims interacting with muslims. It is only these specific forums and threads that are aimed at interacting with outsiders that I join in.
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-07-2010, 09:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
The same thing I want from everyone: for them to kiss my ass.

Trolling aside, I just want them (like everyone) to be cool. And not something that rhymes with wicks.
You're willing to say the A-word but not the other one?

Am I allowed to say it too then?
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-07-2010, 09:57 PM
I appreciate the rep points, brother aamir, but I would still like an answer to my question. Am I allowed to say the A-word too? But not d**k? If the moderators can say it then we should be able to as well.
Reply

aamirsaab
12-07-2010, 10:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I appreciate the rep points, brother aamir, but I would still like an answer to my question. Am I allowed to say the A-word too? But not d**k? If the moderators can say it then we should be able to as well.
No because I'm special. And I was trolling (which I said in the post).

BACK TO THE TOPIC!
Reply

GuestFellow
12-07-2010, 10:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
The same thing I want from everyone: for them to kiss my ass.
Salaam

LOL

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Those threads and sections for the most part appear off bounds to non-muslims as they are in sections I wouldn't consider welcome in (the zombie thread excepted). I picture this board as a virtual mosque and most of the sections of it as meant for muslims interacting with muslims. It is only these specific forums and threads that are aimed at interacting with outsiders that I join in.
I'm sure the creative section and the joke section is open to non-Muslims. I never considered this forum to be like a virtual mosque, though it is interesting you raised that point.
Reply

Ansariyah
12-07-2010, 10:23 PM
I want non-Muslims to come out in the open n discuss normal things with us that effect us all. By out in the open I mean 'participate' in other parts of this forum besides the comparative religion section. I want to see u in a different light, in a different mood. Majority of the non-Muslims on this forum come across to me as not very light'hearted n somewhat uptigh n robotic. I also feel that they seem a bit uncomfortable, just relax n be urself, lets see ur human side. : )!
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-08-2010, 12:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Morality is still being figured out in the west
In the West, the idea of morality is approached in a much more open-minded manner than in any "specific camp" (by which I'm assuming you mean a religious group.) We're a secular and pluralistic society, so there is no unilaterally-defined moral teaching like in religion; it had been so throughout the Middle Ages when Christianity controlled morality in society, but ever since the Renaissance and the Enlightenment (when philosophers finally started to challenge religious teachings), morality became more than just a matter of what is written in the bible or what God wants from you. The writings of these philosophers identified the very blatant moral failures of religion, and so religious morality had been gradually cast aside over the past 200 years.

format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
arguing against the idea of big bang is unheard of.
In the scientific community, yes, the big bang is more or less agreed upon by all. I was talking about the 'big bang' in the Quran.
Reply

Thucydides1987
12-08-2010, 01:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
when it come to the truth, there is no such thing as "bordering truth" or "bordering untruth", it is either truth or not truth.

I don't understand what you're talking about...what truth? That Trinitarianism is polytheistic? If that's what you mean, then that's not truth, it's only an assertion.
Reply

جوري
12-08-2010, 02:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
I don't understand what you're talking about...what truth? That Trinitarianism is polytheistic? If that's what you mean, then that's not truth, it's only an assertion.
everyone can clearly see that Br. naidamar's comments were a direct reply to your own..
please allow me to quote and refresh your memory:

format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
I would understand the idea of claiming that Trinitarianism is polytheism, but IMO, the theology is missing some conspicuous polytheistic elements which you would otherwise see in Graeco-Roman religion, for example. I would say that it's not quite polytheistic, although it is surely bordering on being so.
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
when it come to the truth, there is no such thing as "bordering truth" or "bordering untruth", it is either truth or not truth.
Now, it would be an assertion indeed, except that is not.. we don't need to summon the theologians merely the dictionary will do:
polytheism: Belief in multiple Gods (Jesus/the father/the holy spirit) offers a plurality of heavenly/earthly beings indicating the religion is not monotheistic!
Monotheism: Belief in one God!

certainly Christianity stands out as monolithic in its triheaded god and can't at all be classified as anything but polytheistic-- whether or not you protest and rally along with our christian friends!

all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
12-08-2010, 08:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
I don't understand what you're talking about...what truth? That Trinitarianism is polytheistic? If that's what you mean, then that's not truth, it's only an assertion.
sis lily above has expressed very well.

