Idolizing the Koran
A Shiraz July 29, 2005
#84 Posted by teshah on August 1, 2005 5:23:52 pm
Re: # 49
dost-mittar
“And I believe, Ajeya is right in suggesting that the Prophet made adoptions illegal after he wanted to marry someone who his adopted son had married.”
Mittar ji I appreciate your acumen and power of expression but excuse me here you stumbled a bit about facts of the case. As far as I know it was not the Prophet but Allah Himself who relaxed the rule prohibiting marriage with the adopted son’s wife quite manifestly in the Quran for enabling the Prophet to marry the wife of his adopted son, Zaid bin Haaris. You may say that the Prophet tried to cover his desire to marry that woman, but according to the Quran Allah clearly alludes to his desire to this effect when he was trying to patch up estrangement between Zaid and his wife. I quote here the relevant portion of the Quran:
“Surae Al-Ahzab
33:37 Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: ``Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah.`` But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah`s command must be fulfilled.”
Allah seems to have come too close to the prophet in this case as He fulfilled what was hidden in the heart of the prophet and not what he actually displayed. In the process Allah also removed the difficulty assumed to be faced by the believers in this regard. But was it so? It can raise many questions in the hearts of the ‘disbelievers’ who continued to have adopted sons and not like to avail the facility of marrying their wives.
It is interesting to note from your post that Canada’s Immigration Office is using Islam against the Muslims by rejecting their applications for sponsorship of the adopted persons. Question arises that if the Canadian government is so serious about implementing Islam why don’t they ban the interest also which is more strictly prohibited in Islam. In any case why are they selective in application of Islam when the injunctions of the Quran are meant for all human beings and not for Indo-Canadian Muslims only who can hardly be called Muslims as no one can be called as such without submitting a declaration of ‘Khatme Nabuwat’ to the government of Pakistan. How have they made a mockery of religion ‘Enlightened moderation’ not withstanding! It reminds us again and again the great Ghalib who says:
Baazichae ittjfaal he dunia mere aage
Hota he shab-o-roz tamasha mere aage
Ik khel he aurange Suleman mere nazdik
Ik baat he ehjaaze Massiha mere aage
Juz naam nahin surat-e- aalam mujhe manzoor
Juz wehm nahin hastie ashia mere aage
May God save Islam and the Muslims from its practitioners, the mullah!
Excuse me if it makes your head all the more spinning.
dost-mittar
“And I believe, Ajeya is right in suggesting that the Prophet made adoptions illegal after he wanted to marry someone who his adopted son had married.”
Mittar ji I appreciate your acumen and power of expression but excuse me here you stumbled a bit about facts of the case. As far as I know it was not the Prophet but Allah Himself who relaxed the rule prohibiting marriage with the adopted son’s wife quite manifestly in the Quran for enabling the Prophet to marry the wife of his adopted son, Zaid bin Haaris. You may say that the Prophet tried to cover his desire to marry that woman, but according to the Quran Allah clearly alludes to his desire to this effect when he was trying to patch up estrangement between Zaid and his wife. I quote here the relevant portion of the Quran:
“Surae Al-Ahzab
33:37 Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: ``Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah.`` But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah`s command must be fulfilled.”
Allah seems to have come too close to the prophet in this case as He fulfilled what was hidden in the heart of the prophet and not what he actually displayed. In the process Allah also removed the difficulty assumed to be faced by the believers in this regard. But was it so? It can raise many questions in the hearts of the ‘disbelievers’ who continued to have adopted sons and not like to avail the facility of marrying their wives.
