Fox Fire

Kim Jong Un and stuff

106 posts in this topic

  You can't build a country in a day.

Our simply horrible job in Iraq is well over. And now Iraq is much worse than before....

You call that nation building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no. The problem is that half of Iraq isn't interested in democracy.

Its too divided for democracy to serve its purpose. Half the population is Sunni, the other half is Shi'ite.

One side is always going to be unsatisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no. The problem is that half of Iraq isn't interested in democracy.

Its too divided for democracy to serve its purpose. Half the population is Sunni, the other half is Shi'ite.

One side is always going to be unsatisfied.

 

That happens with both democratic and autocratic civilizations alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when you have a Muslim culture, its a different story. Unlike Christianity, Islam tends to have political beliefs that go with it.

And not to trash talk Islam or anything, maybe a Muslim here can clarify this for me, I've read a bit of the Quaran. Not the whole thing but bits and peices. Its a lot like the bible with the exception that it specifically calls anyone that isn't a devout Muslim, an infidel.

Now I know what the definition of infidel is. However, the term 'almost' always seems to be used out of anger or distain. I found a lot of the Quaran to be an angery little book, but at the same time quite peacefull....

Then again, after typing this, I realize the bible is pretty much the same...

Now I want to read it again....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between the Bible and the Koran is that the Koran says "do this, don't do that, abide by this," while the Bible gives you similar rules, but in story format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between the Bible and the Koran is that the Koran says "do this, don't do that, abide by this," while the Bible gives you similar rules, but in story format.

Yeah, kinda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when you have a Muslim culture, its a different story. Unlike Christianity, Islam tends to have political beliefs that go with it.

And not to trash talk Islam or anything, maybe a Muslim here can clarify this for me, I've read a bit of the Quaran. Not the whole thing but bits and peices. Its a lot like the bible with the exception that it specifically calls anyone that isn't a devout Muslim, an infidel.

Now I know what the definition of infidel is. However, the term 'almost' always seems to be used out of anger or distain. I found a lot of the Quaran to be an angery little book, but at the same time quite peacefull....

Then again, after typing this, I realize the bible is pretty much the same...

Now I want to read it again....

Yay, a muslim comes to clarify.

 

 

 

First of all, Islam doesn't tend to have political beliefs. It HAS political beliefs. To be a secular Muslim is not clerly understanding your faith. A lot of people one might call "secular" Muslim scholars or "liberal" really only take a very different view of how political Islam should be. Political Islam to many is the very similar to a western democratic set up, but most certainly not secular. For example, sheikh Hamza Yusuf says America would make a better Muslim country than any country in the middle east. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf calls the US Constitution "Sharia compatible". Whatever that means.

 

 

 

Now, if your seeing teh word infidel frequently in whatever translation of the Quran you're reading, chances are it's a terrible translation of the Quran. The word infidel is probably in the Qur'an a total of 5 times, and the other few thousands of times the word "unbeliever" or "people of the book" would be mention. That's a quick way to tell a real translation from a hate mongering one. If you're reading bits and pieces online, I recommend you not read bits and pieced online. At the very least find one of those muslim websites that has the entire thing there and just look at random places from there, or download an app like iQuran or something. I'm extremely skeptical of anytime someone quotes a single or a few lines of scripture, because its frequently just cherry picking, either for good verses or bad ones.

 

 

 

I laughed out loud about the "angry little book" part. I can see that, I suppose. However, if you take the time to read entire passages, I think that definition is extremely arbitrary. Simply put, the Quran speaks in an extremely tranquil tone, even when it gives blatant insults to unbelievers. If you just look at the words, it  might sound angry, but if you look at the passage, the set up of everything is precisely the same, the calm and the angry verses. If you listen to it in Arabic, every verse sounds the same in the sense that you can't differentiate when it's angry and when it's not. The style and rhetoric has little to do with the context.  if an Arab guy was talking to you, I'm sure you could tell if he was angry or not. When reading the quran, the first second it could be like UNBELIEVERS ARE STUPID. Next thing could be BUT WAIT, DON'T HURT THEM, LOVE THEM! Next second it could say UNBELIEVERS ARE MISGUIDED, but next it might say UNLESS THEY PRAY AND LOOK AT THE SIGNS FROM THEIR LORD. One verse comes to mind where it states something like "Do the unbelievers not know that the heavens and the earth were once one, and that we exploded them? And all living things come from water! These are signs for those who see." Stuff like that.

