Christianity is monotheist.

[Zafran]

the Tariqah are one and they use shamanistic rituals, how's that for starters?
According to some modern proponents, such as Idries Shah, the Sufi philosophy is universal in nature, its roots predating the arising of Islam and the other modern-day religions; likewise, some Muslims feel that Sufism is outside the sphere of Islam

Talking about different interpretations.

salaam

Some tariqas are in the fold of Islam - others are not - A good sufi is always a good muslim.

 

[Hugo]

This coming from a guy saying "did Allah use the wrong word???"

Stop being hypocritical. Ever wonder why your rep is in the negatives? While other christian members of this board are in the positives?

I'll give you a hint, it isn't the "sober" way you argue.

I agree that I might have sounded flippant but it was not my intention to denigrate God only to draw attention to the point that God cannot make mistakes so there is an issue. However, you are right to point that out but nevertheless it is not an argument that adds anything to the debate or answer the question offered to tell me I am hypocritical or not positive is it? There is a saying in English, "people in glass houses shouldn't not throw stones' and even a cursory look through many Muslim debater's posts will show a serious lack of sobriety. Arguing, debating and persuasion are about being critical not simply agreeing with the party line.

 

[memories]

salaam

Some tariqas are in the fold of Islam - others are not - A good sufi is always a good muslim.

I never said they wer not good muslims I said that like in christianity there is differents sects in the muslim world, like the quakers and so on of christianity
that was my point.

regards

 

[ResLight]

Just need to be clear on these postings by ResLight because as far as I can see no Bible translation (although I may have missed it) has been stated and we need to know that to accurately asses what has been said and the arguments that are contained in this post as they do not represent orthodox Christian beliefs. The postings are entirely copied from the site listed without any comment. The site says it is not affiliated to the Jehovah's Witnesses and I could not quite work out why it should say that.

I am not sure what is meant by "no Bible translation". Exactly what is this meant to refer to? The translation I usually use is the World English Bible translation, but I also use many other translations.

My postings are not entirely copied from what I have written before, but I do copy and adapt what I have written before for the sites and forums. Since what I am copying are my comments, they are still my comments, and also I usually do not simply copy my comments without adding more comments, for I do add more comments as I adapt, and sometimes edit, what I have written to respond to the present discussion. I do not see the need to fully rewrite what I have written before.

I stated on the site that the site is not affiliated with Jehovah's Witnesses because many confuse the beliefs presented with that of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I am associated with the "Bible Students" movement, and am not affiliated with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the beliefs presented, although similar in some respects to that of the Jehovah's Witnesses, are not the same as that of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
http://jws.reslight.net

The term "orthodox" means right thinking or right opinion. As I have shown, the right opinion is the Bible; the right way is Jesus, and, as I have shown from the scriptures, Jesus sent the holy spirit from his father to reveal the truth to his apostles, which "right opinion" is recorded in the writings of the New Testament. That faith belief was delivered once for all time in the first century. (Jude 1:3,20) The later opinions of men that is often called "orthodox", and which have to imagined, assumed, added to, and read into the scriptures, is in reality false opinion. "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20) "Walk as children of light." -- Ephesians 5:8
http://defending.reslight.net/?page_id=57

Love in Jesus,
Ronald
ResLight





Christian love,
Ronald
ResLight
Restoration Light Bible Study Services

 

[جوري]

One might suppose from Gossamer's post that Islam has no sects (shall I list them?) and there is no infighting - should that make anyone happy? It's a sad person that find joy in such situations

It wouldn't matter how many you listed, since sunni Muslims are 85-90% of the 1.8 billion Muslims.. any of the 'numerous' sects you'd like to mention are a very negligible percentage .. so by all means go ahead!


Almost all Muslims belong to one of two major denominations, the Sunni (85%) and Shi'a (15%). The schism developed in the late 7th century following disagreements over the religious and political leadership of the Muslim community. Islam is the predominant religion in much of Africa and the Middle East,

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

 

[doorster]

the Tariqah are one and they use shamanistic rituals, how's that for starters?
According to some modern proponents, such as Idries Shah, the Sufi philosophy is universal in nature, its roots predating the arising of Islam and the other modern-day religions; likewise, some Muslims feel that Sufism is outside the sphere of Islam

Talking about different interpretations.

nicking text from wiki and pasting it here verbatim, really does impress me (NOT)

 

[جوري]

I take it you were trying to introduce some french tournure de phrase in your post, then its ''Au lieu de'' l'on dit: au lieu de faire ceci ou cela et non pas à la place de.

''in lieu of delegating the task to his very creative psyche''

''Au lieu de déléguer la tache....''

Please restrain from using french... my eyes are bleeding.

Unless you meant the english in lieu of
Definition
Instead of, in place of.

Regards.

لا يا كافر يا وقح...جمله قد تستخدم كثيرا في هذه اللغه كما تستخدم بالفرنسية

Again, one wonders, do you have anything to impart on the subject at hand or just want to display stupidity all over the forum?

all the best
​

 

[Hugo]

I am not sure what is meant by "no Bible translation". Exactly what is this meant to refer to? The translation I usually use is the World English Bible translation, but I also use many other translations.

My postings are not entirely copied from what I have written before, but I do copy and adapt what I have written before for the sites and forums. Since what I am copying are my comments, they are still my comments, and also I usually do not simply copy my comments without adding more comments, for I do add more comments as I adapt, and sometimes edit, what I have written to respond to the present discussion. I do not see the need to fully rewrite what I have written before.

