HAPPY Christmas?

Quote islamispeace

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 28 December 2013 at 10:44am

While I agree that for most Christians, Christmas is a time of religious celebration and certainly not a time for partying, it is also true that there are changing demographics in many Christian countries, one in which there are more Atheists and secularists than ever before. This change has resulted in more and more people seeing Christmas in more secular terms rather than religious ones. Here are some reports showing this change in America, Britain and Canada:

USA - http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/18/celebrating-christmas-and-the-holidays-then-and-now/

Britain - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109488/2030-The-year-Britain-cease-Chrsitian-nation-march-secularism.html

Canada - http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6372

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

honeto

Senior Member
Senior Member

Male Islam
Joined: 20 March 2008
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2487

Post Options

Quote honeto

�http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/42225/1.hasCoversheetVersion/0000319.pdf

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 29 December 2013 at 2:24pm

TG12345 wrote:

honeto wrote:

TG12345 wrote:

NABA wrote:

Assalamalecum, we muslims never believe in Christmas because when someone believes in Christmas means he is accepting that Allah had begotten son (nozbillah), Allah says in ch 19 v 88-92-they say Allah had begotten son if sky wud have emotions it cud have burst out, if earth wud have emotions it cud have burst out.

Alaikum Salaam. The Quran contains mistakes and errors and is therefore not the word of God, but what you wrote made a lot more sense than what Abu Loren did. You described why as a Muslim you would never celebrate Christmas, and cited the Quran to explain your answers. That I respect and understand, even if I disagree with you that the Quran is from God.Abu Loren stated Christmas is about drunkenness, drunk driving, and homicide. That is ignorance and stereotyping, and painting all Christians who celebrate Jesus' miraculous birth with the same brush. It is on par with those who claim Ramadan is a time that Muslims kill people, because some extremists use that month as a time to murder non-Muslims.Thank you NABA for using common sense and courtesy, and not stooping down to Abu Loren's level. It is much appreciated.

I agree that Christmas is a time of celebration for those who believe in it and not all Christians involve in drinking and bad behavior. I was invited to one such party at my workplace, I declined to attend after finding out that alcohol will be served.
You say you do not believe Quran to be from God, that is your own belief. I however disagree with you when you say that Quran contains mistakes and thus you do not believe it to be from God. That is your assumption and I can help you sort it out. I can show you that in fact it is the Bible that does not stand the test. If you and I were to study what each one say about God, Jesus, and Salvation, we will find Quran consistent throughout, while the Bible inconsistent.
Happy Holidays!
Hasan

Salaam Alaikum, honeto. I am going to be going away for a few days and will have little if any access to a computer. I will however post some errors that I see in the Quran, and you are very welcome to respond. I will read your responses later next week, and reply to them.I believe the most obvious mistake in the Quran is its denial of the divinity of Jesus and His death and resurrection. However, I realize that the divinity and resurrection of Jesus are a matter of faith. While there is evidence from the writings of Tacitus as well as writings from the early church that states Jesus was crucified, I am aware that many Muslims believe that it was someone else on the cross.Instead of discussing these, I will post two mistakes that I see, which are very obvious and easy to prove.I.The first one concerns verses 25:53 and 55:19,20. These verses state as follows:

25:53

And
it is He Who has let free the two seas (kinds of water)*, one palatable and
sweet, and the other salt and bitter, and He has set a barrier and a complete
partition between them.

�

55:19,20

He
released the two seas, meeting [side by side];

Between
them is a barrier [so] neither of them transgresses.

�

*The words in brackets are not
in the Quran but is the translator�s insertion, as can be seen from http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=25&verse=53There is no such thing as a barrier between two bodies of water that prevents them from "transgressing" when they meet. When waters meet, they always mix to a certain extent. There is no "complete partition" between them when they meet. II.The second error is historical. The Quran states in 7:73,74 and 15:80-84 that the Thamud would carve their homes out of rock at Al Hijr, and in verse 27:52 it states that these homes can still be seen, in ruins, since God allegedly destroyed the Thamud.7:73, 74 To
the Thamud people (We sent) Salih, one of their own brethren: He
said: "O my people! worship Allah: ye have no other god but Him. Now
hath come unto you a clear (Sign) from your Lord! This she-camel of
Allah is a Sign unto you: So leave her to graze in Allah's earth, and
let her come to no harm, or ye shall be seized with a grievous
punishment.
"And remember how He made you inheritors after the 'Ad people and gave
you habitations in the land: ye build for yourselves palaces and
castles in (open) plains, and care out homes in the mountains; so bring to remembrance the benefits (ye have received) from Allah, and refrain from evil and mischief on the earth." 15:80-84 And verily, the dwellers of Al-Hijr (the rocky tract) denied the Messengers. And We gave them Our Signs, but they were averse to them.  And they used to hew out dwellings from the mountains (feeling themselves) secure. But
As-Saihah (torment - awful cry etc.) overtook them in the early
morning (of the fourth day of their promised punishment days). 
And all that which they used to earn availed them not. 27:52So those are their houses, desolate* because of the wrong they had done. Indeed in that is a sign for people who know. Surat An-Naml [27:52"> - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran* according to Corpus Quran, the word is "ruined". We know from history that the Thamud were nomads who traveled from place to place. They left behind them many inscriptions into rock in the form of art, however they never built cities or even permanent settlements.