 

 

 

As for the bible, I don't see how its the same. The old testament hardly ever mentions unbelievers or whatever, except for the occasional time where devout Israelis decide to worship a cow or Baal instead. Even then, it's more of a situation specific mentioning of what they are doing wrong then a command in general. In the new Testament, Mathew 23 (which is one of the most profound things I've ever read) is one of the few times non christians are strictly attacked at. Even then, it's only in reference to the elitist rabbis and Sadducees. Coming from someone who's read about half the of bible and Quran (and as of this weekend reading them simultaneously :P ), I find it difficult to make any comparisons between the two books on a literary or even contextual level.

 

 

 

And that concludes the long rant on of the few things I know more than most people on, religion and theology :P

Edited by The King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OK... I'm not a Muslim and I'm obviously less knowledgable about it than you... But I'm observant at the very least and I have no idea what you're talking about when you say America would make a better Muslim nation....

The US is a place where people love alcohol for one. As I'm aware, muslim nations outlaw alcohol...

In the US, we accept and allow almost anything, and even things we don't now, we will in the future. IE: Marijuana.

Not that Muslims don't believe in freedom, but rather, Islam is a very strict religion with clear and strict rules.

But aside from that, America is also quite possibly the most hated nation in the Muslim world. Possibly because of our intervening in the Arab world every chance we get since WW2 and trying to "stablize it" for our own interests...

But its hard to think America would make a good Muslim nation when both Sunni and Shi'ite groups call America Satan.

I suppose if America was originally Muslim, then it would make sense. But even then, I imagine it would be vastly different in terms of laws.

The translation I read was just a random copy from the library. They had a few of them One of which was very fancy and written in Arabic as well as English.

But on the subject of that, a Muslim once told me that a Quaran should only be read in the original Arabic text...

Kinda like how reading an English version of the Tao is like watching paint dry. It sounds really stupid and completely looses its poetic beauty. Hence why my translation is by Ralph Alan Dale. He's an expert on Chinese philosiphy and medicine and his translation restores the poetry sense of the Tao which was the ancient chinese standard of writing.

Anyway, can I ask what kind of Muslim you are? The only muslim I've ever met was a Sufi, thus probably not the best example of a typical Muslim. I do like the idea of Sufism though....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OK... I'm not a Muslim and I'm obviously less knowledgable about it than you... But I'm observant at the very least and I have no idea what you're talking about when you say America would make a better Muslim nation....

The US is a place where people love alcohol for one. As I'm aware, muslim nations outlaw alcohol...

In the US, we accept and allow almost anything, and even things we don't now, we will in the future. IE: Marijuana.

Not that Muslims don't believe in freedom, but rather, Islam is a very strict religion with clear and strict rules.

But aside from that, America is also quite possibly the most hated nation in the Muslim world. Possibly because of our intervening in the Arab world every chance we get since WW2 and trying to "stablize it" for our own interests...

But its hard to think America would make a good Muslim nation when both Sunni and Shi'ite groups call America Satan.

I suppose if America was originally Muslim, then it would make sense. But even then, I imagine it would be vastly different in terms of laws.

The translation I read was just a random copy from the library. They had a few of them One of which was very fancy and written in Arabic as well as English.

But on the subject of that, a Muslim once told me that a Quaran should only be read in the original Arabic text...

