Are These Acts of Idolatry?
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29910
Printed Date: 19 April 2024 at 6:37am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Are These Acts of Idolatry?
Posted By: islamispeace
Subject: Are These Acts of Idolatry?
Date Posted: 24 June 2014 at 5:55pm
|
Alright, so here is "quiz" of sorts. Look at the pictures below and determine if the act shown constitutes the act of idolatry. A.  B.  C.  D.  Which of these images represents idolatry? A. A B. B C. C D. D E. All of the Above F. Not sure G. A and D only ------------- 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) |
Replies:
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 24 June 2014 at 8:21pm
|
You forgot to include an image of millions of Muslims bowing to a Black Stone. Oh yeah, they're not actually worshipping the stone. The stone is just the focus of their worship, not the object of worship itself. But don't you think that is what all those other worshippers would say? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 25 June 2014 at 6:06am
| Assalamalecum,Ron it seems u didn't did ur homework well, firsr of all we worship only Allah and we can't attach any humanely attribute to it,we kiss blackstone and touch it because it is Sunnah of prophet Muhammad (pbuh),u tell me if one worships anything does he hv courage or ability to touch it????the people who worship in these photos their intention is to worship these objects, we do hajj and umrah because of the commandment of Allah whenever we do it we state that whatever we are doing it is for Allah only.because Allah knows our heart in fact he says in ch 20 v 7 it is not necessary to call him by uttering we can remember him even thru our hearts.main thing is intention. |
Posted By: Lachi
Date Posted: 25 June 2014 at 12:51pm
|
So the examples A-D can be judged solely on the image without taking into account the participants' intent. But the Black Stone needs you to understand the intent because it is 'different'.
Double standards are very evident. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 25 June 2014 at 1:58pm
Maybe, maybe not; but I'm not saying you worship the Black Stone. Nor are the people in those photos literally worshipping stone or wood or paint. Here is how http://sanskrit.org/?p=691 - one Web site explains it: "The worshippers are not bowing down to stone, they are not worshipping a statue; they are approaching these sacred images as the means to get to the God behind the image. In a similar way, a Christian may kneell before a crucifix of Jesus and pray. The worshipper is not worshipping the wooden cross, but instead he is approaching his object of devotion, Jesus, through the manifestation of the crucifix. This is a form of idol worship from a Hindu perspective. Even a Muslim, who will never worship any form, cannot help but have some abstract mental image or concept of God. This too is an idol of God, albeit an abstract mental idol. It can not be helped. This is what I mean when I say there is no way to conceive of and worship God except through some form of idol worship." ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
NABA wrote:Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 25 June 2014 at 5:23pm
 I knew someone would make this asinine comparison. How predictable!But as NABA pointed out, Muslims don't worship the black stone (nor do we bow down to it or pray to it). The black stone simply serves as a marker for tawaf and is believed to be a fragment of Paradise, which is why people kiss it. To highlight how insignificant its role is, we can point to the seizure of the stone by the Qarmatians in 930 CE. It was held by them for more than 20 years and yet the Hajj continued without it! So there is no question that comparing the pictures above, which show people actually bowing and praying to statues, to the Muslim veneration of the black stone is ludicrous.
This is simply one opinion, and it is logically absurd. Not only do Hindus literally bow down to the statue, they pray to it and ask it for help. They even offer it food! The irony is that the above website still admits that Hindus actually "worship" their idols, while also making the laughable assertion that Muslims and Jews also practice idol worship. Some Christians may practice idolatry, as the above pictures show, but Muslims and Jews certainly do not. Idolatry is anathema to both. There is no doubt that Hindus actually believe that their idols are the actual deities. As another website explains it: "From the point of view that there is only one absolute Truth and everything else is only a manifestation of that Truth, an idol is only a representation and not the 'real thing'. But from the point of view of a devotee who needs to worship Divinity in name and form, the images and idols which have been sanctified by the various mantras and rituals are themselves the deities which have as much power as the Absolute. So a Balaji in Tirupati, a Nataraja in Chidambaram, a Meenakshi in Madurai, a Visvesvara-linga in Kasi, a Jagannath in Puri, a Guruvayoorappan in Guruvayyor, a Krishna in Udupi, a Varadaraja in Kanchi and a Venkatesvara in Pittsburg and hosts of such sanctified 'images and idols' should not be cast into the role of just a 'representation' of the Absolute as a flag for the army." ( http://www.krishnamurthys.com/profvk/gohitvip/1202.html - http://www.krishnamurthys.com/profvk/gohitvip/1202.html ) Now, coming back to the original question, which of the images above exhibits idol worship? The answer may surprise some! ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 26 June 2014 at 10:22am
The theft of the stone was "insignificant"? Please, you expect me to believe that? Then why did they struggle so hard to get it back, and why did they end up paying a ransom for it?