Earliest Historical and Archaeological Information

The first
clear mention of the Nabataeans in historical reference dates back to 312 BC,
when Diodorus described Petra and its people during Antigonus�s attack on the
town (Diodorus XIX 94-97). In was almost three hundred years later that Mada'in
Salih was first mentioned by Strabo, who described Gallus�s attack on Arabia in
24 BC (Strabo, Geography 16.4.24). That meant that the town was established in
the last quarter of the first century BC.

However,scholars
suggest that the town might have been founded before the Nabataean settlement,
in the early part of the first millennium B.C., by the Dedanites (Healey, 1993,
25). Dedan is known as Al-Ula. It was an important station on the main caravan
routs from South Arabia to North Arabia and flourished during the sixth century
BC. Winnett believes that the Minaean inscriptions in Madain Salih (JS1-5, 33,
34) and the 29 Lihyanite inscriptions are strong evidence that the site had
witnessed a Minaean occupation prior to the Nabateans (Winnnet and Reed 1970,
130 Chapter 7). Musil believes that the Nabataeans were initially under
Lihyanite rule (1926, 107). Al-Ansari believes that the Minaean inscriptions which
are located at various places in al-Ula and Madain Salih indicate trade
relations between the two towns and not Minaean rule. Minaeasns were temporary
residents in Al-Ula, just as they were in other places, like Greece (Al-Ansari,
et al. 1984, 11). Pliny mentioned that Hegra was the Lihyanite capital, while
Musil believed that Madain Salih was the capital of the Lihyanies before the
Nabataeans (Musil, 1926, 107). There were Nabataean inscriptions located on the
road between Tay�ma and Madain Salih, which translate as saying that Masudu
called himself the King of the Lihyanites. Those inscriptions are dated to the
second century B.C. (Winnet and Reed, 1970, 120). As the inscriptions are
engraved in Nabataean, it may be suggested that perhaps Masudu was a Nabataean.
There seems to be no apparent reason for a Lihyanite to write in Nabataean
script. Also Masudu is not listed among the known Nabataean kings, so perhaps
he was a revolutionary who took over power from the Lihyanites for the time.
Subsequently, Madain Salih took the place of Al-Ula as a trade centre.

Reference
should be made to the numerous Thamudian inscriptions located in the area.
Muslim historians wrote that Al-Hijr was the land of the Thamudians
(Al-Istakhari, 24, Al-Hamawi, 2.220-221), Thamud being an old Arabian tribe.
There are a large number of so-called Thamudian inscriptions located all over
Arabia, which are usually short, and mention the name of the inscriber, or the
tribe or the deities. Some contain the SLM (Salam),* a deity of Tayma
attributed to the 6^th century B.C. There is a general view among
scholars that the Thamudians had no permanent land or settlement and that they
never established a kingdom. It is likely that the �Thamud� was the name of a
group of several of these tribes (Al-Talhi et al. 1988, 48). However, there is
no archaeological evidence from the excavation which can be attributed to an
early settlement prior to the Nabataeans.

The
archaeological surveys conducted by Winnettt and Reed (1970), by Parr, Harding
and Dayton (1971) and the current work do not provide any archaeological
material from earlier settlements.

There are more errors in the Quran, but I will leave it there for now. I will gladly read your response and reply when I get the chance, probably in about a week, inshAllah.

The topic of 25:53 and 55:19,20 was discussed on the thread below.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25822

The topic of the Thamud was discussed on the thread below.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25890

Feel free to read them and see other arguments people have put forward and my responses to them, or just present your own response. I would prefer if you do it on this thread, so we can have some continuity. If you want to post them on the threads I linked to, please let me know.

Thank you in advance for your patience, as it will take me a few days to get back to you.

PS May I also ask you, do you accept the Sahih hadiths are words of Muhammad, or are you from the Quranist Muslims who reject the hadiths? Thanks.