Kinda like how reading an English version of the Tao is like watching paint dry. It sounds really stupid and completely looses its poetic beauty. Hence why my translation is by Ralph Alan Dale. He's an expert on Chinese philosiphy and medicine and his translation restores the poetry sense of the Tao which was the ancient chinese standard of writing.

Anyway, can I ask what kind of Muslim you are? The only muslim I've ever met was a Sufi, thus probably not the best example of a typical Muslim. I do like the idea of Sufism though....

First of all, I never said America would be a better Muslim nation, I'm citing people who said that. I don't have an opinion because I'm not someone who spent my entire life studying the subject. I find the people I cited to have have rather baffling arguments, but I see where they are coming from, and they are very presitigous and well known. For example, John Esposito, Prof. of Islamic Studies at Georgetown states that Hamza Yusuf was probably the most influential muslim in the west. SA for your comparisons with certain things, I don't find that remotely relevant. For example, I could say that the US is completely different from the UK on the pure reason that one almost completely bans guns and the other doesn't. As for your alcohol thing, the UAE and Qatar both allow alcohol. Medical marijuana was permitted by Prophet Muhammad himself (or a similar drug to it). How is Islam a strict religion? In terms of politics. Please explain that, I really don't get it from a theological point of view (although the media puts it that way). Certainly some Muslim countries are, but that doesn't mean Islam as a religion is. I was astonished myself when I started really studying Shari'a and stuff. You'd be suprised how varied beliefs are, and how unstrict Islam could technically be. I can't remember who, but I watched a lecture of some muslim scholar talking about how the classical muslim scholars were most probably libertarian :P (the four founders of the four sunni schools of jurispudence all spent jail time because they refused to succumb to what the suppressive muslim rulers wanted of them, for example). And rules are certainly not clear.  If they were, you wouldn't have crazy theocratics like Khomeini and crazy "modernists" like Mohammed Abdu or Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. And what does Muslims hating America have to do wit this? Most Muslim nations hate Iran and Saudi Arabia, how does that change things? The people I cited said it would be a better muslim country, not a complete muslim country. AS for the current muslim countries, for one, they are all nation states (on a level a bit more than the US), and nationalism is STRICTLY something not good in Islam. Goes back down to how tribes were seen as necessary evils for the time period, but that muslims should strive to realize that "no arab has superiority over another arab" and that people should be judged y their level of piety. That's from the Last Sermon of the Prophet. Back to modern Arab countries, most of them are authoritarian and ruled by monarchies. Granted, historically Islam was almost always ruled by monarchies, albeit with a lot of hesitancy from Sunnis as leaders were to be elected by the people (roughly, as in if everyone hates the leader, chances are they shouldn't  be the leader, and the best leaders are the ones most liked). Other crazy things are laws like in Saudi Arabia where teh religious police invade christian homes, violating Godigven rights to privacy, or how the Grand Sheikh of Saudi Arabia must be of Saudi Arabian nationality. Turky on the other hand is "secular", and Jordan practices torture. Ingrid Mattson, former president of ISNA (an organization that holds the largest annual muslim convention in the US) said that torture was the most important thing muslims should argue against in the modern world. I quite agree with her.

 

