Bubba

Good. I was hoping that you hadn't been offended by my response. I'm looking forward to what you have to say, Dreamer.

Bubba

John Page

Sarpe:

My understanding is that you are not just cynical but historically correct and the first major monotheistic religion was set up by Pharoah Akhenaten. This may have been an influence on the development of Judaism and its bastard son Christianity. I have also heard people better studied than I that the chronology is consistent with the Greek developments in theism. In this sense, Islam is stricter binding force than Christianity (its strength) but its inflexibility is its weakness - restricting development in the Islamic world since the fall of the Ottoman empire.

Cheers, John

Sabine Grant

Salaam Alikum Dreamer!

I think that people in the US who were uneducated about the various currents of Islam may have stereotyped all of Islam as they watched the horrendous but real images of oppression and cruelty reported from Afghanistan via the mass medium. So the Taliban and the extremist fundamentalist actions of islamic terrorism have been impressed on the minds of such people as the example of what all of Islam is.

I think it would be helpful if you took the time to define the various currents of the islamic religion. I understand for example that Bin ladin is a mohabite. What is a mohabite? how does it differ from an adept of the prophet Ali?( most of my Iranian friends who attended my college in France were adepts of Ali)

We have the same nuances in christianity. I am a christian but I differ from most mainstream christian doctrines. So I cannot be convinced to follow the actions of one group or the other. I will still use my individual reasoning to evaluate if the proposed actions result into harming humanity. I assume that most moderate muslims have kept a sense of evaluating the same concept.

I think it is very important that muslims such as yourself restore the perception so many americans seem to have about islam in general.( this is not adressed to the participants of this thread).I deplore the fact also that the right wing of christianity ( such as Pat Robertson) relentlessly adds fuel to the fire of hatred and prejudicial attitudes against muslims by using the argument that Israel must be supported no matter what they do as they are God's chosen people. Suddenly after years of partaking in persecuting jews ( by condemning them to go to hell) the same wing is a self declared protector of Israel.Talk about opportunistic ideology.

So take your time as you attempt to communicate those currents.

You have my genuine interest to be prepared to promote moderation and a realistic approach of Islam.

A bientot, Veronique.

dostf

- Islam like any other of the major religions is a backwards, primitive, dangerous, unreasonable , concept of living that strives to "fix" humanity at one point in time.
- Unfortunately this point of time is in the distant past when humanity was far less developed with regards to morality, knowledge, technology and overall development
- The Koran itself is filled with unreasonable ideas and edicts in that it is very closely associated with the old testament, and shares many similar( and flawed) ideas
- While at the moment it seems Muslim's are at the forefront of activities known as terrorism, it is my opinion(and history shows) that any group that follows a rigid code of behaviour based on ideas of separating humanity as opposed to unifying it (contrary to their own idealogies) is bound for conflict. In this Muslim's are no worse than christians or hindu's etc. from a historical perspective.
- That being said, it should be noted that most persons following the major religions are not "bad" people..they could be doing far worse things, and generally i think just want a "good life" like the rest of us. However, the IDEAS inherent in any religious system are unreasonable and "stuck" in the remote past and therefore do nothing for advancing humanity as a whole. That is my main issue with Islam or any other major religion.

- As a sidenote, i spent several years "working" in a Sufi group (mystical Islam) with some very intelligent, loving, caring, people who genuinely worked extemely hard to become better human beings
- That being said, upon delving deeper into the roots of Islam -namely the Koran- I was shocked to find that book was far below the standards and intelligence i had found in Islamic mystical writings( specifically Mevlana). I left when i came to terms with the fact that much of what i read was unreasonable, illogical, immoral and untrue(to me). Those responsible for helping me see this (without any coersion, or for any personal reason of any kind) saved and changed my life. For that I am ever grateful.

Be seeing you...

Dreamer_87

Hello everyone!

Very sorry for the lack of replies, Ramadan has ended alright but I have a heap of coursework I have to finish by friday

I'll try to tackle the 'easier' questions...

Answerer

A big, resounding YES


Dangin,

That's what I've been arguing; they *don't*. The only difference is the kind of script used.

I'm still clueless here. WHAT different versions? This question is way too vague - are you referring to 'al ahruf al sab' ('The seven letters' or seven dialects in which the Quran was 'revealed') or, like IM, to the many translations?

This is another confusing question (for me at least): is it 'Why didn't Allah teach Muhammad to write' or 'Why didn't Allah 'improve' the script before revealing his message in the language'? For the arabs at the time the ability to write was in no way necessary; like many other nomadic peoples, they valued poetry and even though they were illiterate were able to memorize hundreds of stanzas very easily. The Quran was both memorized and written down in the lifetime of the prophet; in Al Medina he had many scribes (the most famous of whom I think is Muawiya Ibn Sufyan, the creator of the Umayyad dynasty) and after his death the texts were combined and rechecked by the Caliph Abu Bakr (who was a contemporary of Mohammed and finished the job less than 2 years after Mohammed's death) and redone by Caliph Uthman. All this information is on the link I gave.

Still confused here.


Hello Sabine,

The first and so far most prominent sect is the Sunni sect. The belief in the 12 Imams is part of the Shia sect's beliefs, if I'm not mistaken the main difference between the sects is that the Shia think only the descendants of the prophet through Ali are worthy to rule the muslims, whereas the Sunnis hold that any just ruler is acceptable and that monarchies are unacceptable I think. The Mahdi means 2 different things for the 2 sects I believe; Sunnis see him as the leader who will unify the muslims and convert many others through preaching and whose reign will be followed by the ressurection of Jesus Christ. The Shia, on the other hand, believe he will be the last of the 12 Imams and, if I'm not mistaken, that the world will end soon after he comes to power (or something to that effect).

Very sorry about this shabby explanation, I hope it makes the matter a bit clearer.


Back soon with more replies I hope

Best regards,
Dreamer