Allahma3k.

TG12345

Dear TG12345,

Contradiction of the Quran will be if it says there is no trinity and then in the same Quran you find a passage that says that there is a trinity. So I want to be clear what we are talking about here.
Let us examine and put to test both the Bible and the Quran with same standard and accept the results.
There are three main issues that are fundamental to our (yours=Christianity, and mine=Islam)beliefs.
God, Jesus and Salvation.

Islam teaches: God is one. God the eternal, who is not born to anyone nor He has offspring. That Jesus was God's creation, a prophet. And that salvation is in obedience to God. God is Merciful and forgives those who are sincere and seek His forgiveness.
The Quran is consistent with all of those it's teachings.

Christianity teaches: God is a Trinity. That Jesus is God's begotten son. And salvation is through the belief that Jesus died for the sins of all his followers and paid with his blood.
Is the Bible consistent with those beliefs preached by Christians? Let us be honest, God only accepts honesty and truthfulness as a standard.
Hasan
Hasan

The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62

TG12345

Senior Member
Senior Member

Male
Joined: 16 December 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 1146

Post Options

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/42225/1.hasCoversheetVersion/0000319.pdf

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 01 January 2014 at 9:59pm

honeto wrote:

TG12345 wrote:

honeto wrote:

TG12345 wrote:

25:53

55:19,20

He
released the two seas, meeting [side by side];

Between
them is a barrier [so] neither of them transgresses.

Earliest Historical and Archaeological Information

The first
clear mention of the Nabataeans in historical reference dates back to 312 BC,
when Diodorus described Petra and its people during Antigonus�s attack on the
town (Diodorus XIX 94-97). In was almost three hundred years later that Mada'in
Salih was first mentioned by Strabo, who described Gallus�s attack on Arabia in
24 BC (Strabo, Geography 16.4.24). That meant that the town was established in
the last quarter of the first century BC.

However,scholars
suggest that the town might have been founded before the Nabataean settlement,
in the early part of the first millennium B.C., by the Dedanites (Healey, 1993,
25). Dedan is known as Al-Ula. It was an important station on the main caravan
routs from South Arabia to North Arabia and flourished during the sixth century
BC. Winnett believes that the Minaean inscriptions in Madain Salih (JS1-5, 33,
34) and the 29 Lihyanite inscriptions are strong evidence that the site had
witnessed a Minaean occupation prior to the Nabateans (Winnnet and Reed 1970,
130 Chapter 7). Musil believes that the Nabataeans were initially under
Lihyanite rule (1926, 107). Al-Ansari believes that the Minaean inscriptions which
are located at various places in al-Ula and Madain Salih indicate trade
relations between the two towns and not Minaean rule. Minaeasns were temporary
residents in Al-Ula, just as they were in other places, like Greece (Al-Ansari,
et al. 1984, 11). Pliny mentioned that Hegra was the Lihyanite capital, while
Musil believed that Madain Salih was the capital of the Lihyanies before the
Nabataeans (Musil, 1926, 107). There were Nabataean inscriptions located on the
road between Tay�ma and Madain Salih, which translate as saying that Masudu
called himself the King of the Lihyanites. Those inscriptions are dated to the
second century B.C. (Winnet and Reed, 1970, 120). As the inscriptions are
engraved in Nabataean, it may be suggested that perhaps Masudu was a Nabataean.
There seems to be no apparent reason for a Lihyanite to write in Nabataean
script. Also Masudu is not listed among the known Nabataean kings, so perhaps
he was a revolutionary who took over power from the Lihyanites for the time.
Subsequently, Madain Salih took the place of Al-Ula as a trade centre.

Reference
should be made to the numerous Thamudian inscriptions located in the area.
Muslim historians wrote that Al-Hijr was the land of the Thamudians
(Al-Istakhari, 24, Al-Hamawi, 2.220-221), Thamud being an old Arabian tribe.
There are a large number of so-called Thamudian inscriptions located all over
Arabia, which are usually short, and mention the name of the inscriber, or the
tribe or the deities. Some contain the SLM (Salam),* a deity of Tayma
attributed to the 6^th century B.C. There is a general view among
scholars that the Thamudians had no permanent land or settlement and that they
never established a kingdom. It is likely that the �Thamud� was the name of a
group of several of these tribes (Al-Talhi et al. 1988, 48). However, there is
no archaeological evidence from the excavation which can be attributed to an
early settlement prior to the Nabataeans.

The
archaeological surveys conducted by Winnettt and Reed (1970), by Parr, Harding
and Dayton (1971) and the current work do not provide any archaeological
material from earlier settlements.