To your translations, many many muslims do in fact say that the quran should not be translated. That's true. Many many muslims argue the opposite. The consensus lies however that translations are to be regarded as "interpretive", and not as authoritative. But I mean, unless you want to spend the next few years learning classical arabic only to read the Quran, I don't see how that matters :/   Although I do agree, a lot is lost in translation. For example the first chapter of the quran is 17 words in arabic, but somewhere between 60 and 70 words in English, depending on translation. I am Sunni Muslim, although I quite like Sufi philosophy (but haven't looked into it much as of yet). Some other Sufi beliefs are a bit too extreme I feel, though, such as the veneration of Saints. Shia ideology would probably disagree with 90% of what I said here though, come to think, depending on how they see the Imamate in modern times. Shias are the guys in Iran and in half of Iraq. The guy I quoted earlier, Imam Rauf, who said that the constitution was Sharia compatible is Sufi. The other guy I quoted is sunni though. Hope that clears things up a bit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I never said America would be a better Muslim nation, I'm citing people who said that. I don't have an opinion because I'm not someone who spent my entire life studying the subject. I find the people I cited to have have rather baffling arguments, but I see where they are coming from, and they are very presitigous and well known. For example, John Esposito, Prof. of Islamic Studies at Georgetown states that Hamza Yusuf was probably the most influential muslim in the west. SA for your comparisons with certain things, I don't find that remotely relevant. For example, I could say that the US is completely different from the UK on the pure reason that one almost completely bans guns and the other doesn't. As for your alcohol thing, the UAE and Qatar both allow alcohol. Medical marijuana was permitted by Prophet Muhammad himself (or a similar drug to it). How is Islam a strict religion? In terms of politics. Please explain that, I really don't get it from a theological point of view (although the media puts it that way). Certainly some Muslim countries are, but that doesn't mean Islam as a religion is. I was astonished myself when I started really studying Shari'a and stuff. You'd be suprised how varied beliefs are, and how unstrict Islam could technically be. I can't remember who, but I watched a lecture of some muslim scholar talking about how the classical muslim scholars were most probably libertarian :P (the four founders of the four sunni schools of jurispudence all spent jail time because they refused to succumb to what the suppressive muslim rulers wanted of them, for example). And rules are certainly not clear.  If they were, you wouldn't have crazy theocratics like Khomeini and crazy "modernists" like Mohammed Abdu or Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. And what does Muslims hating America have to do wit this? Most Muslim nations hate Iran and Saudi Arabia, how does that change things? The people I cited said it would be a better muslim country, not a complete muslim country. AS for the current muslim countries, for one, they are all nation states (on a level a bit more than the US), and nationalism is STRICTLY something not good in Islam. Goes back down to how tribes were seen as necessary evils for the time period, but that muslims should strive to realize that "no arab has superiority over another arab" and that people should be judged y their level of piety. That's from the Last Sermon of the Prophet. Back to modern Arab countries, most of them are authoritarian and ruled by monarchies. Granted, historically Islam was almost always ruled by monarchies, albeit with a lot of hesitancy from Sunnis as leaders were to be elected by the people (roughly, as in if everyone hates the leader, chances are they shouldn't  be the leader, and the best leaders are the ones most liked). Other crazy things are laws like in Saudi Arabia where teh religious police invade christian homes, violating Godigven rights to privacy, or how the Grand Sheikh of Saudi Arabia must be of Saudi Arabian nationality. Turky on the other hand is "secular", and Jordan practices torture. Ingrid Mattson, former president of ISNA (an organization that holds the largest annual muslim convention in the US) said that torture was the most important thing muslims should argue against in the modern world. I quite agree with her.

 

To your translations, many many muslims do in fact say that the quran should not be translated. That's true. Many many muslims argue the opposite. The consensus lies however that translations are to be regarded as "interpretive", and not as authoritative. But I mean, unless you want to spend the next few years learning classical arabic only to read the Quran, I don't see how that matters :/   Although I do agree, a lot is lost in translation. For example the first chapter of the quran is 17 words in arabic, but somewhere between 60 and 70 words in English, depending on translation. I am Sunni Muslim, although I quite like Sufi philosophy (but haven't looked into it much as of yet). Some other Sufi beliefs are a bit too extreme I feel, though, such as the veneration of Saints. Shia ideology would probably disagree with 90% of what I said here though, come to think, depending on how they see the Imamate in modern times. Shias are the guys in Iran and in half of Iraq. The guy I quoted earlier, Imam Rauf, who said that the constitution was Sharia compatible is Sufi. The other guy I quoted is sunni though. Hope that clears things up a bit.