Yes, I know that Muslims say they don't worship the black stone, and yet they behave exactly as if they did. Anyone watching their behaviour in the Kaaba (or taking a photo of it and posting it in this discussion) would see no important difference between that and the behaviour of other religions "worshipping" their "idols".
Yes, and Muslims literally bow down to the black stone, kiss it and even talk to it: "I know that you are a mere stone that can neither harm nor do any good. If I had not seen the Prophet (peace be upon him) kissing you, I would have never kissed you." Again, even though he says it's "a mere stone", yet he talks to it as if it were something more. He kisses it, he bows to it, he cries in its presence. But it's "insignificant", "a mere stone".  It reminds me of a man explaining to his wife that he is not at all attracted to another woman, while at the same time hold that other woman in his arms, kissing her, etc. Should we believe what he says, or what he does?
Instead of just dismissing it as "laughable", why not actually address the point? How can you address a prayer to an unknowable and ineffable God without constructing some kind of mental image or concept first? And is there really any significant difference between constructing such an image in your mind, versus drawing it on paper or sculpting it in wood? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 28 June 2014 at 11:52am
Calm down, Ron. You missed the point. My point was that despite the fact that the black stone was missing from the Kaaba for over 20 years, it did not effect Muslim rituals. Muslims were still able to make their prayers and to perform the Hajj. If the black stone was so important to Islam, then its seizure would have been a terrible constraint on Islamic rituals, but it wasn't. Now of course the Muslims tried their best to get it back. The reason is that it is an important relic, going back to the time of Adam (peace be upon him). It is a fragment of Paradise, so why wouldn't they have tried to get it back?! It is like the Kaaba itself. If the Kaaba was damaged and destroyed, why wouldn't Muslims simply rebuild it? But in the meantime, would the absence of the Kaaba stop Muslim rituals? Of course not! The reason is that neither the Kaaba nor the black stone are the object of Muslim prayers, unlike the idols used in some religions. Without these idols, they would not be able to pray.
Oh please. I do believe you are over-exaggerating! How is kissing the stone akin to the actual worship of idols? Please enlighten me! Do Muslims pray to the stone? Do they ask it for help?
You missed the point again! Hazrat Umar was simply pointing out that he did not believe that the stone had any power. He wanted to show that the stone is just a stone with no power, but that since the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) kissed it, then so should all Muslims. The reason for this is as I have said already. The stone is a fragment of Paradise.Umar was simply demonstrating for the rest of us that the stone is not an object of worship, in contrast to your absurd claim. Muslims don't talk to the stone. Umar did it once to make a point, which you obviously missed.
 Really? Is that the best you can do? How is this akin to Muslims kissing the stone out of respect for its origin (Paradise)? How is kissing something an act of worship?
Just because a person might construct "some kind of mental image or concept" does not mean it is right to do so and that we should automatically take that as a sign that idol worship is fine. That would be like if a man sees an attractive woman, and feels sexually attracted to her as a result, and then decides that this is reason enough to have intercourse with her. From a religious point of view, committing fornication or adultery are forbidden even though "mental" attraction is not something people can always control. But we can control our actions. Thoughts are a different matter. Why don't you address the point raised by the website I referenced? And even if idol worshipers don't actually consider the idol to literally be the deity (which is complete baloney), why do they still literally pray to it instead of the deity and make offerings to it? What does making prayers and offerings to the idol have to do with "concentration"?  ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 28 June 2014 at 8:19pm
Who says they couldn't pray? Certainly Christians can pray without their statues and crosses, etc. I don't know much about Hinduism but I see no reason why they couldn't pray without an idol.
I'm saying that anyone looking at a picture of Muslims near the black stone, and comparing it with the pictures given in the opening post, would not be able to see any difference. Therefore the pictures themselves are not evidence of idol worship, as was implied.
Surely an (alleged) fragment of Paradise would be more than a "mere stone".