It's either God is one or God is three, there is no such thing as God is bordering one or God is bordering three.
Reply

YusufNoor
12-08-2010, 12:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You're entitled to your views, but not to mis-state mine. I said that Constantine was an Arian. You implied that I said the opposite. And IT IS TRUTHFUL that the counterargument to Arianism is that it was unorthodox. Given that they battle was for the determination of orthodoxy, it seems incredible that anyone would even doubt that counterarguments were always that the other was unorthodox.
just because you are protestant preacher pimping the primacy of proto-orthdoxy doesn't make it presently prevalent! let alone TRUTHFUL, or even ACCURATE! prior to Nicaea, Eusebius IS the man, a "Church Father" so to speak, HIS "orthodoxy" wasn't Nicaean! [my hard drive got wiped clean, but i'll use some new links to illustrate]:

Although Eusebius signed on to the Nicene Creed (after being excommunicated for heresy), he differed from it in certain respects. He denied that the Son and the Father were of the same essence, positing instead that the Son proceeded from the Father’s free will (creative act?). He also did not want to compromise the oneness of the Godhead, which he thought the notion of the Son’s divinity would do. And, unlike Trinitarians, he did not view the Holy Spirit as an eternal being, but rather as a creation by the Son.
http://jamesbradfordpate.wordpress.c...-and-arianism/

does THAT look "orthodox" to you?

in addressing:

You're entitled to your views, but not to mis-state mine. I said that Constantine was an Arian. You implied that I said the opposite.
you seem to be blinded by your absence of understanding current "orthodoxy" [;D] in regards to early Christian History! you might want to try 21st Century Scholarship and forget the propaganda that you were taught, eh? what you inferred was NOT what i was implying! ^o) i know, for i wrote it! :omg:

perhaps if you looked what i wrote
this is simply not recognized as truthful anymore. not only was Constantine baptized by an Arian, but his kids were Arian as well. the VAST majority of the tribes outside the Roman Empire to the north that accepted Christianity
were Arian.
instead of leaping to the pulpit of pugilistic pyrotechnics, you would see that i merely noted that Arianism CONTINUED on in Constantine's dynasty as well as it being prevalent in non-Italian Europe where it would continue to prevail.

the [what i like to call] "readers digest version/understanding" of Nicaea is that the question of Arianism arose and concluded in a nice little episode similar to a one hour TV mystery. that is simply NOT TRUE! as we've seen already "THE" Church Father of the time did not hold this view! another problem with this understanding it that it assumes "Nicene" primacy immediately and forever after. THAT is NOT TRUE either! IN FACT, as "a result of rises and falls in Arianism's influence after the First Council of Nicaea," Emperor Constantine I banished Athanasius from Alexandria to Trier in the Rhineland! BANISHED! the issue is simply not settled!

while the ideas of Athanasius EVENTUALLY became "orthodoxy," we see no Athanasian Emperor for over half a century! not until Theodosius I "reinstates" the Athanasian view of the trinity in the latter part of the 4th Century! and this is just the beginning, Europe will be "Arian" for some time.

as for earlier "orthodoxy" even Origin is later condemned by the "Church!"

what you "want to be true" and what is ACTUALLY true are different critters.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-08-2010, 06:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
the [what i like to call] "readers digest version/understanding" of Nicaea is that the question of Arianism arose and concluded in a nice little episode similar to a one hour TV mystery. that is simply NOT TRUE!
And I never implied that Arianism was a fleeting thing. It's legacy still exists to this day.

And I've also never implied that orthodoxy (then or now) is simple versus complex. There were then and still are today many competing theories as to how to explain Jesus' divinity. In fact, Arianism was also one of those attempts. It wasn't that there was a single way that orthodoxy was expressed, but that there were somethings, such as saying that the Son was a created being, that went outside the tent (however big that tent was is hard to determine today) and, it was argued, could not be accepted as orthodox (meaning "right" or "straight") teaching.



format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
just because you are protestant preacher pimping the primacy of proto-orthdoxy doesn't make it presently prevalent! let alone TRUTHFUL, or even ACCURATE!
No, it doesn't. And just because you disagree with it doesn't make it false. Hear again what I said. Listen, don't react. I said:

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The counterargument then was that Arianism was even at the time an unorthodox view...