 

Yes. It does. I enjoyed reading this. I've always wanted to have a nice discussion about religion with a Muslim to learn more about Islamic views. I'm quite interested in studying religion and have studied many of them. Beign raised Christian, there isn't much to study about that and I ussually avoid studying Abrahamic religions (Islam/Judaism). But lately I've been reading about Islam ever since the Arab Spring. Something about it made me want to learn more about Islam.

Other than that, I ussually study religions that are less popular and controversial. Satanism, although not something I myself would follow was a surprising thing to study. It seems to have countless types and a lot more logical and respectfull than people would think.

Ah religion... Strange, yet interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah religion... Strange, yet interesting.

indeed.

 

eign raised Christian, there isn't much to study about that and I ussually avoid studying Abrahamic religions (Islam/Judaism).

Huh, why? I always found the the most interesting.

Edited by The King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

indeed. Huh, why? I always found the the most interesting.

Probably because I was raised with it. I enjoyed it as a young kid, but as I got older my aunt and uncle who helped raise me got more and more into Christianity. Not a specific type but different kinds of protestant.

Anyway, not that that's bad, but nowadays they are so far deep into their religion that its ussually all they talk about, they deem some of the most rediculous things as "of the devil" and absolutely refuse to even hear me speak of Taoism. They even told me I could bring Mangas to their house because it was "of the devil."

It got pretty annoying after a while and combigned with the fact that I'm already embeded with most of Christianity, it got really boring. I started reading about Judaism and that seemed even less interesting.

Islam on the other hand, although abrahamic, is quite different than Judao/Christian. And we litterally have no Muslims where I live. So its outside the norm for me and pretty interesting.

But again, I tend to find the smaller religions and cults to be more interesting. Satanism, Celtic Polytheism/mythology, greek polytheism, Native American religion, Shinto, etc.

Wicca is a religion that made me want to kill kittens. At first I found it to be pretty dumb. Then after reading about its history I found it to be completely retarded. Possibly the dumbest religion ever formed.

(No offense to any Wiccans, but if you actually believe in that religion, you obviously don't know where it comes from.)

One type of Christianity I do find interesting is a little cult some of my highschool friends created. Not sure if they gave it a name, but they still exist. They don't trust the bible because they believe it is the work of Satan, designed to confuse and control people. They believe the "false prophet" will be the pope and the antichrist will be an American president. They also believe the religion should be practiced individually rather than as a community.

They don't believe in unforgivable sins like homosexuality and don't believe in conversion or preaching. Kind of a "don't give your opinion unless asked" sort of policy. They also have a slight Bahai Faith (think that's how its spelled) type of view in the sense that they believe all other gods are manifestations of one God. But they don't believe you will go to heaven unless you accept Jesus as God. At first I didn't think they were serious about it, but they are. :P

Anyway, I have some questions. :P

I was reading about the Islamic version of the end of days and it apperently is signaled by the coming of the 12th Imam.

Imams are something I've never understood. I understand the Ayatohlla well enough, but Imams confuse the hell out of me. I hear people refer to mosque leaders as Imams, but from everything I read, there is only 12. Surely there must have been well over 12 Imams by now?

I've been trying to understand what Imams really are so I better understand the difference between Sunni and Shia. Considering ayatohlla vs Imams seems to be the big difference. I knwo where the two ideas came from, the initial division where Shias believe Muhhamads brother in law constituted the true authority over Islam after Muhhamads death.

I just don't understand Imams.

Also, I could be wrong but I think Muhhamad killed himself?

If this is the case, what exactly is the significance of religious suicide in Islam? Is the 72 virgins thing a real original Islam thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably because I was raised with it. I enjoyed it as a young kid, but as I got older my aunt and uncle who helped raise me got more and more into Christianity. Not a specific type but different kinds of protestant.