Why would you show respect for a "mere stone"? On the other hand, if your respect is for the alleged divine nature of the stone (which by the way is not Islamic doctrine, but pure mythology), then surely that is idolatry.
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying it's okay to imagine an image of God, as long as you don't draw or sculpt it? If so, is it okay to think evil thoughts about God, as long as you don't write them down or share them with anyone? I think most religions would say that if something is a sin, then thinking about it is also a sin. (I don't agree, but then I don't agree with a lot of religious ideas.) Your analogy with adultery is not apt because adultery has potential real-world consequences (pregnancy, STDs, social disruption) that the mere thought does not. IMHO a better analogy would be to fantasizing about sex, versus writing down that fantasy. Is the former any better or worse than the latter?
Partly because as far as I can tell it was just a personal web site, and I'm not sure on whose behalf Mr. Krishnamurthy is writing. But mostly because he really isn't saying anything substantially different. As he says, "in Hinduism the same question will have different answers to different levels of questioners." So at a basic level of understanding, the idol may be regarded as the god itself; but a more sophisticated practitioner will recognize that "an idol serves the same purpose ... as a flag does for an army,", i.e. as a symbol for an abstract ideal. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 29 June 2014 at 11:16am
Certainly Christians can pray without the need of their statues, but Hindus are idol worshipers, period. You may "see no reason" why they cannot pray without an idol, and yet, they do! So you point is moot.
Well then, they would be wrong then, wouldn't they Ron? I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that the pictures above "are not evidence of idol worship". I would think a person kneeling to a statue or an idol would be "evidence of idol worship"! Moreover, we already know that Hindus worship idols and that some Christians (mostly Catholics) pray to statues of the Virgin Mary and the saints (as well as Jesus). So the above pictures are just a visual example of what we already know.
Sure, which is why Muslims tried very hard to retrieve the stone from the Qarmathians. Otherwise, they could have just placed another stone to serve as a marker. The point is that it is believed to be a fragment of Paradise (your personal opinions about whether it is or isn't is irrelevant  ), and not an object of worship or prayer. Anyone who otherwise thinks so is an i-d-i-o-t. In contrast, some Christians literally pray to their statues and Hindus literally worship their idols and pray to them for help.
Still not getting it, eh? We show respect to its origin from Paradise (again your personal opinions whether it is "mythology" or not are irrelevant  ), because Paradise is essentially our origin as well. Adam and Eve (peace be upon them) were originally in Paradise before they were removed. Paradise is the "eternal home" of the believers, and one which we must strive to reach:"Say: Shall I give you glad tidings of things Far better than those? For the righteous are Gardens in nearness to their Lord, with rivers flowing beneath; therein is their eternal home; with companions pure (and holy); and the good pleasure of Allah. For in Allah's sight are (all) His servants,-" (Surah Al-Imran, 3:15) You can try to redefine what "idol worship" is all you want. The fact remains that Muslims do not pray to the stone or worship it. You still haven't explained why you think that merely showing "respect" is somehow "idol worship".
No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that just because you may draw an image of God does not mean that it is an excuse to commit idolatry, since God is formless. I am also saying that such thoughts should be shunned, but that sometimes we cannot control our thoughts. But as long as we do not act on those thoughts, then it is not necessarily a sin. How can it be if you cannot help it? However, we should strive to avoid such thoughts as much as we can. Such thoughts, from an Islamic point of view, are from Satan.
Actually, with things like condoms and contraception, it is pretty easy to avoid such things as pregnancy and STDs. So my analogy is still apt. Moreover, things like pregnancy and STDs are clearly not a deterrent against adultery. In many western countries, it is a common occurrence.
