The right to a faith which in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries practices such horrific acts?

I don't see why I should respect their right to do that either- since it is in the name of that particular faith that they commit such acts.

To me, that would just be splitting hairs.

According to some experts on that Channel 4 programme some of the the things practised pre-dated Islam and were not part of it

FWIW

Yes, no doubt, people were like that before Islam. Islam dates back thousands of years. People were more barbaric thousands of years ago.

What is surprising though, is how countries like Saudi Arabia seem to have made practically no progress in that time. Things like public stonings for sex before marriage, or for being gay, are acts of barbarity long since abandoned in western countries.

Of course they now say they are committing such acts in the name of 'Islam'. Whether it is true to Islam to kill gay people or people having sex before marriage or not is irrelevant- It’s the very fact that they are still doing it and calling themselves Muslims- in fact, wasn’t the original subject of this thread stating how Saudi Arabia IS the centre of Islam?! So I’d expect the way they act, very much IS excepted as Islamic and in the name of Islam!

And by defending their laws or actions- they are basically saying- it's ok to kill gay people/ adulterous people or those that have sex before marriage and that it's ok that women can't vote or drive and don‘t have half as many rights as men.

So I think most people would be able to see why I'd find it ridiculous that they then go on to say how much worse they think women are treated in the west.

I vaguely remember that on the Isle of Mann, homosexuality was still illegal.

I just asked my friend who lives on IOM and he says there are no laws concerning homosexuality on the island?

It was decriminalised in 1994

See here


We now return you to your regular programming

Muhammad was born in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in 570 AD. At that time Arabs practised a form of worship of Allah (God) that was centred in the Mecca valley, at the sacred site of the Ka'bah, a simple cubelike building where a black meteorite was revered.
According to Islamic tradition the Ka'bah was oringinally built by Adam (1st man of the Bible) according to a celestial prototype and after the great flood (In Noah's day) was rebuilt by Abraham and Ismael (also charectors of the Bible)

The centre of the earth was a figurative centre, not a litral geographical site(the earths core), it was believed the 'staircase to heaven' was found above it.
Muhammad grew up with these beliefs and his faith centred on there being one almighty and ever living God (Allah his name) his beliefs were in harmony with what is found within the scriptures we know as the Bible (a collection of Hebrew writings and Greek writings of the latter followers of Jesus Christ) With this faith in one God Muhammad struggled with ever increasing popular doctrine spreading within Christianity of a Trinity godhead, A Father, Son, and Holy spirit as same and as one, this belief would have been considered huge contradiction to the worshippers in Mecca including Mohammad. (It is also a belief which is not biblicly inspired or originated, but one which has grown from oppostate christian churches).

To such extent Mohammed now at the age of 40, believed whilst taking his daily meditation he was given a calling by God to become a prophet (a messanger of God) he claimed this message was brought to him by an angel Gabriel (another name found in the Bible)
His message was committed to memory as writing materials were scarce, and paper had yet to be widely used for taking notes. As the message was spread by word of mouth Arabs used the hide of there Camels or wood to help them memorise the teachings from Mohammed which lasted untill Muhammad's death in 632AD. These messages from God to Muhammad make up the entire Qu'ran as it is today, and is the cornerstone of the Islamic faith (Islam translated is surrender, or submission to God)
Initially his message caused a split in which Muhammad was rejected even by his own tribe and exiled to a place north of Mecca called Yathrib which became known as Medina (the city of the prophet)
Eventually Muhammad's converts grew to achieve total dominance and in 630 AD he and his army returned to a surrendered Mecca having won many battles along the way to gaining power and control.

All throughout this time the scriptures of the Hebrew part we now know as the Bible were widely available, as too were the message of the Greek scriptures, both would have been available and accessed by Muhammad and his followers. It was the false doctrine and the compromises made by the christian churches at the time to Roman power which rankled with the faithful scholars like Mohammad, and I believe inspired him to fight to bring back Gods original message.
The problem I have with the Qu'ran and Muhammad's message, is the fact we already had this message at the time from the same God. Although not combined into one neet collection of books we know as the Bible today, the essense of those same scriptures were all out there in readable script, God had already sent his message and the answer to mankinds questions in the form of his son, another miracle creation (like Adam) which was Jesus Christ.

Any follow up would have to be in harmony with the testomony found in the original scriptures, although Muhammad believed in them there was no need to form another religion unless they were considered erronous and ungodly.
You cannot accept Jesus as a prophet if you accept the holy scriptures which claim to be divinley written, in those scriptures Jesus is said to be the son of God, a charge which would be considered blaphemous and just like the Jewish faith found in Jesus's case, a charge which carries the death penalty.
Of course if you dont accept the holy scriptures which the same God inspired man to write for all time and found now in the 66 books of the Bible, then why do you have a religion which bases 75% of its writings on such a faulty and unacceptable premise.

Im not sure how much people know about this here, but I thought I might share this with everyone, seen as I only knew about it so recently.

I only found out recently that the English language is associated with indi, becuase its a Indo-European language. Im semetic (in the blue zone) , incase some might not like this post or whatever.

http://www.picbi.com/upload/images/y...6istfezljl.jpg

Im not sure about race, but Iv always seen a connection between Indians and British people, apart from the skin colour, the same 'conservative' minds are in both Indians and British, like they derive from the same genetics, for example look at how England plays football compared to portugal? but I was thinking It could be possible if north europeans were "Albino Indians":-

http://www.shunya.net/Pictures/South...ingGirls01.jpg

the word "aryan" derives from India any way, and there are a mojority of white people that are close to Desi people (Pakistani, Indian, Bangladesh) such as Afganistan, who can be considered more "Whiter" than Italian people. If you research into images of Afgani people youll see. And also Iran, were the majority of them are white people with other colour eyes.

Also, I saw this video on Youtube of a albino chinese girl with "green eyes" chinese people dont have green eyes, and green eyes or other color eyes were always said to be a genetical mutation. But would this mean that North Europeans are hindu albinos with other color eyes like this chinese woman?:-




Iv always noticed how some british people hate Indians specifically differently, for example the Shilpa shetty incident was clearly racism but I remember how BB would interview the public and passers by, were they would say no it wasnt racism... theres something between the two groups of people that im not part of which makes it harder to read. but i dont know, im not trying to offend anyone in any way whats so ever.

what are your opinions?

Im semetic white, by the way so I know some white aryan people might be abit "shocked" about this post:

Iranian Women:-
http://www.doomdam.com/archives/hijab.jpg

http://www.picbi.com/upload/images/e...30u9ib2b3x.jpg

iranian boy:-
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r.../bloneIran.jpg

Iraqi Women:
http://www.picbi.com/upload/images/9...4gfgfniebg.jpg

Afgan People


afgan girl:-
http://afghanistanica.files.wordpres.../afghan1_1.jpg

afgan man:-
http://www.geocities.com/om_kranti/misc/guesswho1.jpg

iran revolutionary creator and sean connery:-
http://www.aref-adib.com/archives/khomeini_connery1.jpg

Afgan man during a British Raid:-
http://www.irishoriginsofcivilizatio...fghanmansm.jpg

Also a note to Farhad, why is he attaching himself so much to arabic-ness.

Pakistani people are DESI people, meaning they are in the etchnic group of "Indians, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans, etc".

Pakistani people speak Urdu and are of indian race (desi)

Arabs & Hewbews are semetic people, im white arabic (semetic) from Algeria. Jesus was semetic like me, he spoke Aramiac

Well, as I said in your other post- Europeans are not albino Indians. And Europe does not derive from India- or at least the majority of historians now agree that Europe would have been colonised before India when the first nomadic people left Africa (even geologically, this makes the most sense), so this would mean India, derives from Europe.

Please look at the distance between Afganistan and India,

Afganistan - white

India/Pakistan - dark brown

Afganistan and India are closer than Europe and Africa, geo-logically that makes more sense.


http://www.worldlanguage.com/CountryMaps/1.gif

please explain to me the term aryan and where it comes from?


http://texasholdemblogger.files.word...2/swastika.png

hindu sign:-
http://tajonline.tolshop.com/v1/prod...3775_large.jpg

Why Afganistan? People came out of Africa. I looked at the distance between where North Africa joins on to Israel and from there- Europe is much closer than India. France (well into europe) for example is around 2,500 miles, if you travel up through Israel, Lebanon and Syria- which is well into Europe. India is Nearly 3,000 miles...

lol - why Afganistan, Israel is a pheonician country SEMETIC, the hebrews (darker skin) people lived there until greeks came and invaded it POST civilization era.

now again, would reconsider "why afganistan", maybe look at the family groups....... :shrug:

israel and the middle east are SEMETIC people

Not Indo-European Like India, Pakistani and Germany, and Iran etc...