There are more errors in the Quran, but I will leave it there for now. I will gladly read your response and reply when I get the chance, probably in about a week, inshAllah.

The topic of 25:53 and 55:19,20 was discussed on the thread below.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25822

The topic of the Thamud was discussed on the thread below.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25890

Thank you in advance for your patience, as it will take me a few days to get back to you.

PS May I also ask you, do you accept the Sahih hadiths are words of Muhammad, or are you from the Quranist Muslims who reject the hadiths? Thanks.

Allahma3k.

TG12345

Salaam Alaikum, honeto. I have not alleged that the Quran has contradictions. I have alleged it has mistakes.

In response to this, you wrote:

You say you do not believe Quran to be from God, that is your own belief. I however disagree with you when you say that Quran contains mistakes and thus you do not believe it to be from God. That is your assumption and I can help you sort it out.

You want me to discuss with you whether Christian beliefs are consistent with what the Bible teaches. I will answer your question, and provide Biblical evidence for my answer.

I want to discuss with you only two of the most obvious mistakes that exist in the Quran. I am willing to debate you on the topics you raise in this thread, but only if you are willing to debate me on the topics that I raise. Otherwise there is no discussion.

I will now address your concerns about whether Christian beliefs are found in the Bible or not.

The Trinity is taught in the Bible.

The Bible teaches that the Father is God (1 Peter 1:3) , that Jesus is God (John 1:1-18), and that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3,4). It also states that Jesus told His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:16-20).

I can provide more Bible verses for you if you would like that illustrate the divinity of the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

The Trinity means one God who exists as three persons- the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The belief that Jesus is the begotten Son of God is also found in the Bible.

Hebrews 1:1-5

1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, ²but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. ³He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, ⁴having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

⁵For to which of the angels did God ever say,

�You are my Son,
today I have begotten you�?

Or again,

�I will be to him a father,
and he shall be to me a son�?

⁶And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,

�Let all God's angels worship him.�

⁷Of the angels he says,

�He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire.�

⁸But of the Son he says,

�Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
⁹You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.�

The Bible teaches that Jesus died for our sins, and that if we believe in Him, we are saved.

John 3:16 is among the Bible verses that teach that we must believe in Jesus to be saved. In John 3:15, it states that the Son of God must be lifted up, so whoever believes in Him is saved.

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. ²This man came to Jesusa]">[a] by night and said to him, �Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.� ³Jesus answered him, �Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born againb]">[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.� ⁴Nicodemus said to him, �How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?� ⁵Jesus answered, �Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ⁶That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.c]">[c] ⁷Do not marvel that I said to you, �Youd]">[d] must be born again.� ⁸The winde]">[e] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.�

⁹Nicodemus said to him, �How can these things be?� ¹⁰Jesus answered him, �Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? ¹¹Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but youf]">[f] do not receive our testimony. ¹²If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? ¹³No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.g]">[g] ¹⁴And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, ¹⁵that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.h]">[h]

¹⁶�For God so loved the world,i]">[i] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. ¹⁸Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. ¹⁹And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. ²⁰For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. ²¹But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.�

The Son of Man being lifted up is a reference to the crucifixion.

Romans 5:6-11 states why Jesus was crucified. He died for us so we could be reconciled to God the Father. It makes perfect sense- God reconciles us to Himself through Himself.

Romans 5:6-11

⁶For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. ⁷For one will scarcely die for a righteous person�though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die� ⁸but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. ⁹Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. ¹⁰For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. ¹¹More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

I have answered your questions, and am more than happy to debate with you on your response.

First, however, I need you to return the courtesy and respond to the questions I raised in the previous post.

Allahma3k.

TG12345

Edited by TG12345 - 02 January 2014 at 12:25am

TG12345

Senior Member
Senior Member

Male
Joined: 16 December 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 1146

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 01 January 2014 at 10:01pm

islamispeace wrote:

While I agree that for most Christians, Christmas is a time of religious celebration and certainly not a time for partying, it is also true that there are changing demographics in many Christian countries, one in which there are more Atheists and secularists than ever before. This change has resulted in more and more people seeing Christmas in more secular terms rather than religious ones. Here are some reports showing this change in America, Britain and Canada:

USA - http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/18/celebrating-christmas-and-the-holidays-then-and-now/

Britain - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109488/2030-The-year-Britain-cease-Chrsitian-nation-march-secularism.html

Canada - http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6372

Salaam Alaikum.