It is interesting to note from your post that Canada’s Immigration Office is using Islam against the Muslims by rejecting their applications for sponsorship of the adopted persons. Question arises that if the Canadian government is so serious about implementing Islam why don’t they ban the interest also which is more strictly prohibited in Islam. In any case why are they selective in application of Islam when the injunctions of the Quran are meant for all human beings and not for Indo-Canadian Muslims only who can hardly be called Muslims as no one can be called as such without submitting a declaration of ‘Khatme Nabuwat’ to the government of Pakistan. How have they made a mockery of religion ‘Enlightened moderation’ not withstanding! It reminds us again and again the great Ghalib who says:
Baazichae ittjfaal he dunia mere aage
Hota he shab-o-roz tamasha mere aage
Ik khel he aurange Suleman mere nazdik
Ik baat he ehjaaze Massiha mere aage
Juz naam nahin surat-e- aalam mujhe manzoor
Juz wehm nahin hastie ashia mere aage
May God save Islam and the Muslims from its practitioners, the mullah!
Excuse me if it makes your head all the more spinning.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#60 Posted by Urstruly on July 31, 2005 8:00:22 pm
Re: # 49 Dost:
Why? My point of view is very clear. There are three levels at which an individual makes a `positive` connection with another entity - be it a deity, an icon, a person, or a book.
The first level of connection is that of Reverence. Allah and his Prophet (pbuh) have set the limits for the reverence with a special instruction that we must always follow the middle path. The degree of reverence to ones parents, teachers, holy books, mosques, to Prophet and to God himself are well defined and it has access to every one. The moulanas in villages in every sermon on Friday empahsis on these limits very well and a regular Allah Rakha knows his limkits very well. But the very Allah Rakha may be misled by his religious leaders as well. The worship of graves and using Qura`n as Taa`weez are the practices that people with week faith have started for their worldly benfits.
When these limits are transgressed the simple reverence first corrupts into iconolatry. For example, just before before Muhammad ibn-Abd-al-Wahab (1703–1792), who is the founder of Wahabi sect, Muslims of Arabia almost started worshipping a tree under which the Hudaibiya pact was signed by Holy Prophet (pbuh). The gravesite in Medina called Janat-ul-Baqi, which contains the graves of the companions and family members of Holy prophet and various other honorable personalities in Islamic history are burried became shrines, and people started pagan rituals over there which Holy Prophet speciifically forbade. The world of Islam should be greatly indebted to Wahab for taking a stand against these vile practices and for eradicating from the land on which once Holy prophet walked upon.
The idolatry is the furthr corruption of the iconolatry. These are the outright practices of Shirk that I have explained in my last post.
So you see how a simple practice of reverence if kept unchecked turns into iconolatry and outright idolatry. That is why every day of a Muslim is a day of Jihad, to keep on righteous path, and keep his flock on the righteous path as well.
2. It is a common misconception that Qura`n in the written form did not exist in written form prior to the third caliph. The truth of the matter is that Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself permitted both the penning of his ahadith and also the Qura`n. He himself organized the sequence of verses in Qura`n. That is the reason the very first verses of revelation are in the 30th , the last chapter of the book, whereas, the second Chapter of the Holy book (The Heifer) was reveled in the 10th-12th year of his Prophethood. But keep in mind that during Holy Prophet times the complete Qura`n existed only in the memory of his companions whom were taught by Prophet himself to memorize. It shouldn`t raise any eyebrows, because even today 10-12 year old children can memorize this book and there are millions of Hafiz around the globe. This is the living miracle of this book. At the time of Holy Prophet there also existed parchments and tree barks and clay tablets upon which some of the text was written. First time Muslims felt that this text should be collated in a book and saved in the book form was when the second Caliph sent a Jihad expedition against the false Prophet Mussailma the Liar and in that expedition some 2000+ Hafiz fell martyr.
Why? My point of view is very clear. There are three levels at which an individual makes a `positive` connection with another entity - be it a deity, an icon, a person, or a book.
The first level of connection is that of Reverence. Allah and his Prophet (pbuh) have set the limits for the reverence with a special instruction that we must always follow the middle path. The degree of reverence to ones parents, teachers, holy books, mosques, to Prophet and to God himself are well defined and it has access to every one. The moulanas in villages in every sermon on Friday empahsis on these limits very well and a regular Allah Rakha knows his limkits very well. But the very Allah Rakha may be misled by his religious leaders as well. The worship of graves and using Qura`n as Taa`weez are the practices that people with week faith have started for their worldly benfits.