Anyway, not that that's bad, but nowadays they are so far deep into their religion that its ussually all they talk about, they deem some of the most rediculous things as "of the devil" and absolutely refuse to even hear me speak of Taoism. They even told me I could bring Mangas to their house because it was "of the devil."

It got pretty annoying after a while and combigned with the fact that I'm already embeded with most of Christianity, it got really boring. I started reading about Judaism and that seemed even less interesting.

Islam on the other hand, although abrahamic, is quite different than Judao/Christian. And we litterally have no Muslims where I live. So its outside the norm for me and pretty interesting.

But again, I tend to find the smaller religions and cults to be more interesting. Satanism, Celtic Polytheism/mythology, greek polytheism, Native American religion, Shinto, etc.

Wicca is a religion that made me want to kill kittens. At first I found it to be pretty dumb. Then after reading about its history I found it to be completely retarded. Possibly the dumbest religion ever formed.

(No offense to any Wiccans, but if you actually believe in that religion, you obviously don't know where it comes from.)

One type of Christianity I do find interesting is a little cult some of my highschool friends created. Not sure if they gave it a name, but they still exist. They don't trust the bible because they believe it is the work of Satan, designed to confuse and control people. They believe the "false prophet" will be the pope and the antichrist will be an American president. They also believe the religion should be practiced individually rather than as a community.

They don't believe in unforgivable sins like homosexuality and don't believe in conversion or preaching. Kind of a "don't give your opinion unless asked" sort of policy. They also have a slight Bahai Faith (think that's how its spelled) type of view in the sense that they believe all other gods are manifestations of one God. But they don't believe you will go to heaven unless you accept Jesus as God. At first I didn't think they were serious about it, but they are. :P

Anyway, I have some questions. :P

I was reading about the Islamic version of the end of days and it apperently is signaled by the coming of the 12th Imam.

Imams are something I've never understood. I understand the Ayatohlla well enough, but Imams confuse the hell out of me. I hear people refer to mosque leaders as Imams, but from everything I read, there is only 12. Surely there must have been well over 12 Imams by now?

I've been trying to understand what Imams really are so I better understand the difference between Sunni and Shia. Considering ayatohlla vs Imams seems to be the big difference. I knwo where the two ideas came from, the initial division where Shias believe Muhhamads brother in law constituted the true authority over Islam after Muhhamads death.

I just don't understand Imams.

Also, I could be wrong but I think Muhhamad killed himself?

If this is the case, what exactly is the significance of religious suicide in Islam? Is the 72 virgins thing a real original Islam thing?

 

Only Shia's believe in the 12 Imams. The 12th was born a while back and Allah hid him. He's supposed to reappear with jeebus. I hope that sounds as ridiculous as I was hoping. Yes 72 virgins is real, and if a muslim dies in "jihad" they are given even greater reward in the afterlife. Suicide is a big no-no in Islam, conveniently enough suicide bombing is "jihad", depending on whatever cleric is in charge of morale at the terrorist camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was reading about the Islamic version of the end of days and it apperently is signaled by the coming of the 12th Imam.

Imams are something I've never understood. I understand the Ayatohlla well enough, but Imams confuse the hell out of me. I hear people refer to mosque leaders as Imams, but from everything I read, there is only 12. Surely there must have been well over 12 Imams by now?

I've been trying to understand what Imams really are so I better understand the difference between Sunni and Shia. Considering ayatohlla vs Imams seems to be the big difference. I knwo where the two ideas came from, the initial division where Shias believe Muhhamads brother in law constituted the true authority over Islam after Muhhamads death.

I just don't understand Imams.

Shias believe the 12th Imam will come back in the end of days, yes. Along with Jesus. I don't know much about Shias, to be quite honest, since I literally forgot about them when I went into indepth study of Islam. I'd go back and start learning about Shias, but I'll quickly get hooked and spend the next month learning about it instead of learning about chrisitianity, which is a tackle to me since I'm unfamiliar with it (at the standards I intend to study it). I'd assume there's some more justification for it (and they're probably is), but basically he dissapeared and his body was never found (the imam's). So this was the conclusion that was reached.

