Just making sure what im reading is right...

**Kanamori** · 12-23-2006, 19:39

Those people believe muhammed???? It's no wonder I think that they should all die and are all scumbags.

**Randarkmaan** · 12-23-2006, 21:29

Was that the chap who scolded Muhammad for being lax in his observance of the religion?

I don't think so, the "mad caliph" (Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah) was just a little mad... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Caliph Here's his wikipedia entry.
He was not very nice towards christians, he for an example made them wear black hats and they had to wear one meter-long crosses on their backs.

**Orb** · 12-27-2006, 22:37

On the first post.

Didn't the Jews also try to assassinate Muhammed?

I don't agree with Islam, but that writer seems fairly biased.

**Patriarch of Constantinople** · 12-28-2006, 19:53

Originally Posted by Kanamori

Those people believe muhammed???? It's no wonder I think that they should all die and are all scumbags.

Every religion had/has violence. Christianity: Crusades, killing Muslims in the name of God. Jews: Destroying the walls of Jericho and continuing fighting tribes for unity. Muslims: Mohammeds coquest of Mecca, and today's terrorist bombings.

But, I hope you don't think all Muslims are terrorists.

**BDC** · 12-29-2006, 00:16

Muslims have quoted the "Quraysh Model" as justification for many deceptive treaties. It means, "Negotiate 'peace' with your enemy until you become strong enough to annihilate him"

That's hardly exactly a Muslim thing. Pretty sure that's how most of the world was conquered by Europeans.

**Pannonian** · 12-29-2006, 01:49

Originally Posted by BDC

quote=holybandit
Muslims have quoted the "Quraysh Model" as justification for many deceptive treaties. It means, "Negotiate 'peace' with your enemy until you become strong enough to annihilate him"

That's hardly exactly a Muslim thing. Pretty sure that's how most of the world was conquered by Europeans.

Most notably America. The conquest of the American wilds is possibly the most sustained campaign of treachery and broken promises in recorded history. Even the Mongols tended only to break their oaths to open a campaign, not repeatedly make, ignore and void treaties.

**Kanamori** · 12-29-2006, 04:56

Every religion had/has violence. Christianity: Crusades, killing Muslims in the name of God. Jews: Destroying the walls of Jericho and continuing fighting tribes for unity. Muslims: Mohammeds coquest of Mecca, and today's terrorist bombings.

But, I hope you don't think all Muslims are terrorists.

I don't actually hate or love muslims for being muslims. It was a statement on the ridiculousness of implying anything about modern day muslims based on what mohammed did; first, they are not him and haven't done any of those things; second, his teachings are separate from his supposed actions, and many people interpret his teachings differently; fourth, the sequence of interpreting islamic history tends to go: I already dislike muslims -----> look at these (vague interpretations of) events in history, mohammed was a bastard (conclusion reached because of hasty interpretation based on previous hatred)-----> muslims beleive in mohammed, and think these evil things are OK -----> Aha, muslims really are scum... not many people actually invest the time to get many sources of information or construct a clear idea of all that actually happened -- eg of imporance Jill shot Jack in the face ---> ah, Jill is bad ... but actually, Jack first attacked Jill with a machete... people leave out, or miss out of ignorance, vital information for making a correct judgment... You can usually tell the sources are biased off their rockers when they are harsh and vague about things that are important for judgment.

They go into the whole thing with an incredibly colored perception of reality, use it to justify some conclusion based on way too little information, and then from that justify their twisted idea of things that they always had.

But yes, most every religion has its violent adherents: people, even common murderers and rapists, tend to think that they are justified, ie based on some personal belief, in harming others when they do it.

**Divinus Arma** · 12-29-2006, 07:28

That Luke 19:27 is one bit of interesting info. Pretty easy to miss too. However, this one is getting really really misinterpreted here.

The Parable of the Ten Minas is a story told by Jesus about a Ruler or King, and the words of LUKE 19:27 are those of THE RULER and NOT of Jesus.

Here is the whole text in the New International Version for ease of reading:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Here is a link where one may read virtually any translation of the bible, but this link goes directly to the above passage. LINKY

Jesus frequently taught by parable to illustrate God and man's relationship to God. In this instance, Jesus is using this story to teach of what man should do with what God gives us on earth. He explains that we each are given an opportunity to invest in good by making positive choices that please God. He then explains that the man who takes the gift of choice from God and does nothing with it does not deserve the gift of choice to begin with.

As for the very last part Luke 19:27, Jesus is explaining that those who actively choose to go against God will be punished.

Our lesson in life is to take our gift of choice and use it to do God's will. By alligning our own personal ambitions with the ambition of God, we will have a fuller and more meaningful life. If we choose to do nothing and remain apathetic, then we have wasted our life and our gift. Finally, if we choose to do evil by opposing God, then we ruin our own lives and choose a life of pain for ourselves.

Believers in the afterlife may extend this to a consequence for our actions after our death. But believers in mortality can also take a lesson in this as a consequence which occurs in life.