What could be a more truthful statement? That's such an obvious statement that it's like "Duh! True by definition." If you don't get it, then you aren't as smart as I thought you were. If Arianism hadn't been seen as unorthodox, then there would have been no one arguing against it. All those who countered the arguments of Arius and others who believed as he did, did so saying that their Arian arguments were unorthodox.

You may contend that Athansius was wrong. You might even argue that he was in the minority, though events prove otherwise. But to suggest that those who opposed Arianism didn't see it as being unorthodox is simply ridiculous. If not for being unorthodox, on what grounds do Athanasius and those others who opposed and eventually overwhelmingly voted against Arianism do so?

-------edit----------

Look. I'm happy to simply read this thread and learn what Muslims want. I only entered it to post in answer to a question put to Christians and in support of Woodrow. But if you continue to attack me on a personal basis, then expect this thread to get sidetracked because I will defend myself.

Now, you've said that I've inferred something different from your post than you meant. I know you to be a person of strong opinions, but I don't know you to be a liar. So, I can accept that I was wrong in drawing that inference.

I don't go around making wild and unsubstantiatable claims either. So, if you take exception to something I've said as not being factual, take a second look. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote, inferring something different from it than I intended, just as I did with your post.

Can we let this go so that this thread can get back to its intended purpose rather than a debate over what was and was not orthodoxy at the time? Both Athanasius and Arius each thought they were right at the time, and would have been arguing that the other was wrong and therefore unorthodox. I don't see how there is anything untruthful in such a statement. And if you got anything else out of what I wrote, I apologize for not doing a better job of writing so that I left my point was unclear.

With that said. I wish you peace. Let's move on.

.
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-08-2010, 09:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yanoorah
I want non-Muslims to come out in the open n discuss normal things with us that effect us all. By out in the open I mean 'participate' in other parts of this forum besides the comparative religion section. I want to see u in a different light, in a different mood. Majority of the non-Muslims on this forum come across to me as not very light'hearted n somewhat uptigh n robotic. I also feel that they seem a bit uncomfortable, just relax n be urself, lets see ur human side. : )!
Would be nice if it were like that but I don't think you can expect us outsiders to kick back and relax as if this was our home. It isn't. It is foreign and often hostile territory for a non-muslim around here. Just look at Grace Seekers interactions right here in this thread (or any other thread with a non-muslim posting in it).

The fact of the matter is that the mere presence of somebody known to be a non-muslim in a thread changes the atmosphere of that thread, no matter what that person actually says or contributes.

So I would rather stay out of your more private muslim on muslim areas and keep to the areas, that us outsiders are specifically addressed in and invited to participate in (such as "comparative religion" or "what do non-muslims want from muslims" etc) . Its just like I would speak with real life muslims on the street but I would not walk into a mosque and kick back and relax and joke around there. I'd feel disrespectful doing that.
Reply

YusufNoor
12-09-2010, 01:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
And I never implied that Arianism was a fleeting thing. It's legacy still exists to this day.

no, but you implied that "what became nicene" was. this is an old opinion, 21st century scholarship is abandoning that position.

And I've also never implied that orthodoxy (then or now) is simple versus complex. There were then and still are today many competing theories as to how to explain Jesus' divinity.

i hate to burst your bubble, but the simple FACT that Jesus is NOT divine AUTOMATICALLY precludes ANY position to the contrary as being "orthodox - sound or correct" and therefore the word must be used as "orthodox - 1.of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc. 2. of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved. 3. customary or conventional, as a means or method; established. ; therefore as the Athanasian concept of the trinity has of yet to be : "approved" generally approved or "established" it CANNOT be said to be "orthodox," which is why you may call it proto-orthodox as it EVENTUALLY BECAME orthodox. and even here, i would make the claim that it's "acceptance as orthodox" both as "accepted" AND as the "correct OPINION [and only opinion - as it cannot be fact]" was a longer process as far as "correctness" and even longer as accepted.