I stated on the site that the site is not affiliated with Jehovah's Witnesses because many confuse the beliefs presented with that of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I am associated with the "Bible Students" movement, and am not affiliated with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the beliefs presented, although similar in some respects to that of the Jehovah's Witnesses, are not the same as that of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
http://jws.reslight.net

The term "orthodox" means right thinking or right opinion. As I have shown, the right opinion is the Bible; the right way is Jesus, and, as I have shown from the scriptures, Jesus sent the holy spirit from his father to reveal the truth to his apostles, which "right opinion" is recorded in the writings of the New Testament. That faith belief was delivered once for all time in the first century. (Jude 1:3,20) The later opinions of men that is often called "orthodox", and which have to imagined, assumed, added to, and read into the scriptures, is in reality false opinion. "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20) "Walk as children of light." -- Ephesians 5:8
http://defending.reslight.net/?page_id=57

Love in Jesus,
Ronald
ResLight

Thank you for the clarification but as I understand it the World English Bible translation is still in draft form? I understand you might use various translation but it would be helpful if you just indicated what they were.

 

['Abd-al Latif]

Ahmad Deedat explains the Trinity in Christian Religion
​

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uF4hoU9HRs[/media]

Ahmed Deedat - Trinity
​

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LetnEWlkr-Q[/media]

 

[جوري]

It is simply nonsense to even suggest that because someone might be described as an Orientalist their work is therefore suspect. I might as well argue that all the early Islamic scholars were biased.

All orientalist scholarship is built on the premise of the more enlightened outsider being free of bias, but has western Judeo-Christian tradition ever allowed room for supposed objectivity? Where are these Jewels of wise discourse in the subjective and vulgar catalog of historic western writing? Vulgar, I say, because anyone can compare the reverence with which Muslim scholars treat Jesus, the virgin Mary, Moses, Aaron, Issac, Abraham, Solomon, lot etc to the crude wrathful rantings of Jews against christians, or christians against jews, of catholics against protestants, and of ancient Romans against everyone. Adrian Reeland, professor of the Oriental Tongues at the University of Utrecht, who in 1705 composed a unique work in latin, subsequently translated and published in london under the title, Four treasties concerning the doctrine, Discipline and worship of the Mahometans (1712) (for full text pls see title pages 5-6)

The Revisionist school insisting that no Muslim document bears any semblance of truth unless other, non_muslim accounts provides verification (see Yehuda Nevo's definition of revisionism pp 7-8) Given how maliciously Christians and Jews have lashed out against Muslims from the very dawn of Islam, what hope can we possibly have of priests and rabbis 'verifying' Mslim accounts, attesting to the accomplishment of their bitterest rivals with objectivity? Under no condition do western scholars validate the indoctrinate abuse what christians and Jews hurled against each other, each group barricades by its own ignorance and superstition ( see example the apologist attitude inherent in the articles of both Joseph Blenkinsopp and Baraclay Newman [bible review, oct 1996 pp 42-43] so then on what grounds in their inordinate abuse against Muslims, hatched of the selfsame ignorance and superstition can be accepted as now truth?
Here are a few charges levelled against Muslims 17th and 18thc western scholars writing in latin that the Muslims worship Venus (2) and worship created beings, (3) and sins taken away by frequent washing.. etc

Orientalist motivation: a study of subjectivity pp327-329) Dr. Al-Azami

 

[Zafran]

This is just perverse and not related much to the tread. I quoted two sources one legitimately would be called and Orientalist but the other, professor Esack is an internationally respected Islamic scholar.

It is simply nonsense to even suggest that because someone might be described as an Orientalist their work is therefore suspect. I might as well argue that all the early Islamic scholars were biased. I suggest you read more that just Edward Said's work which is now discredited and find out the debt we all own to the Orientalist. For example the hugely respected Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, valued by all scholars, Islamic or otherwise.

I suggest you get and read Ibn Warraqa's Defending the West - A critique of Edward Said's Orientalism ISBN 978-1-59102-484-2

I suggest also you look with honesty at you own Islamic history and a good start there might be to use Professor Efraim Karsh's (King's College London) book called "Islamic Imperialism - A History" ISBN 978-8-300-12263-3

If we are to meet on a level playing field let;s stop this sniping and get on with the subject at hand

I suggest you also look at your own witch hunts and your hypocricy with a bit more honesty - if your not going to bother to even look at the information I give you eg the video - why should i bother with looking at your bias sources!

Do more research about Orientalism - you clearly love the sources. Edward Siad is not discredited - maybe by your Orinetal mind but people like Robert Fisk and Noam Chomsky see him as relevent today as he was before.

Your clearly obsessed with them - thats fine - just dont accept everybody to agree with the Oriental party LINE! of knowing everything and always being rght.

and yes lets get back to the thread and not some bogus dead end.

 

['Abd-al Latif]

To the non-muslim members, this forum is full of threads which may answer any questions about Islam that you may have. However please bear in mind that this is an Islamic forum first and this is not a board for you to argue and debate about the authenticity of other religions. If we were convinced of anything besides Islam then there would be no need for you to debate. We do give the right to defend ones religion but this should not be done in a manner where direct or indirect hurling of insults, slander, lies or any other form of abuse is directed towards Islam. There is more to this forum then just the 'Comparative Religion' section so I recommend that you browse the board and see Islam as it is without getting into a war of words with other members.

Islam has the answers to Judaism and Christianity which are rational and convincing but in order for you to understand the Islamic teachings you must take the first step to have a sincere intention to learn. There is no benefit or sense in pour water in a glass while the glass is turned upside down.

So with that said this is another thread which has derailed wayyy off topic and isn't going anywhere so I will be closing it.

:threadclo: