Thread: koran, allah, and all things islam

[quote=DrB0b;

Judaism predates Akhenaten? That's news. You have some evidence of that? BTW biblical evidence is not evidence.[/quote]


Hebrew scholars say that Abraham was born around 2000 bc, of course you will say 'wheres the evidence' why is biblical evidence not evidence? in many cases it certainly is as it is backed by other sources and archaeological evidence, always harder the further you go back. The suggestion that Akhenhaton predates Judaism was first put forward by Freud I think, without any evidence of course. If you believe him, and not many seem to these days, Abraham was born around 1200 bc. Even if that were so there is no evidence Akhenaten's transitory ideas were an influence on anyone until the modern era.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by keda

You have switched to comparing theologies, and arguing that they are similar as though continuing a discussion. Only, theology was not what we were discussing, rather the physical locations of their birth.

Perhaps you would be better off talking to yourself as that way you can maintain full control of the discussion? Perhaps you should also delete the list of topics mentioned in your OP (which I foolishly assumed were topics to be discussed in this thread) and instead post a step-by-step plan of what you want discussed, the order in which it should be discussed, and the acceptable conclusions to be reached from the discussion.

I think the list of topics was koran, allah, and all things islam

Originally Posted by thairanat

i may as well go back to thai-visa..

Off you go then. Cheers

Originally Posted by crazy dog

I think the list of topics was koran, allah, and all things islam

Pretty much a given, Abraham was the father of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Koran is quite clear on this. Allah, the same god as taught in Islam.

Posting about Judaism and it's influence on the "topics" seems appropriate.

Not sure what you expected with your "topics" so I will take my leave and let you lead the debate as you see fit.

Second Graders Sing About Allah?

A battle over religion is brewing in central Indiana after a public school wanted second graders to sing a song declaring, “Allah is God.” The phrase was removed just before the performance after a national conservative group launched a protest.

Read more: FOX News Radio - Second Graders Sing About Allah?

Originally Posted by thairanat

What a fvcked web-site this has turned in to......i may as well go back to thai-visa.....( at least they're makin money with all the b.s. adds........).....

Didn't last long Mr 24 posts and one red.
Say hello to George.

Agreed E900. We are just desciding who? Looks like it will probably be Ant.

Originally Posted by Norton

As you say, much debate when it comes to exact dates. Much of the chronology of Judaism is derived from Egyptian writings which mention events and places described in biblical events. Akhenaton's reign is generally accepted from 1352 BC - 1336 BC, give or take a few years. 150 years before Abraham's birth give or take a few years

Funny then that no Jew seems to believe in such a late date for Abraham, give or take a few centuries they say 650-400 years before Akhehaton

Originally Posted by DrB0b

That's what I thought too and that's still the topic, though from your other posts I'm passably certain you don't have a clue about how the things we're discussing relate to that.

You don't see how my posts on Islam relate to the topic, er which is Islam, and not really the stuff you went off on a tanget at. Strange observation, almost as strange as thinking that Egyptian civilization had no lasting value or import on any that came after it, you seem to have overlooked both Greece and Rome.

Originally Posted by crazy dog

Funny then that no Jew seems to believe in such a late date for Abraham

Was using your post which stated 1200 BC. A post which I now see you have edited to state 2000 BC. Guess any debate on what influence, if any, Akhenaten had is moot if Abraham's birth date cannot be established or, for that matter, any evidence aside from the Torah Abraham ever existed.

Originally Posted by Norton

The threat Islam poses is a gross exaggeration. There is no doubt some Islamic clerics use Islamic scripture as a reason for getting folks to blow themselves up in the name of Allah but it is a threat that has been blown out of proportion by governments and the media.

According to various intelligence agencies there have been about 200 terrorist incidents that are directly inspired by Islamic radicalism...

Not sure if you/they mean 200 in the past week, month or year, or ever.

Either way that figure does not reconcile with the real world, though it may be that the 'various intelligence agencies' count only successful attacks, and then only those that occur in their own jurisdictions.


Meanwhile, in the real world:




Feel free to read about the list at

TheReligionofPeace - About the List of Islamic Terror Attacks

...and browse the list here:

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by DrB0b

an evolutionary growth of Judaism

Judaism is considered by many to be an evolution of Pharaoh Akhenaten's monotheist belief in Aten. Modern religions all have aspects of no longer practiced ancient religions embedded in their scriptures.

Yes and it seems to have had an influence, which is also why it's difficult to pinpoint precisely how old the religion is, but now am going to try and get back on track (after catching up with the next two pages).

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by crazy dog

Abraham was born around 1200 bc. Even if that were so there is no evidence Akhenaten's transitory ideas were an influence on anyone until the modern era.

As you say, much debate when it comes to exact dates. Much of the chronology of Judaism is derived from Egyptian writings which mention events and places described in biblical events. Akhenaton's reign is generally accepted from 1352 BC - 1336 BC, give or take a few years. 150 years before Abraham's birth give or take a few years. Did Abraham adopt the idea of monotheism from Akhenaton? Freud did seem to think so but I have my doubts even though the timing could indicate so. References to god in the singular predate Abraham as far back as the creation and include "god's" promise to Noah after the flood.

As pointed out Akhenato's experiment with monotheism was not widely accepted and traces of Atenism erased by his predecessors who fully understood the power of the priesthood. More gods, more priests, making the big bucks promoting their god of choice.

Not much has changed in the last several thousand years.

Not sure of the details but a while back I read quite an in-depth account on the almost certain influences of Ancient Egypt on early Judaism. Could be that though Abraham kicked it off, it was Egypt where Judaism filled out and took its later form. Still, that's only very persuasive conjecture.

The (singular) god of the OT by definition predates everything and everyone, though those taking the OT as immutable and not open to interpretation since a perfect god naturally makes his thoughts and wishes clear, are living on a different planet. Unless we accept the absurd notion of a previous universe which was destroyed, that is, which left god in the very void from which he created this one. In this case it becomes less but still absurd.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Biblical evidence is not evidence unless it's validated by some other source. Until then it's literature or mythology. Certainly many episodes of the bible have been shown to be historically accurate. I actually believe that Abraham did exist but whatever he was he was not a Jew, at best he would have been a proto Jew, nor, whatever these anonymous Hebrew scholars may have said, is there any historical evidence that he existed at all, let alone at what time. Judaism as a religion didn't exist until much later than Abrahamic times and Judaism in its current form didn't exist until the time of the Babylonian exile.

Problem is, we have what we're given and much has been lost through the ages, often making it impossible to validate anything beyond embellishments by self-interested rulers and their sponsored historians. Much the same applies to Christianity, and the younger Islam.

I've always seen Abraham as the progeny of pagan Arabs, but that close to blasphemy in some quarters.

Originally Posted by Eliminator

If you believe in ANY religion, then you're you are misled, miss informed and just basically a SHEEP that follows what others preach. Good golly, get a BRAIN and think for YOURSELF. There is NO god,mohammed or any other MF, that is doing ANYTHING to make this a better world. The world is WAY over populated and NOT any country,government or any stupid religion is going to be able to "FEED THE WORLD". People are going to have to DIE so the masses have something to eat, end of story. It's NOT rocket science.

Followers can always be misled, but can't see any harm if you get something out of whatever you want to believe in without imposing on others. Fine principle, but in practice handed down through the centuries it's invariably been abused as a tool to keep the people protected from the freedom of thinking for themselves.

Most everyone's heard of the book, Satanic Verses, by Salman Rushdie, and some may recall Muslim riots triggered by its publication, even though many of the rioters couldn't read a word of English between them. It works like this: They're rounded up and told to get real pissed off, so pissed off they become, without knowing why. It's a common enough occurence nowadays, for riots and bloodshed over real, imagined, perceived or manufactured evils of the infidel. Another example of many, is the Mohamed cartoons, with riots around the world and much loss of life, yet few if any of the rentamob had seen any of the cartoons.

Anyway, a fatwa (Shariah ruling) was issued for his death, and Rushdie has been under 24/7 protection ever since at the cost of quite a packet over the past two decades.

