Australian Politics Forum - Islamists back sacked principal

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50556
At my desk.

Re: Islamists back sacked principal
Reply #45 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:44am

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:42am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:27am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 6:14pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 4:37pm:

Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam?

And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose?

Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you?

Apparently they think he was on a mission from God.

Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state?

It is simply laughable to use such arguments to argue that the suffis today are some sort of political movement.

The point is suffism is an example of a version of Islam that is about the exact opposite of a political ideology - regardless of what version of history you attempt to shove down its adherents' throats.

I am not shoving anything down their throat Gandalf. I am asking what their own opinion is regarding Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement. In typical Muslim fashion, you will not say and choose to pretend I am asking something completely different.

Is this really the best example you can come up with?

Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement was fundamentally against God's message in the Quran. I'm not whitewashing history; I"m saying that those things should've never been included in the Quran.

It's a bit hard to distance Islam from Muhammed's actions.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Islamists back sacked principal
Reply #46 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:48am

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:44am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:42am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:27am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 6:14pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 4:37pm:

Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam?

And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose?

Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you?

Apparently they think he was on a mission from God.

Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state?

It is simply laughable to use such arguments to argue that the suffis today are some sort of political movement.

The point is suffism is an example of a version of Islam that is about the exact opposite of a political ideology - regardless of what version of history you attempt to shove down its adherents' throats.

I am not shoving anything down their throat Gandalf. I am asking what their own opinion is regarding Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement. In typical Muslim fashion, you will not say and choose to pretend I am asking something completely different.

Is this really the best example you can come up with?

Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement was fundamentally against God's message in the Quran. I'm not whitewashing history; I"m saying that those things should've never been included in the Quran.

It's a bit hard to distance Islam from Muhammed's actions.

It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God, and nothing else. The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50556
At my desk.

Re: Islamists back sacked principal
Reply #47 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:04am

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:48am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:44am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:42am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:27am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 6:14pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 4:37pm:

Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam?

And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose?

Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you?

Apparently they think he was on a mission from God.

Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state?

It is simply laughable to use such arguments to argue that the suffis today are some sort of political movement.

The point is suffism is an example of a version of Islam that is about the exact opposite of a political ideology - regardless of what version of history you attempt to shove down its adherents' throats.

I am not shoving anything down their throat Gandalf. I am asking what their own opinion is regarding Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement. In typical Muslim fashion, you will not say and choose to pretend I am asking something completely different.

Is this really the best example you can come up with?

Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement was fundamentally against God's message in the Quran. I'm not whitewashing history; I"m saying that those things should've never been included in the Quran.

It's a bit hard to distance Islam from Muhammed's actions.

It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God, and nothing else. The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God.

This "word of God" says that Muhammed is the best example, one for all mankind to follow. You cannot take Muhammad out of Islam.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Islamists back sacked principal
Reply #48 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:18am

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:04am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:48am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:44am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:42am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:27am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 6:14pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 4:37pm:

Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam?

And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose?

Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you?

Apparently they think he was on a mission from God.

Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state?

It is simply laughable to use such arguments to argue that the suffis today are some sort of political movement.

The point is suffism is an example of a version of Islam that is about the exact opposite of a political ideology - regardless of what version of history you attempt to shove down its adherents' throats.

I am not shoving anything down their throat Gandalf. I am asking what their own opinion is regarding Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement. In typical Muslim fashion, you will not say and choose to pretend I am asking something completely different.

Is this really the best example you can come up with?

Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement was fundamentally against God's message in the Quran. I'm not whitewashing history; I"m saying that those things should've never been included in the Quran.

It's a bit hard to distance Islam from Muhammed's actions.

It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God, and nothing else. The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God.

This "word of God" says that Muhammed is the best example, one for all mankind to follow. You cannot take Muhammad out of Islam.

The Word of God, later on, said that people should obey the Prophet. That was not what he said for the first 75% of his revelations. Not indicative of someone who is omnipotent?

Let's get theological here: do you agree with this statement? 'Would God ever command a person to kill another person?"

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50556
At my desk.

Re: Islamists back sacked principal
Reply #49 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:30am

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:18am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:04am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:48am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:44am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:42am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:27am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 6:14pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 4:37pm:

Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam?

And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose?

Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you?

Apparently they think he was on a mission from God.

Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state?

It is simply laughable to use such arguments to argue that the suffis today are some sort of political movement.

The point is suffism is an example of a version of Islam that is about the exact opposite of a political ideology - regardless of what version of history you attempt to shove down its adherents' throats.

I am not shoving anything down their throat Gandalf. I am asking what their own opinion is regarding Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement. In typical Muslim fashion, you will not say and choose to pretend I am asking something completely different.

Is this really the best example you can come up with?

Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement was fundamentally against God's message in the Quran. I'm not whitewashing history; I"m saying that those things should've never been included in the Quran.

It's a bit hard to distance Islam from Muhammed's actions.

It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God, and nothing else. The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God.

This "word of God" says that Muhammed is the best example, one for all mankind to follow. You cannot take Muhammad out of Islam.

The Word of God, later on, said that people should obey the Prophet. That was not what he said for the first 75% of his revelations. Not indicative of someone who is omnipotent?

Let's get theological here: do you agree with this statement? 'Would God ever command a person to kill another person?"

That is a question, not a statement. I don't claim to know the answer.

If you are going to start chopping out large sections of the Koran, then you are rejecting Islam itself, in its entirety. You cannot keep a straight face while insisting the first 3/4 is true and pure but Muhammed deliberately corrupted the rest of it.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Islamists back sacked principal
Reply #50 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:55am

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:30am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:18am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:04am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:48am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:44am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:42am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:27am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 6:14pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 4:37pm:

Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam?

And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose?

Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you?

Apparently they think he was on a mission from God.

Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state?

It is simply laughable to use such arguments to argue that the suffis today are some sort of political movement.

The point is suffism is an example of a version of Islam that is about the exact opposite of a political ideology - regardless of what version of history you attempt to shove down its adherents' throats.

I am not shoving anything down their throat Gandalf. I am asking what their own opinion is regarding Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement. In typical Muslim fashion, you will not say and choose to pretend I am asking something completely different.

Is this really the best example you can come up with?

Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement was fundamentally against God's message in the Quran. I'm not whitewashing history; I"m saying that those things should've never been included in the Quran.

It's a bit hard to distance Islam from Muhammed's actions.

It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God, and nothing else. The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God.

This "word of God" says that Muhammed is the best example, one for all mankind to follow. You cannot take Muhammad out of Islam.

The Word of God, later on, said that people should obey the Prophet. That was not what he said for the first 75% of his revelations. Not indicative of someone who is omnipotent?

Let's get theological here: do you agree with this statement? 'Would God ever command a person to kill another person?"

That is a question, not a statement. I don't claim to know the answer.

If you are going to start chopping out large sections of the Koran, then you are rejecting Islam itself, in its entirety. You cannot keep a straight face while insisting the first 3/4 is true and pure but Muhammed deliberately corrupted the rest of it.

Yes, good point: it was a question, and I never implied that you knew the answer. I was just being a smart-arse.

This the thing: Muslims and others are playing this 'zero-sum' game where it's either 'accept or reject' all of it. Why can't most of it be great, and only a small portion be bad? In the Medinan verses there are verses that are the same or echo the same message as the Meccan verses, so it's definitely more than 75% of the Quran being 'uncorrupted.'

Let me ask you a question: how does not accepting say 25% of a scripture completely take away from the main idea of the religion? Submission to God is what Islam teaches. In some sense, this is greatest form of equality. If you disregard the part where women have to wear Hijabs or other headscarves, how does the latter derogate from the former?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Yadda Gold Member Offline Posts: 22246 A cat with a view	Re: Islamists back sacked principal Reply #51 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 11:41am Gordon wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 7:04pm: Gnads wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 7:00pm: And the rest of us? I got my Mumbai tech guy to write a Firefox plug in that auto detects Yadda posts and edits them down for my viewing pleasure; ) LOL
Back to top	"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31 IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22246
A cat with a view

Re: Islamists back sacked principal
Reply #52 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 11:45am

Auggie wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 9:52pm:

Islam is the religion. Islamism the belief of imposing the religion of Islam on other people.