When these limits are transgressed the simple reverence first corrupts into iconolatry. For example, just before before Muhammad ibn-Abd-al-Wahab (1703–1792), who is the founder of Wahabi sect, Muslims of Arabia almost started worshipping a tree under which the Hudaibiya pact was signed by Holy Prophet (pbuh). The gravesite in Medina called Janat-ul-Baqi, which contains the graves of the companions and family members of Holy prophet and various other honorable personalities in Islamic history are burried became shrines, and people started pagan rituals over there which Holy Prophet speciifically forbade. The world of Islam should be greatly indebted to Wahab for taking a stand against these vile practices and for eradicating from the land on which once Holy prophet walked upon.
The idolatry is the furthr corruption of the iconolatry. These are the outright practices of Shirk that I have explained in my last post.
So you see how a simple practice of reverence if kept unchecked turns into iconolatry and outright idolatry. That is why every day of a Muslim is a day of Jihad, to keep on righteous path, and keep his flock on the righteous path as well.
2. It is a common misconception that Qura`n in the written form did not exist in written form prior to the third caliph. The truth of the matter is that Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself permitted both the penning of his ahadith and also the Qura`n. He himself organized the sequence of verses in Qura`n. That is the reason the very first verses of revelation are in the 30th , the last chapter of the book, whereas, the second Chapter of the Holy book (The Heifer) was reveled in the 10th-12th year of his Prophethood. But keep in mind that during Holy Prophet times the complete Qura`n existed only in the memory of his companions whom were taught by Prophet himself to memorize. It shouldn`t raise any eyebrows, because even today 10-12 year old children can memorize this book and there are millions of Hafiz around the globe. This is the living miracle of this book. At the time of Holy Prophet there also existed parchments and tree barks and clay tablets upon which some of the text was written. First time Muslims felt that this text should be collated in a book and saved in the book form was when the second Caliph sent a Jihad expedition against the false Prophet Mussailma the Liar and in that expedition some 2000+ Hafiz fell martyr.
#48 Posted by ajeya on July 30, 2005 10:36:17 pm
Re: #44 by Urstruly
In an earlier post (#29), you had mentioned:
``Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father`s sisters, Mother`s sisters; brother`s daughters, sister`s daughters; foster-mothers (Who suckled you), foster-sisters;.....``
This tells me that according to Mohammeds`s rules, foster-sisters are always prohibited, but only foster-mothers who suckled you are prohibited. Therefore foster-mothers who did not suckle you are fair game, but foster-sisters are never so.
But in this post you say:
``So to address your question more directly an adopted can marry his or her foster parent or sibling.``
So which one is correct?
In an earlier post (#29), you had mentioned:
``Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father`s sisters, Mother`s sisters; brother`s daughters, sister`s daughters; foster-mothers (Who suckled you), foster-sisters;.....``
This tells me that according to Mohammeds`s rules, foster-sisters are always prohibited, but only foster-mothers who suckled you are prohibited. Therefore foster-mothers who did not suckle you are fair game, but foster-sisters are never so.
But in this post you say:
``So to address your question more directly an adopted can marry his or her foster parent or sibling.``
So which one is correct?
#47 Posted by Urstruly on July 30, 2005 9:20:15 pm
From the following few posts by Kalchakra and temporal etc. I see that there has emerged confusion about the Islamic concept of worship. The title of this article has added to the confusion as well.
In order to understand the monotheistic nature of Islam one must understand the difference between two closely related terms - idolatry and iconolatry . The term idolatry has two connotations i.e. a worshiper worships an idol assuming that the deity that he is worshipping has a physical form that is depicted in the form of the idol. The other connotation is that “this sacred idol” is the god or deity himself.
Similarly, iconolatry has two connotations as well – a symbol is associated with something or someone sacred and in extreme cases this symbol itself becomes either a deity or starts possessing the same characteristics, as a deity would have.