Now, though I do draw on it for discussion I have no major problem per se with the incident known as the Satanic Verses, and I don't know any other infidel that has. But I do know many Muslims that are embarrassed by it. If anyone has any difficulty with the Satanic Verses, the source is none other than Islam's doctrine of perfection (note lower case).

In Islam, Mohamed was the perfect human being, no man has ever been as moral or upstanding, and it follows that everything he said or did was perfect. The Koran and Hadith are perfect texts, handed down by god, and anything removed or added or altered must implicitly corrupt the perfect, so that it becomes imperfect. Remember this doctrine, because it will come up time and again, and in some instances could be regarded as an act of treachery against any decent god.

For example, Mohamed's 'domestic' practices and attitudes to women, which may have been the norm in 7th century back of beyond. He married a 6-yr-old, and consummated the marriage when she was 9. I have brought this up elsewhere and sure it's repugnant to most people, but it was considered acceptable in those days, as were attitudes towards women and many other things we find abhorrent for today, so let that ride. If the norm was to marry off 10- or 11-yr-olds, then Mohamed's action was similar enough to the old one. No big deal, that's what he was and these are things he did, and they are all fine, so far.

But the doctrine of perfection is relentless and uncompromising. It does not focus on 7th century Arabia. Since Mohamed and the texts are perfect, whatever he did or ruled, and whatever is contained in the scripts, apply everywhere and through all of time.

Today, Islamic scholars differ on the marriageable age of a girl. Some argue 6, with consummation at 9, in line with what Mohamed did. Others interpret the age of consummation more pertinent than the age of marriage; in this case a Muslim may marry a girl at the age of three, or even one-day, though he must wait till she is 9 for consummation. Sex can still be engaged with a wife that has not reached the age of 9, but not intercourse.

This is not compatible with 21st century society, and never will be unless and until Islam takes over and makes it so.

Now, the more I consider other factors, including some posts I have made on TD and elsewhere, the less I feel that Mohamed actually has (for the most part) much to defend. According to Islam's own (perfect) holy texts, he was illiterate, but so what? He was a 7th century warlord; again, so what? Much of the region was dominated by warlords in the 6th and 8th centuries; that was part and parcel of life, so why not the 7th century? He butchered prisoners, lied, tortured, raped and pillaged. He committed many other acts that would be regarded as atrocities today, and were probably a bit harsh even for those times. But it was those times after all so let's move on. With reservations, I have no problem with Mohamed. Note that the thread title does not include him.


Back to the Satanic Verses: We left off with a bit of friction between Mohamed and his new god Allah, and the Meccans with their hundreds of gods. Nothing serious, and they had a working relationship, but the Meccans were beginning to regret having been so tolerant. Among other things, they could not understand why he insisted on sponsoring a centuries-old god for his new religion. Allah was a pagan god, and belonged to all of the people. It didn't feel right that anyone should sponsor an old god for a new religion. It made more sense for someone wanting to start a new religion, to create a new god to go with it. His welcome was turning a bit frosty, but within the rules of religious tolerance.

Mohamed's new religion was still young and tenuous, with few followers. Yet it was competing against powerful other gods in a region and with traditions that made it difficult for pagan Arabs to accept the concept of a single god. Their only understanding of people praying to single gods, was with the Jews and the Christians of the Arabian Peninsula.

The Meccan leaders negotiated with Mohamed, and from his position of weakness, Mohamed agreed to recognise all of the Meccan gods. This kept the peace, but Mohamed came under pressure from his own small band of followers, mostly family and friends, who were were losing faith and beginning to question him for recognising hundreds of gods whilst preaching to them of a single god.

Mohamed claimed that Satan had overpowered him and spoken through him, and that is why he had agreed to recognise the other Meccan gods.


Well, were you expecting a long story? Hope not, that's it! Satan had overpowered him, and this does not reconcile with the Islamic doctrine that Mohamed was a perfect man. Perfection cannot be overpowered.

For me the Satanic Verses is no big deal, and every holy text we know of contains contradictions. Only, the doctrine of perfection, which is perpetual and immutable, not subject to change in any form, drags the backward conduct and traditions of a 7th century dustbowl into 21st century society.