"Islam is the religion. Islamism the belief of imposing the religion of Islam on other people."

ISLAM ??

---------- >

Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1424590530/17#17
Quote:

The heart of ISLAM is the Koran

[and heart of the Koran, is the ideas and ideals it contains].

SO WHAT DOES THE KORAN SAY ABOUT MOSLEMS LIVING IN PEACE WITH DISBELIEVERS ? ;

---------- >

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Islamists back sacked principal
Reply #53 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 11:47am

Yadda wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 11:45am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 9:52pm:

Islam is the religion. Islamism the belief of imposing the religion of Islam on other people.

"Islam is the religion. Islamism the belief of imposing the religion of Islam on other people."

ISLAM ??

---------- >

Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1424590530/17#17
Quote:

The heart of ISLAM is the Koran

[and heart of the Koran, is the ideas and ideals it contains].

SO WHAT DOES THE KORAN SAY ABOUT MOSLEMS LIVING IN PEACE WITH DISBELIEVERS ? ;

---------- >

Read my post above in response to FD

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22246
A cat with a view

Re: Islamists back sacked principal
Reply #54 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 12:01pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:48am:

It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God, and nothing else. The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God.

ARGUMENT;
Some today seek to discount the importance of the influence of the Koran upon the lives of moslems,
and would argue that the Koran and its contents are an anachronism, ....and that Koran verses do not reflect or guide, the intent of the moslem community, here in Australia, today,
.....I would offer, that the Koran is, and always has been, ~the~ most important source of religious authority for ISLAMIC religious leaders, and ~the~ most important source of religious instruction, for every moslem.

Any person who would suggest other than that, is either ignorant, OR, is being deliberately deceitful.

augcaesarustus said.....

"The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God."

Yadda paraphrases [gives a new edit].....

"The complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are an abomination to the God inspired human psyche, and, the complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are the true message of ALLAH."

.....aka SATAN

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 12^th, 2017 at 12:07pm by Yadda »

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Islamists back sacked principal
Reply #55 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 12:03pm

Yadda wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 12:01pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:48am:

It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God, and nothing else. The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God.

ARGUMENT;
Some today seek discount the importance of the influence of the Koran upon the lives of moslems,
and would argue that the Koran and its contents are an anachronism, ....and that Koran verses do not reflect or guide, the intent of the moslem community, here in Australia, today,
.....I would offer, that the Koran is, and always has been, ~the~ most important source of religious authority for ISLAMIC religious leaders, and ~the~ most important source of religious instruction, for every moslem.

Any person who would suggest other than that, is either ignorant, OR, is being deliberately deceitful.

augcaesarustus said.....

"The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God."

Yadda paraphrases [gives a new edit].....

"The complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are an abomination to the God inspired human psyche, and, the complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are the true message of ALLAH."

.....aka SATAN

Are you saying that God is Satan?

Those who worship god are muslims. Those who worship Muhammad are muhammadans.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22246
A cat with a view

Re: Islamists back sacked principal
Reply #56 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 12:23pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 12:03pm:

Yadda wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 12:01pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:48am:

It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God, and nothing else. The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God.

ARGUMENT;
Some today seek discount the importance of the influence of the Koran upon the lives of moslems,
and would argue that the Koran and its contents are an anachronism, ....and that Koran verses do not reflect or guide, the intent of the moslem community, here in Australia, today,
.....I would offer, that the Koran is, and always has been, ~the~ most important source of religious authority for ISLAMIC religious leaders, and ~the~ most important source of religious instruction, for every moslem.

Any person who would suggest other than that, is either ignorant, OR, is being deliberately deceitful.

augcaesarustus said.....

"The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God."

Yadda paraphrases [gives a new edit].....

"The complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are an abomination to the God inspired human psyche, and, the complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are the true message of ALLAH."

.....aka SATAN

Are you saying that God is Satan?

I'm saying that Allah, is NOT, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

e.g.
On keeping oaths, on keeping your word, on honouring a verbal undertaking we make....

ALLAH;

"Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths and Allah is your Protector, and He is the Knowing the Wise."

Koran 66:2

"The Prophet said, "If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath."."

hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #007.067.427
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #008.078.618
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #008.079.709
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #008.079.710
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #008.079.712
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #008.079.715

Coz, Mohammed was a covenant breaker, and a liar,

just like Mohammed's god

.

"expiate my oath", means an obligation to Allah of penance [Kaffara], e.g. fasting for three days, or to clothe or feed poor people.

Allah and Mohammed above.

+++

From the Jewish O.T. Bible;

Numbers 30:2
If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

Chalk and cheese!

see also....

Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295407319/0#0

.

I have read the O.T & N.T. Bible [KJV] through cover to cover, and i have read much of the Koran.

IMO, it is comparing chalk and cheese.

And imo, the Koran is the chalk.

And believe me the Koran [by comparison], is mostly a lot of boastful, unstructured, largely violent, gibberish!

If you don't believe me [about the gibberish claim], i encourage anyone, to read the Koran for yourself !

There is no excuse, it is available online.

And the Koran starts out on its 1st page, so, so, promising....

http://quran.com/1/1

After the opening verses the Koran just seems to settle into a constant uninspiring PRATTLE.

e.g.
Quote:

This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;
Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;
And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.
They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.
As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).
Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day;" but they do not (really) believe.
Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not!
In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).
When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!"
Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.
When it is said to them: "Believe as the others believe:" They say: "Shall we believe as the fools believe?" Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know.
When they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe;" but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say: "We are really with you: We (were) only jesting."

That is an excerpt from the beginning of the 2nd chapter of the Koran;
[the 2nd chapter is 286 verses in length]

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22246
A cat with a view

Re: Islamists back sacked principal
Reply #57 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 12:34pm

Yadda wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 12:23pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 12:03pm:

Yadda wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 12:01pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:48am:

It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God, and nothing else. The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God.

ARGUMENT;
Some today seek discount the importance of the influence of the Koran upon the lives of moslems,
and would argue that the Koran and its contents are an anachronism, ....and that Koran verses do not reflect or guide, the intent of the moslem community, here in Australia, today,
.....I would offer, that the Koran is, and always has been, ~the~ most important source of religious authority for ISLAMIC religious leaders, and ~the~ most important source of religious instruction, for every moslem.

Any person who would suggest other than that, is either ignorant, OR, is being deliberately deceitful.

augcaesarustus said.....

"The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God."

Yadda paraphrases [gives a new edit].....

"The complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are an abomination to the God inspired human psyche, and, the complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are the true message of ALLAH."

.....aka SATAN

Are you saying that God is Satan?

I'm saying that Allah, is NOT, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Moslems claim, and would have us believe that Allah, and the Jewish God, are the same God.

Never.

This cannot be so, unless the God of the Old Testament has had a personality transplant.

Read the Koran, and then read the Bible, it is like comparing chalk and cheese.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Islamists back sacked principal
Reply #58 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 12:59pm

I've read the Quran. The verse you quoted in Sura 2 is talking about 'Belief in God as opposed to the belief in Pagan Gods', which was the tension at the time.

You read the Meccan verses: you'll see that it refers almost all the time to the same God as the Abrahamic God. It refers to Old Testament stories, and clearly states that they are one and the same God.

The Quran, in its earliest form, was never about 'Muhammad' it was about complete submission to God. It was only later that devotion to Muhammad was required.

Do this: read the Chronological Quran as stated on Wikiislam. Read each sura chronologically, then read the Medinan verses. You'll see that the Meccan verses say nowhere to 'Obey the Prophet' and only describe Muhammad as a warner - he is only a conduit through which God speaks. There are few Medinan insertions into the Meccan verses, which you can spot quite clearly.

The early message of the Quran was that some of the People of the Book were not following the messages of the earlier prophets, so God had sent a warner to bring people back on the path to submission to God - the God of the Book. Read the first 3/4 of the Quran, then come back to me.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie Gold Member Offline The Bull Moose Posts: 8571	Re: Islamists back sacked principal Reply #59 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 1:00pm Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as a divine being, the Son of God. Islam is about the worship of God only. Later attempts to include a kind of 'adoration' for Muhammad is almost akin to a Cult. Hence, Muslim vs Mohammadan.
Back to top	The Progressive President IP Logged