 

Based on some narrations from the Prophet (although this is quite scanty evidence, I think), Shias believe the direct descendants of the prophet (via firstborn sons) are similar to Popes, in that they are infallible or near infallible and should be followed. These popes are called imams.This is for SHIAS. I don't know how the ayatollah thing came to be. FOR SUNNIS, Imams are just the people who lead prayer. If you look into classical Islam, it's not the same, but in modern times, sunnis call prayer leaders imams. Maybe shias do too, but I'm not sure. However, there is no imam that is a descendant from the prophet that is around today. The "divine" line died out a long while back The majority of Shias believe the 12th was the last, although some minority sects recognize a different line, although I dont know who and why. It is pretty confusing, and come to think, I should figure this out a bit more myself :/

 

Also, I could be wrong but I think Muhhamad killed himself?

Uh...no? Suicide is strictly condemned.

 

If this is the case, what exactly is the significance of religious suicide in Islam? Is the 72 virgins thing a real original Islam thing?

the number 72 is not. If anyonen claims to say number 72 and says they're knowledgeable about Islam, they're lying or just not knowledgeable. Yes, the virgin thing is there though. There will be virgins in paradise. Although its a very minor facet of heaven, considering its mentioned once out of the bajillion times paradise is ever mentioned :/

 

 

Yes 72 virgins is real, and if a muslim dies in "jihad" they are given even greater reward in the afterlife. Suicide is a big no-no in Islam, conveniently enough suicide bombing is "jihad", depending on whatever cleric is in charge of morale at the terrorist camp.

If someone dies defending the faith, then yes, they die a martyr like in christianity. Terrorists believe they are defending the faith, since the west, in their minds, has declared war on Islam. The theological grounds of this is ridiculous, and unless you want me too, I don't want to bore you with teh details. But sufice to say, killing of innocents is so strictly condemned you can't even argue it when you take things out of context. So I don't know where they get such notions. AS for the cleric things, the clerics of terrorists aren't clerics at all :/ For example, Bin Laden was an accountant who basically told the world he knew Islam better about Islam than all of the scholars in teh last 1400 years who have spent their entire lives studying. You find crazy clerics in the Islamic world, but NONE support random slaughter of civillians via terrorism. Only self proclaimed "clerics" do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the number 72 is not. If anyonen claims to say number 72 and says they're knowledgeable about Islam, they're lying or just not knowledgeable. Yes, the virgin thing is there though. There will be virgins in paradise. Although its a very minor facet of heaven, considering its mentioned once out of the bajillion times paradise is ever mentioned :/

 

 

The idea of 72 virgins in Islam refers to an aspect of paradise. In a collection by Abu `Isa Muhammad ibn `Isa at-Tirmidhi in his Jami` at-Tirmidhi[55] and also quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir ibn Kathir of sura 55[56] it is stated:

It was mentioned by Daraj Ibn Abi Hatim, that Abu al-Haytham 'Adullah Ibn Wahb narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudhri, who heard Muhammad saying, 'The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are eighty thousand servants and seventy-two houri, over which stands a dome decorated with pearlsaquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San'a.

 

Trivial yes, but it's out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came here looking for a discussion on Kim Jong Un but instead find a philosophical discussion religion. :|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so tell me if this is wrong. This is from a desk reference college book:

Sunnis: number nearly 90% of the worlds Muslims and consider that Muhammads authority descended through the four caliphs who followed him. Their Imams are religious leaders and teachers.

Shi'ites: believe that Muhammads son in law Ali and his descendents constitute the true authority. The line of Imams ended during the 800's and since then, the Ayatollahs have served as a kind of collective leadership, caretakers of the office until the longed for appearance of the last Imam.

Edited by Pandora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Just to clarify, the caliphs aren't infallible or anything, merely the sucessors since someone has to lead.