Islam forbids both practices of idolatry and iconolatry period. However, we see that Islam attaches some form of sanctity to places, objects, and symbols. Is this Iconolatry then? Or is it outright Idolatry, as the article suggests. There is such a gray line between these two concepts that a person who does not know the difference may confuse one for the other.
In Islam, in order to keep its practices stand clear from either of “iconolatry” or “idolatry” two concepts have been introduced to us by Allah and his Prophet (pbuh). These concepts are called “Kufr” and “shirk”.
A Kafir is one who practices kufr, and the practice of kufr is the outright rejection of the belief that a High Entity, God, or Allah exists. The modern English equivalents of Kafir are – atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, humanists, skeptics and to some lesser degree the doubters.
A “mushriq” on the other hand is that who does not deny the existence of a Higher Entity but he thinks that there are many higher entities that share the workload of the universe. A particular idol may be responsible for rains and other for prosperity A certain symbol may be associated with fertility and other with destruction. And the worshiper worships one or the other as per his requirement.
In Islamic cultural practices “iconolatry” has taken its extreme form. For example, in shia theology, Ali (RA) have all those powers that Allah has reserved for himself. Also in other sects certain dead personalities are addressed for help, wealth, prosperity, fertility etc. at their graves or in person assuming that they have a special connection to Allah or they share powers with Allah somehow, under one context or the other. Similarly, as for symbols the written text of Qura’n or other prayers is considered to heal etc.
Islam strictly forbids these practices because this is “Shirk” period. It stipulates that every man has a direct connection to Allah by saying that Allah is closer to man than his carotid artery.
However, I must clarify here that, there is certain demeanor as ordered by Holy Prophet (pbuh) while dealing with Qura’n as a book. Men and women are forbidden to touch it without ablution. Its recitation at certain times is forbidden. And it is instructed that we should listen to it attentively by taking a break from our daily affairs.
Similarly, Kaaba in Mecca has no significance other than a center point for direction and to produce uniformity among worshipers. The black stone at one corner of Kaaba is merely a marker from where the seven ritual circles begin. It is important because since Abraham established this house of God ten thousand years ago, he himself put that marker there, and its black color separated it from other stones. God may have ordered him to kiss this stone on every circle and offer prayer, and Holy Prophet (pbuh) continued the practice. Other than that, the building or the stone have no powers that they share with Allah and Muslism of any sect do not consider them forms of deity or deities themselves.
In order to understand the monotheistic nature of Islam one must understand the difference between two closely related terms - idolatry and iconolatry . The term idolatry has two connotations i.e. a worshiper worships an idol assuming that the deity that he is worshipping has a physical form that is depicted in the form of the idol. The other connotation is that “this sacred idol” is the god or deity himself.
Similarly, iconolatry has two connotations as well – a symbol is associated with something or someone sacred and in extreme cases this symbol itself becomes either a deity or starts possessing the same characteristics, as a deity would have.
Islam forbids both practices of idolatry and iconolatry period. However, we see that Islam attaches some form of sanctity to places, objects, and symbols. Is this Iconolatry then? Or is it outright Idolatry, as the article suggests. There is such a gray line between these two concepts that a person who does not know the difference may confuse one for the other.
In Islam, in order to keep its practices stand clear from either of “iconolatry” or “idolatry” two concepts have been introduced to us by Allah and his Prophet (pbuh). These concepts are called “Kufr” and “shirk”.
A Kafir is one who practices kufr, and the practice of kufr is the outright rejection of the belief that a High Entity, God, or Allah exists. The modern English equivalents of Kafir are – atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, humanists, skeptics and to some lesser degree the doubters.
A “mushriq” on the other hand is that who does not deny the existence of a Higher Entity but he thinks that there are many higher entities that share the workload of the universe. A particular idol may be responsible for rains and other for prosperity A certain symbol may be associated with fertility and other with destruction. And the worshiper worships one or the other as per his requirement.