There are whites in North Africa and the Middle East, who are Semetic, like me..

They are not the same (even by facial features) as Indo-european whites

You were talking pre civilisation. Since it is generally accepted that people moved out of Africa- Europe is closer than India and is now thought to have been reached first by ancient nomadic people- meaning India would have been moved to at a later time.

please define europe and where the "white" border line is... then come back and tell me if pakistan is closer than africa...



There are whites in North Africa and the Middle East, who are Semetic, like me..

They are not the same (even by facial features) as Indo-european whites

INDO-EUROPEAN = INDIANS (dark) AND GERMANS (mostly white)

SEMETIC ARABS (mostly white) AND SOMALIANS (dark)

etc etc....

I think your mistaken, your views are generally accepted in north europe.

also would you kindly define the term "Aryan", wikipedia it if you want

?


Aryan is an English word derived from the Sanskrit meaning "noble" or "honorable".

Now sanskrit means: -

Sanskrit is a classical language of the Indian Subcontinent


Source= wikipedia...

Yes, NOW there are. Originally, those moving out of Africa would have been black. Those who moved to colder areas would have gradually become white. It is thought Europe was reached before India by these nomadic people.

Since then, people have moved about a lot- saying what colours and races are present there now and using it as proof of their pre-civilisational origin is messy and could be easily misleading.

Also, half of your points make little sense to me- or don't seem relevant. Is there any chance you could try and explain it a bit better?!

So?

OK assuming that man was born in kenya africa, as is the consensus, it is far more logical he got there to Pakistan faster than northern europe... by land, as post-ape man, couldnt invent a boat ..............

nice studently responce... i dont know if i could be talking to a brick wall right now, but dont you think north europeans that are "Aryan" derive from where the word derives , needless to say the word was actually invented there.....

But you didn't say pakistan- you said INDIA! If they spread in both directions at roughly the same time- you will find that they would have even reached France before India by land as it is still closer than India!

No. I'd say that was a very simplistic way of looking at where whole races derived from, as are all your arguments.

the word derives from there, there fore if you live in a logical place,

logic then follows, calling my argument simplistic compared to your arguments is beyond me... lol i did feel like im talking to a brick wall sometime lol.

but any how.... logic always wins :) whether you like or not

Matt10K the reason I agree that punishment for Adultry for me is justfied because like Our muslim beloved Prophet Prophecised, he said: “Never does sexual perversion become widespread and publicly known in certain people without them being overtaken by plague and disease that never happened to their ancestors who came before them.”(Reported by Ibn Majah.) He (peace be upon him) also said: “Whenever adultery becomes a widespread phenomena among certain people, death will spread among them.”(Reported by Malik.)

The widespread aids in the western society is primarily due to adultry, sleeping with multiple people. Can you imagine how did he know about plague the black death disease which we call it as AIDS today. If this strict punishment is implmented would it be safer and healthy for the society. However Quran doesn't mention stoning but strict punishment like fine would be much better.

Furthermore to this miraculous statment how did Prophet know about this disease and our soceity will become how it is today.

The reason Bible Islam cannot accept in todays form is because of changes, and such like Pornographic material, the laughable terrible scientific errors and creation, terrible slander against women and Black people which are people of Ham, worshipping 3 Gods, cannot be attributed to almighty. Bible in its original form was like Quran but later on was changed and Quran IMOcame to correct it.

So why does Islam accept passages of a Book inspired by the same God which within ITS text (not the churches of christianity) and not all of it?

Why do muslims accept Jesus as a same prophet like Muhammad yet the former called himself God's son and was rejected by the Jewish religious heirarchy the Pharisees and condemmed in the same manner Jesus would have been condemmed in Saudi Arabia today if he uttered the same message?

How do you account for these huge contradictions, and the fact that in his battle to take over Mecca Muhammad fought alone with an army of fellow converts and entirely without the divine help of God.
The Bible, to which Islam embraces as a book inspired by God clearly states that the world is in the powers of the evil one till such time God will call a time on its rulership and transform the earth to its heavenly paradis which was first intended in Adams day.