 

About 90% of shias believe in what that said. There are smaller sects that recognize different lineages through Ali, although I think all descendancies died out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think China would help North Korea because they are allies. China would want to attack us because of the debt we owe them. But we have Europe on our side to protect us if worst come to worst. U.S should talk to China to try to get rid of North Korea nuclear test. If we don't start a war soon South Korea will be gone and North Korea would start attacking other places like Japan and other countries. I not saying war is a good thing but it the second best option besides peaceful negations. This my view on this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

talk about grave dig O.O

 

 

Now to mess up your whole theory...

 

 

China would help North Korea shoudl North Korea be attacked. They have a defense treaty. If North Korea attacked offensively, china wouldn't do jack. and US is talking to china about stop NK. China has already asked NK to back down, although not enough, and more talking wont change anything. North Korea would never attack anyone. Why? Because they aren't stupid, as much as people make it out to be. Last time North Korea did crazy stupid things, the US paid them 500 million to stop. North Korea's economic and political situation is so desperate that such money is gold and necessary. A decade ago, Bush called North Korea, Iran, and Iraq the "axis of evil". We then proceeded to war with Iraq. Iran and North Korea then started nuclear programs. Why? They were My Little Pony scared. If one "axis of evil" dissapeared, what would the US do to the other two? North Korea doesn't want to find out. Nuclear research was a protection device they chose to employ. The dictator is a smart man, with advisers, a 7million man large army (that is quite awful in everything but numbers), and  plenty of well versed and well learned military strategists by their standards. The dictator does everything to stay in power. ANti-American rhetoric is to keep his people worried about another place instead of their own. North Korea would never attack South Korea. The US would immediately defend, and so would NATO (which is Europe and Turkey). China would not help them because they are not bound too. China is only considered that a democratic nation inherits north korea. If anything, they would work against North Korea should north korea attack anyone for the goal of introducing a new communist regime up there. Fighting with North Korea is diplomatic suicide. Should north Korea attack south korea, depending on how quick the world responds, NK could hit SK pretty hard. Both have near equal militaries, but to SK's disadvantage Seoul is right next to the border. SK aside, NK would never attack japan or "other countries" for the same reason. Not to mention that Japan has an extremely advanced military that would blow North Korea's ass off the map in a second.

 

 

China would want to attack us because of the debt we owe them.

Then China would never get their debt paid back. Why would they give the country that owes them money more debt to pay? Then they'd never get repaid.... Plus, where does China sell all their goods? 'murica.... And who has the overwhelmingly stronger military along with all of NATO on its back? 'murica....

Edited by The King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your theory but china has a much stronger army then the U.S and 10 times our size like 5 billion people  but we got like 325 million people rough estimate. But I agree we buy most of china exports and that is one reason they would not attack us. China probrably wants their money back plus intrest but they could attack U.S and gain land and they could tax us and get their money back. China already owns most of the U.S because the U.S put up our national parks for collatral true though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the us spends more on militairy then every other nation in the world combined. what would the Chinese masses do if China started such an upscale war? revolution. the government is powerful enough to handle a revolution, but do you think they'd want one? army size isnt everything. our technology is far better.who could deploy armies faster? 'Murica.we have bases in Guam, japan, Hawaii, probably indonesia? where are Chinese bases near us? no where. not to mention our nuclear size is far greater. and our airforce. and the good 'ol American navy. and who are Chinese allies? Vietnam, north korea,and maybe cambodia is something. Pakistan too, but they are more our ally then there's. we have nato. we have japan. we have south korea. we have India.we have pakistan. tax us and get the money back? even obamas tax plan would mimimally change the deficit (in raw money, not considering economic growth and whatnot). numbers virtually mean nothing in modern war. India and China and north korea have more soldiers than us. pakisran has almost the same, and russia is somewhere up there too.you think every one of those countries could take us on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now