In fact, Arianism was also one of those attempts. It wasn't that there was a single way that orthodoxy was expressed, but that there were somethings, such as saying that the Son was a created being, that went outside the tent (however big that tent was is hard to determine today) and, it was argued, could not be accepted as orthodox (meaning "right" or "straight") teaching.

if there is no single way, how does the opposite of a[ny] position become the only solution UNLESS there are only 2 choices?

No, it doesn't. And just because you disagree with it doesn't make it false. Hear again what I said. Listen, don't react. I said:


What could be a more truthful statement? That's such an obvious statement that it's like "Duh! True by definition." If you don't get it, then you aren't as smart as I thought you were. If Arianism hadn't been seen as unorthodox, then there would have been no one arguing against it. All those who countered the arguments of Arius and others who believed as he did, did so saying that their Arian arguments were unorthodox.

as it CANNOT be true, it can only be considered true, ie an opinion. look at what i posted on Eusebius:

Although Eusebius signed on to the Nicene Creed (after being excommunicated for heresy), he differed from it in certain respects. He denied that the Son and the Father were of the same essence, positing instead that the Son proceeded from the Father’s free will (creative act?). He also did not want to compromise the oneness of the Godhead, which he thought the notion of the Son’s divinity would do. And, unlike Trinitarians, he did not view the Holy Spirit as an eternal being, but rather as a creation by the Son.
Eusebius DIDN'T agree with it, as in "correct" but capitulated that it was "accepted."

You may contend that Athansius was wrong. You might even argue that he was in the minority, though events prove otherwise.

because something is dominant at a given point, does NOT confirm it's dominance at an earlier point.

But to suggest that those who opposed Arianism didn't see it as being unorthodox is simply ridiculous. If not for being unorthodox, on what grounds do Athanasius and those others who opposed and eventually overwhelmingly voted against Arianism do so?

using "orthodox" as "accepted, NOTHING was in general thought to be orthodox as there would have been no need to meet if it was. as for why either position would be considered "correct?" i can't account for the general ignorance of the players.

-------edit----------

Look. I'm happy to simply read this thread and learn what Muslims want. I only entered it to post in answer to a question put to Christians and in support of Woodrow. But if you continue to attack me on a personal basis, then expect this thread to get sidetracked because I will defend myself.

Now, you've said that I've inferred something different from your post than you meant. I know you to be a person of strong opinions, but I don't know you to be a liar. So, I can accept that I was wrong in drawing that inference.

I don't go around making wild and unsubstantiatable claims either. So, if you take exception to something I've said as not being factual, take a second look. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote, inferring something different from it than I intended, just as I did with your post.

Can we let this go so that this thread can get back to its intended purpose rather than a debate over what was and was not orthodoxy at the time? Both Athanasius and Arius each thought they were right at the time, and would have been arguing that the other was wrong and therefore unorthodox. I don't see how there is anything untruthful in such a statement. And if you got anything else out of what I wrote, I apologize for not doing a better job of writing so that I left my point was unclear.

With that said. I wish you peace. Let's move on.
.
i would define your postion on Anathasian trinitarianism as being that it was "generally accepted by the mass of Christians" BEFORE and after the Council of Niceae. i would even concede that 50 years ago a majority of Christian Scholars would have held that position. what i am saying is that is NOT considered to be so any longer, no longer "orthodox" so to speak. AND that the numbers of Christians at that time is also being considerably revised in a downward manner.

keeping with the theme of the thread, if non-Muslims [read Christians] want us to be "correct" in terms of speaking on Christianity [which they RARELY apply when THEY speak on Islam], then i think it is incumbent on them to be current and honest on what Scholarship says instead of just using what works best for them or what is simply their outdated opinion, whether they considered it "orthodox" or not.

is that clear?

peace
Reply

GuestFellow
12-09-2010, 05:33 PM
:sl:

I have no idea how this topic became a discussion about trinitarianism.