True, secularism and atheism is growing in the West. This is however the fault of human st**idity and not of God, or of celebrating Christmas.

islamispeace View Drop Down

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2187

Post Options

Quote islamispeace

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 02 January 2014 at 3:09pm

TG12345 wrote:

Salaam Alaikum.

True, secularism and atheism is growing in the West. This is however the fault of human st**idity and not of God, or of celebrating Christmas.

Walaikum as-salaam.

It's also not brother Abu Loren's fault for simply stating what he has observed. He even clarified that. So, there is absolutely no reason to be criticizing him for simply stating the facts. Changing the subject and pontificating on what some Muslims might do on Ramadan does not change the fact that Christmas is increasingly becoming more of a secular holiday rather than a religious one. Maybe if you and the other Christians who responded to his observations had done a little research, you would have realized that what he said is not that far-fetched. He probably should have worded it differently, but what he said is not that far from the truth.

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

TG12345

Senior Member
Senior Member

Male
Joined: 16 December 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 1146

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 02 January 2014 at 3:47pm

islamispeace wrote:

TG12345 wrote:

Salaam Alaikum.

True, secularism and atheism is growing in the West. This is however the fault of human st**idity and not of God, or of celebrating Christmas.

Alaikum Salaam.

Had Abu Loren said that many people choose to get drunk and fight each other during Christmas, that would have been one thing. Had he even said that for more and more people it is a secular holiday and not a religious one, that still would have been OK.

Instead, he said that Christmas is all about drinking, fornication, etc and that it has nothing do with Jesus.

Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus (Alayhi Salaam).

It's all about drinking alcohol, fornication, killing whilst under the influence of alcohol, drink driving etc etc etc.

HAPPY Christmas?

Would you have no problem with me writing that Ramadan is all about beating your wife (or wives) and killing your relatives and neighbours? After all, these kinds of incidents have spiked up in Egypt during Ramadan.

Would that make such a statement about Ramadan correct?

Is there a difference between saying that "Ramadan has nothing to do with Allah, it's all about abusing your neighbours and family" and "in Egypt, domestic violence during certain years has increased during Ramadan"? Or is it the same?

Stating that Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus and is all about drinking and fornicating makes as much sense as stating that Ramadan has nothing to do with God, and is all about domestic violence.

Ignorant statements are as ridiculous when they come from Muslims as they are when they come from Christians.

Abu Loren did make sort of a clarification when he stated that he knows there are some Christians don't get drunk or fornicate, but many people in the UK do. That is kind of like saying that there are "some Muslims" that do not engage in domestic violence during Ramadan, but many in Egypt do. I would argue that drunkenness, fornication and domestic violence is something that most Muslims and Christians do not do during our religious holidays, and that those who do so either do not take their religion seriously, or are secular to begin with.

He did not take back his statement that Christmas "is all about" fornication and drunkenness or that it has nothing to do with Jesus.

My response to him stands.

It's too bad you didn't make any effort to reprimand him or counter his false statement in his first thread, but only decided to jump in when Christians began to confront what he originally said.

Had a Christian said about Ramadan what Abu Loren said about Christmas and I saw the thread, you would be certain that I would have confronted him or her.

Edited by TG12345 - 02 January 2014 at 4:02pm

islamispeace View Drop Down

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2187

Post Options

Quote islamispeace

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 02 January 2014 at 5:51pm

There is no reason for me to "make any effort to reprimand him" because there is nothing to "reprimand", especially since he clarified his remarks. If you want to insist that he said something prejudiced, that is your problem. I stand by my remarks.

And by the way, I could care less if some Christian said something about Ramadan, especially if it was not supported by facts. I would care even less if you or any other Christian spoke out or not. I am no longer concerned with such things. I am sure that there are many Muslims who don't behave like a Muslim all year round, let alone on Ramadan. However, that still does not change the fact that Christmas is nothing more than a secular holiday for more and more people in western countries.

Oh and one more thing...Abu Loren is completely right to say that Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus (pbuh), regardless of what Christians may believe. As you said yourself, there is no proof that Jesus (pbuh) was born on December 25 or even in January. These are just made up dates. The same can be said of Easter. But I digress...

Of course, if Christians want to celebrate Christmas as the birthday of Jesus (pbuh), that is their right. I am sure that for most Christians, it is a day of genuine religious celebration and worship and not a day for drinking and fornication. But, facts are facts. For an increasing number of people, Christmas is becoming less of a religious holiday and more of just another day for partying and revelry. Had you bothered to do a little research, you would have seen that.

Edited by islamispeace - 02 January 2014 at 5:52pm

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

TG12345

Senior Member
Senior Member

Male
Joined: 16 December 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 1146

Post Options