In Islamic cultural practices “iconolatry” has taken its extreme form. For example, in shia theology, Ali (RA) have all those powers that Allah has reserved for himself. Also in other sects certain dead personalities are addressed for help, wealth, prosperity, fertility etc. at their graves or in person assuming that they have a special connection to Allah or they share powers with Allah somehow, under one context or the other. Similarly, as for symbols the written text of Qura’n or other prayers is considered to heal etc.
Islam strictly forbids these practices because this is “Shirk” period. It stipulates that every man has a direct connection to Allah by saying that Allah is closer to man than his carotid artery.
However, I must clarify here that, there is certain demeanor as ordered by Holy Prophet (pbuh) while dealing with Qura’n as a book. Men and women are forbidden to touch it without ablution. Its recitation at certain times is forbidden. And it is instructed that we should listen to it attentively by taking a break from our daily affairs.
Similarly, Kaaba in Mecca has no significance other than a center point for direction and to produce uniformity among worshipers. The black stone at one corner of Kaaba is merely a marker from where the seven ritual circles begin. It is important because since Abraham established this house of God ten thousand years ago, he himself put that marker there, and its black color separated it from other stones. God may have ordered him to kiss this stone on every circle and offer prayer, and Holy Prophet (pbuh) continued the practice. Other than that, the building or the stone have no powers that they share with Allah and Muslism of any sect do not consider them forms of deity or deities themselves.
#46 Posted by AlephNull on July 30, 2005 9:14:52 pm
A real investigation of the genetic relationship between the three so-called Abrahamic faiths may well throw up some surprises.
A common understanding of the relationship is, in a nutshell: Christianity as a schismatic variant of Judaism, minus the Chosen People tribalism and the taboos, modified for propagation among the Gentiles; and Islam as an attempt to reform and ‘rationalise’ Christianity by discarding some of the myths and the central mysteries as well as the institution of the Church, while reabsorbing some taboos from Judaism.
There is reason to believe that this description is completely wrong in the place it assigns to Christianity. Christianity may have originated not as a Hellenized Judaism, but rather, as a Judaized version of the pagan mystery religions that predominated in the Roman empire in the first century CE. According to this view, the metaphorical-mythical-mystical elements in the New Testament – stuff like the Triune God, Christ as the Son of God, the Virgin Birth, assorted miracles, the Resurrection, etc. were put there quite deliberately. There was never any intention to present the Gospels as a historical account of events that ‘actually’ occurred. It was well-understood that a historical Jesus never existed.
If this account is accurate, Christianity is the odd man out among the so-called triad Judaic religions, originating as a ‘pagan’ creed rather than a variant of Judaic monotheism. The attempt by the human author(s) of the Quran to purge Christianity of obvious ‘irrationality’ and ‘idolatry’ by, for instance decreeing that Christ was a Prophet and not the Son of God, would then be a consequence of misunderstanding and misplaced concreteness.
A common understanding of the relationship is, in a nutshell: Christianity as a schismatic variant of Judaism, minus the Chosen People tribalism and the taboos, modified for propagation among the Gentiles; and Islam as an attempt to reform and ‘rationalise’ Christianity by discarding some of the myths and the central mysteries as well as the institution of the Church, while reabsorbing some taboos from Judaism.
There is reason to believe that this description is completely wrong in the place it assigns to Christianity. Christianity may have originated not as a Hellenized Judaism, but rather, as a Judaized version of the pagan mystery religions that predominated in the Roman empire in the first century CE. According to this view, the metaphorical-mythical-mystical elements in the New Testament – stuff like the Triune God, Christ as the Son of God, the Virgin Birth, assorted miracles, the Resurrection, etc. were put there quite deliberately. There was never any intention to present the Gospels as a historical account of events that ‘actually’ occurred. It was well-understood that a historical Jesus never existed.
If this account is accurate, Christianity is the odd man out among the so-called triad Judaic religions, originating as a ‘pagan’ creed rather than a variant of Judaic monotheism. The attempt by the human author(s) of the Quran to purge Christianity of obvious ‘irrationality’ and ‘idolatry’ by, for instance decreeing that Christ was a Prophet and not the Son of God, would then be a consequence of misunderstanding and misplaced concreteness.