:offtopic:
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-09-2010, 07:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
keeping with the theme of the thread, if non-Muslims [read Christians] want us to be "correct" in terms of speaking on Christianity [which they RARELY apply when THEY speak on Islam], then i think it is incumbent on them to be current and honest on what Scholarship says instead of just using what works best for them or what is simply their outdated opinion, whether they considered it "orthodox" or not.

is that clear?

peace

OK. These are certainly reasonable expectations.

I do try to be honest with regard to what scholarship says, even that scholarship which expresses an opinion different than mine.
I will try to remain as current as possible.


(Please understand that you and I may have different views as to who are and who are not accepted as scholars. For example, I find some people think the Jesus' Seminar reflects scholarship. While there may be a few scholars who are a part of it, on the whole their publications reflect very little scholarship.)


What else do you want?
.
Reply

LauraS
12-13-2010, 12:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I want non-Muslims to mind their own business, to take their bases, their filth, their debauchery, their illegal wars, their greed, their evangelism, pagan gods, their w hores and the colonial settler state out of Muslim lands.

:w:
Which is an example of why conflicts arise on the forum between Muslims and non-Muslims. :heated: Surely you want non-Muslims to treat you with respect.

Woodrow makes fair points.

This thread went quickly into debate I see. For relationships between different religions/cultures to work on this forum then members have to debate without ridiculing the ither's beliefs. Disagree, but without the "You are wrong. You are stupid." attitude.
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-13-2010, 01:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
Which is an example of why conflicts arise on the forum between Muslims and non-Muslims. :heated: Surely you want non-Muslims to treat you with respect.

Woodrow makes fair points.

This thread went quickly into debate I see. For relationships between different religions/cultures to work on this forum then members have to debate without ridiculing the ither's beliefs. Disagree, but without the "You are wrong. You are stupid." attitude.
no, we dont want to be "respected" by kufaar. Our only goal is to please Allah, not to be respected by those destined to the Hellfire.
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-13-2010, 01:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
In the West, the idea of morality is approached in a much more open-minded manner than in any "specific camp" (by which I'm assuming you mean a religious group.) We're a secular and pluralistic society, so there is no unilaterally-defined moral teaching like in religion; it had been so throughout the Middle Ages when Christianity controlled morality in society, but ever since the Renaissance and the Enlightenment (when philosophers finally started to challenge religious teachings), morality became more than just a matter of what is written in the bible or what God wants from you. The writings of these philosophers identified the very blatant moral failures of religion, and so religious morality had been gradually cast aside over the past 200 years.



In the scientific community, yes, the big bang is more or less agreed upon by all. I was talking about the 'big bang' in the Quran.
what's wrong with the "big bang" in the Quran? I would have to classify you as a demented person with toxoplasmic lesions in corpus callosum if you deduced from just reading English translations that quran's big bang is "inaccurate."
Reply

Tyrion
12-13-2010, 01:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
no, we dont want to be "respected" by kufaar. Our only goal is to please Allah, not to be respected by those destined to the Hellfire.
Why are you always so angry at the non-Muslim members? Well, angry in general... There's nothing wrong with some mutual respect, so try not to get so worked up. And I think someone else mentioned this before, but maybe you should try not to use the word "kufaar" as an insult.

Also, don't assume people are destined for Hellfire. For all you know, their standing with God is better than yours.
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-13-2010, 01:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
Why are you always so angry at the non-Muslim members? Well, angry in general... There's nothing wrong with some mutual respect, so try not to get so worked up. And I think someone else mentioned this before, but maybe you should try not to use the word "kufaar" as an insult.

Also, don't assume people are destined for Hellfire. For all you know, their standing with God is better than yours.
thats a part of being a Muslim.

Hey, I am not specifying who is going to the hellfire, I dont know that, only Allah knows. BUT, that does not mean that I cannot say kufaars will not go to the Hellfire. I can say that. I must say that. In fact, every Muslim must believe that and say that. That "kaafirs will go to hellfire." That is right from the Quran. I cannot specify which person, but I can specify which group.
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-13-2010, 02:03 AM
[quote=mad_scientist;1392324]
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
Why are you always so angry at the non-Muslim members? Well, angry in general... There's nothing wrong with some mutual respect, so try not to get so worked up. And I think someone else mentioned this before, but maybe you should try not to use the word "kufaar" as an insult.