Yes you are right about the kiddie fucking, just 'perfect' for the time. It was his lusting after a relative who was a widow that really got him in hot water for the morals of the time. Unfortunately some bugger never returned several book so I don't recall the relationship or her name, but he ending up marrying her. To get approval on this he conveniently had one of his 'visions' where god told him this action was alright by him and so the perfect man could carry on with her as his wife.

A'isha, or Ayeesha. Actually, the first virgin he took for his wife. Quite a woman she grew into, if you want to read the history.

Originally Posted by sabang

A'isha, or Ayeesha. Actually, the first virgin he took for his wife. Quite a woman she grew into, if you want to read the history.

That's the 6 year old, he had at least 12 wives, not surprising she was a virgin. Took is the operative word and still is today in too many cases.

A policy of “ethnic cleansing” against Christians under way in Mosul, Mgr Sako says

The archbishop of Kirkuk says security measures will be strengthened during Christmas for fear of new attacks. Two attacks are carried out in Mosul yesterday; two churches are hit, one baby girl is dead and 40 people are wounded. Source tells AsiaNews that the Christian community is “destined to die” in the city.

Kirkuk (AsiaNews) – A policy of “ethnic and religious cleansing” is underway in Mosul; in fact, it has worsened as Christmas approaches, Mgr Louis Sako told AsiaNews. For the archbishop of Kirkuk, this means that “security measures must be strengthened or the holiday season”. Meanwhile, tensions and fear are palpable in the city, made worse by a new attack against two places of worship, killing one person and wounding 40 more. A Christian source, anonymous for security reasons, said that the “community is destined to die”.

In the late morning, a car bomb exploded in front of the Church of the Annunciation in the al- Mohandiseen neighbourhood, damaging walls and windows. The attackers also threw grenades against the nearby Christian school, killing a baby girl and injuring 40 more people, including five high school kids. Saad Younes, father of the 8-day-old child, said that the blast occurred when his daughter and sister-in-law were leaving the nearby hospital.

A second attack targeted the Syro-Catholic Church of the Immaculate in al-Shifaa, a neighbourhood in northern Mosul. An explosive device went off in the street in front of the building’s gate. No one was killed or injured.

Yesterday’s attacks are the latest episodes in a series of violence against Christian places of worship. On 26 November, terrorists razed to the ground the Church of Saint Ephrem and the Mother House of the Dominican Sisters of Saint Catherine. A source told AsiaNews that most nuns left; only a few have remained but “are afraid of going out”.

Such attacks are a “warning” for Christians to leave en masse. Many “families have fled north, into Kurdistan, but are jobless and have no hope for the future. The Christian community is destined to die,” the source said.

Mgr Louis Sako shares this concern. For the archbishop of Kirkuk, “ethnic and religious cleansing” is underway in Mosul. The central government and parties are concerned only about the elections, scheduled for 7 March 2010, especially about “sharing the oil”.

The city’s political situation is complex. Arabs control local power; Kurds do not participate in the municipal council; and there is a strong presence of fundamentalist groups and members of Saddam Hussein’s old regime.

“The situation is very tense,” Mgr Sako said. “Just last week to Christian brothers were killed and two more were abducted. Where was the local government? And the Central government? Where are the representatives of the ruling parties?” the prelate asked.

Nevertheless, he said he hopes to see the Christian community achieve greater cohesion within to build a “strong power base” that can reject violence.

For the prelate, one possible response is for “Churches and Christian parties to make a strong statement, reiterating their steadfastness, and their commitment to Iraq, peace and coexistence between ethnic groups and religions. [. . .] To destroy this mosaic is to destroy Iraq,” he said. (DS)

IRAQ A policy of ?ethnic cleansing? against Christians under way in Mosul, Mgr Sako says - Asia News

Much the same to far worse is happening in Turkey, Egypt, and other Muslim lands, where Christians, their homes, places of business and churches are coming under attack.

Islam's claims of tolerance and freedom of worship may be more accurate by adding that this applies only to itself.