#45 Posted by ana on July 30, 2005 8:34:25 pm
the various points of interest so far have been:
*athar vs. arthur.
*athar`s questionable ``return`` to the faith.
*koran vs. qur`an.
*worship as opposed to reverence.
- - if the qur`an were indeed just a book in the eyes of a group of people, a man or a village wouldn`t have to be destroyed for allegedly desecrating it now would it?
- - if many muslims do understand the difference between worship and reverence then why is it that a group of muslim men brutally and fatally punish those who would desecrate it?
what then is reverence? and what is worship. and are excess reverence and worship synonymous.
i believe shiraz sahib is already testing this idea of reverence as opposed to worship in his constant usage of the spelling ``koran`` as opposed to ``qur`an`` -- a spelling he has chosen to use more than twenty times in this article (which beats bill clinton standing outside a running plane and using the term genocide twenty times to refer to what happened in rwanda within a span of no more and perhaps less than ten minutes). already it has gotten a riled-up reaction, and questioning.
reading this article, i can`t really determine that shiraz`s views have changed all that much. it is certainly a lot more reasonable than past attempts. advocating that one read the qur`an and devour it is reading it as one would tolkien, or c. s. lewis, or faiz, ghalib or iqbal, is not necessarily a return. . . it is a continuing journey to a destination where shiraz will still meet with massive resistance. courage!
*athar vs. arthur.
*athar`s questionable ``return`` to the faith.
*koran vs. qur`an.
*worship as opposed to reverence.
- - if the qur`an were indeed just a book in the eyes of a group of people, a man or a village wouldn`t have to be destroyed for allegedly desecrating it now would it?
- - if many muslims do understand the difference between worship and reverence then why is it that a group of muslim men brutally and fatally punish those who would desecrate it?
what then is reverence? and what is worship. and are excess reverence and worship synonymous.
i believe shiraz sahib is already testing this idea of reverence as opposed to worship in his constant usage of the spelling ``koran`` as opposed to ``qur`an`` -- a spelling he has chosen to use more than twenty times in this article (which beats bill clinton standing outside a running plane and using the term genocide twenty times to refer to what happened in rwanda within a span of no more and perhaps less than ten minutes). already it has gotten a riled-up reaction, and questioning.
reading this article, i can`t really determine that shiraz`s views have changed all that much. it is certainly a lot more reasonable than past attempts. advocating that one read the qur`an and devour it is reading it as one would tolkien, or c. s. lewis, or faiz, ghalib or iqbal, is not necessarily a return. . . it is a continuing journey to a destination where shiraz will still meet with massive resistance. courage!
#43 Posted by KaalChakra on July 30, 2005 7:45:02 pm
Stinger_kh
Thanks. That is a great answer. A person who does not know and knows that he does not know is in a far better position than one who does not know and is so sure of his knowledge that he refuses to find out.
When Cowasjee explains, please listen to him with an open mind. He will tell you that Parsis do not worship the fire.
Thanks. That is a great answer. A person who does not know and knows that he does not know is in a far better position than one who does not know and is so sure of his knowledge that he refuses to find out.
When Cowasjee explains, please listen to him with an open mind. He will tell you that Parsis do not worship the fire.
#54 Posted by stinger_kh on July 31, 2005 5:56:07 pm
Re: # 43
Yesturday i asked u some thing about GOD existence u fail me to answer by just saying that GOD exist. Let me continue with the worship issue of Parsis i came upwith following points. ``Zoroastrians regard fire as a pure creation, and thus fire became the symbol of Zoroastrianism much as the cross is the symbol of Christianity. Many Zoroastrian rites take place within fire temples. A holy fire is kept constantly burning.`` I see chiristans kissing there crossbar everyday so what is that u tell me.
Yesturday i asked u some thing about GOD existence u fail me to answer by just saying that GOD exist. Let me continue with the worship issue of Parsis i came upwith following points. ``Zoroastrians regard fire as a pure creation, and thus fire became the symbol of Zoroastrianism much as the cross is the symbol of Christianity. Many Zoroastrian rites take place within fire temples. A holy fire is kept constantly burning.`` I see chiristans kissing there crossbar everyday so what is that u tell me.