Also, don't assume people are destined for Hellfire. For all you know, their standing with God is better than yours.
i am not angry at lauraS at all. I am criticizing her claims which seem to be ludicrous. Also those of this atheist thucydlides or however you spell his name.

Hey, I am not specifying who is going to the hellfire, I dont know that, only Allah knows. BUT, that does not mean that I cannot say kufaars will not go to the Hellfire. I can say that. I must say that. In fact, every Muslim must believe that and say that. That "kaafirs will go to hellfire." That is right from the Quran. I cannot specify which person, but I can specify which group.

Kaafir is derived from kufr which means to hide. Allah uses this term to label the disbelievers as deceivers. So yes, it is an insulting word depending on the context it is used in.
Reply

Sawdah
12-13-2010, 02:21 AM
Please delete my post.

JazakumAllah Khair.
Reply

LauraS
12-13-2010, 02:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
no, we dont want to be "respected" by kufaar. Our only goal is to please Allah, not to be respected by those destined to the Hellfire.
So you don't want to be respected by non-Muslims, which means you quite happy for prejudiced people to carry out acts like burning the Qur'an and a general disharmony between Muslims and non-Muslims, which is exactly what these threads are meant to be about stopping?

You're not even making any sense.....
Reply

Perseveranze
12-13-2010, 05:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
The fact of the matter is that the mere presence of somebody known to be a non-muslim in a thread changes the atmosphere of that thread, no matter what that person actually says or contributes.
Asalaamu Alaikum,

you seem paranoid, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm sure the majority don't look at it as your presenting. Not once have I ever taken note of any of these things or felt the mood of any thread has changed.
Reply

GuestFellow
12-13-2010, 05:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
no, we dont want to be "respected" by kufaar. Our only goal is to please Allah, not to be respected by those destined to the Hellfire.
:sl:

I'm certain there are Muslims that desire respect and tolerance from non-Muslims. Otherwise some of us would not have been offended when some people insult our religion.
Reply

Ansariyah
12-15-2010, 02:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

So I would rather stay out of your more private muslim on muslim areas and keep to the areas, that us outsiders are specifically addressed in and invited to participate in (such as "comparative religion" or "what do non-muslims want from muslims" etc) . Its just like I would speak with real life muslims on the street but I would not walk into a mosque and kick back and relax and joke around there. I'd feel disrespectful doing that.
Fair enuff, its ur choice.

If u do decide to come out in the open I assure u that we wont think of it as disrespectful.
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-10-2011, 07:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Another addition to the want list.

I would like to see more non-Muslims understand that we do consider trinitarianism to be the worship of 3 Gods.

Granted. This is what Muslims consider to be true.

Can you accept that Christians (at least those that are trinitarian) do not see it that same way as you do, and that we understand our worship to be of one God who exists in three persons? Can you understand (I didn't say agree with) that our expression of the Trinity is specifically because we do not believe that there is more than one God, and so if we have experienced the divine presence in three different persons yet still affirm that there is just one God, that we have to find new language (trinitarian language) by which to express this phenomena?
Reply

Woodrow
06-11-2011, 03:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Granted. This is what Muslims consider to be true.

Can you accept that Christians (at least those that are trinitarian) do not see it that same way as you do, and that we understand our worship to be of one God who exists in three persons? Can you understand (I didn't say agree with) that our expression of the Trinity is specifically because we do not believe that there is more than one God, and so if we have experienced the divine presence in three different persons yet still affirm that there is just one God, that we have to find new language (trinitarian language) by which to express this phenomena?
Here is a good point where we can all test our ability to understand that people of different faiths do have areas that differ. To be tolerant of another person's beliefs does not mean agreement or approval of what the other person believes. The concept of a trinity or rather the discussion of trinity is an area that is very vulnerable to misunderstanding in both directions. As difficult as it may be us Muslims need to understand that Christians do not see trinitarian belief as being polytheistic and Christians need to understand that Muslims see it as being polytheistic.

I think the only workable path to take, when disagreements of the trinity occur. is for all of us is to only understand the other person sincerely believes his/her view is correct. and we are most probably not going to change their view on a forum. So we agree to disagree without malice and move on to what ever is next/
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!