#41 Posted by KaalChakra on July 30, 2005 7:29:41 pm
Temporal ji
There was this Christian tract on how one must avoid cults. It offered a very simple definition of a cult: any religion that does not fully conform to the Word of Living God as available in the Christian Bible is a cult and dangerous.
There are understandings, and then there are understandings :)
There was this Christian tract on how one must avoid cults. It offered a very simple definition of a cult: any religion that does not fully conform to the Word of Living God as available in the Christian Bible is a cult and dangerous.
There are understandings, and then there are understandings :)
#42 Posted by stinger_kh on July 30, 2005 7:40:04 pm
Re: # 41
i think they workship fire becoz GOD can be in any form of energy that is what i think i don`t know much about others. For few extra information about Parsi i have to contact Cowasjee for that.
i think they workship fire becoz GOD can be in any form of energy that is what i think i don`t know much about others. For few extra information about Parsi i have to contact Cowasjee for that.
#40 Posted by KaalChakra on July 30, 2005 7:14:21 pm
stinger_kh
I don`t think that people who belive in God have any sickness! That would be silly.
So, using that defintion, what is your and your friends` view of Parsis? Do Parsis worship the fire?
I don`t think that people who belive in God have any sickness! That would be silly.
So, using that defintion, what is your and your friends` view of Parsis? Do Parsis worship the fire?
#37 Posted by temporal on July 30, 2005 6:49:31 pm
kaalchakra sahib:
kyuN ghumana chah rahay hO humaiN?
aap ko bhi pata hay
aur hum ko bhi
(aur hum nay tO likh bhi diya hay saaf saaf in #32- aap PaRhaiN na paRhaiN -- aap samjhna chahaiN, na samjhna chahaiN - aap ki marzi)
have a nice weekend
t
kyuN ghumana chah rahay hO humaiN?
aap ko bhi pata hay
aur hum ko bhi
(aur hum nay tO likh bhi diya hay saaf saaf in #32- aap PaRhaiN na paRhaiN -- aap samjhna chahaiN, na samjhna chahaiN - aap ki marzi)
have a nice weekend
t
#39 Posted by stinger_kh on July 30, 2005 7:10:43 pm
Re: # 37
worship : to treat somebody or something as divine and show respect by engaging in acts of prayer and devotion
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Its all there it all depends on u how u wanna take it.
worship : to treat somebody or something as divine and show respect by engaging in acts of prayer and devotion
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Its all there it all depends on u how u wanna take it.
#36 Posted by KaalChakra on July 30, 2005 6:45:44 pm
All right, on a friendly note, let me help out here. We can go step by step.
Do Parsis worship the fire?
Do Parsis worship the fire?
#38 Posted by stinger_kh on July 30, 2005 7:01:13 pm
Re: # 36
I have read ur comments Sir and the rest of them here including urstruly,temporal & Ajeya. I have question here we all believe on GOD. But if u want to prove scientifically u can`t do that so my point is that those who believe on GOD are they having any mind sickness, accepting some thing true which don`t exist.
What ``deity`` is ????
I have read ur comments Sir and the rest of them here including urstruly,temporal & Ajeya. I have question here we all believe on GOD. But if u want to prove scientifically u can`t do that so my point is that those who believe on GOD are they having any mind sickness, accepting some thing true which don`t exist.
What ``deity`` is ????
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- pakiturk: #248 Posted by CoolAL... An Indian Muslim
- pakiturk: Zardari on Larry King... I Am A Pakistani
- pakiturk: Zardari on Larry King... The Future of Indo
- pakiturk: Zardari on Larry King... Pleas For Sanity as
- pakiturk: Zardari on Larry King... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Pew_Research: Re: # 290 "That FATA... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- KaalChakra: Beena, I would very... Pleas For Sanity as
- KaalChakra: Pew_Research and Other Indians I... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