Oh so the website you referenced was somehow the "official" view? Don't make me laugh! You still haven't explained why, if the idol is not literally the deity to the "more sophisticated practitioner", then why do these "sophisticated practitioners" make offerings to the idol and literally pray to it? Why can't they pray without it, as you suggested above? ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 30 June 2014 at 6:22pm
 ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 30 June 2014 at 8:08pm
It does not go unnoticed that, so far, none of you have bothered to actually answer the question, and instead, have tried to change the subject. Oh well...So Lachi, can you elaborate some more on your post? What "intent" are you referring to with regard to the people seen in the pictures? Does "intent" change the fact that they are praying to statues? As I explained to Ron, the pictures serve as visual examples of behavior which is already widely known. We know for a fact that Hindus pray to idols of their gods. We know for a fact that some Christians pray to statues of the Virgin Mary and of the saints and of course Jesus (peace be upon him). Do you deny these facts? Here is another fact for you: Muslims do not...to repeat...DO NOT pray to the black stone. So what "double standards" are you referring to?  Now back to the question which you all seem to want to desperately ignore: Which of the pictures shown exhibit the act of idolatry? Cue the Jeopardy theme... ------------- 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) |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 30 June 2014 at 8:11pm
 ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 July 2014 at 5:45am
They do? Go to Google Images and search for "Hindus praying". You'll see a fair number of idols, but in most pictures there are none.
Yes, they would be wrong, just as you would be wrong to infer idol worship merely from the pictures. That's my point.
Well, we just established that a Muslim bowing to a black stone is not evidence of idol worship.
But you just agreed that Christians can pray without statues. Are you still insisting that they worship idols? Why?
One can only have respect for a person, not for an inanimate object. But let me repeat: I am not saying that Musims worship the stone. I am simply saying that the question is more complicated than merely showing pictures of worshippers bowing or prostrating before an object.
The Christian view is that it's still a sin even if we can't help it. ("All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.") Anyway, I don't care about that. What I'm saying is that no modern religion, properly understood, believes that man-made objects of wood or stone or paint can have magical, god-like powers. At best that is a simplified view and represents a naive understanding of the religion's true teaching. And all religions, as far as I am aware, have some sort of physical object as the focus for their worship. Whether you call it an idol or not depends on your definition, but merely pointing to such an object does not prove idol worship.
The point is that actions have consequences, while thoughts alone do not.
The web site I referenced is the official site of the Sanskrit Religions Institute. I don't know much more about it, but it's clearly more than one man's personal web site.
As far as I know they can. Have you any evidence to the contrary? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 July 2014 at 5:50am
Short answer: it's impossible to know from the pictures alone. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Lachi
Date Posted: 01 July 2014 at 3:32pm
This was my point. Without understanding the intent of the people you cannot know whether it is idolatry. Just as Muslims 'appear' to pray to the Kaabah, once their intent is explained it is seen that such an image could be misleading. Each of the pictures 'could' be idolatry, but when the intent of the participants is explained the situation might be very different. |
Posted By: Reepicheep
Date Posted: 01 July 2014 at 4:17pm
|
ISIS (now known simply as IS) has apparently vowed to destroy the Kaaba. A short excerpt from the article follows the link:
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/140702/world-middle-east/article/isil-vows-destroy-kaaba - IS vows to destroy the Kaaba Militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant have threatened that that they will �ruin� the Kaaba after capturing Saudi Arabia because �people worship a stone instead of Allah.� The terror group indicated that they would go to Saudi Arabia�s Arur region via the Anbar deserts and take the control of Kaba to demolish the holy place. ISIL member Abu Turab Al Mugaddasi wrote on microblogging site Twitter that they would destroy the Kaaba in Mecca and kill those pilgrims who worship a stone. �If Allah wills, we will kill those who worship stones in Mecca and destroy the Kaaba. People go to Mecca to touch the stones, not for Allah,� he wrote. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 02 July 2014 at 3:31pm
The fact still remains that Hindus do pray to idols. Do you seriously think that a few pictures on Google somehow prove your point that Hindus don't need idols to pray? Many of the pictures I saw were outdoors, in the Ganges river for example, and only showed certain people with their hands in a prayer gesture. Ironically, there were even some outdoor pictures showing hundreds of Hindus gathered around gigantic statues. Show me a Hindu temple that has no idols and you will have proven your point.
Except that we know for a fact that Hindus pray to idols of their gods and that some Christians pray to statues of saints or Jesus (peace be upon him). So, as I said before, those pictures are just a visual confirmation of what we already know. In contrast, we know for a fact that Muslims do not pray to the black stone. So your "point" is pointless.
Since when do Muslims bow to the black stone? What on earth are you talking about? Moreover, you have yet to refute my point that we know for a fact that Hindus literally pray to their idols and that some Christians literally pray to their statues. So, the pictures simply confirm what we already know.
Um, because when they kneel in front of a statue and offer prayers to it, that is idol worship! Of course Christians can pray without their statues (but who would they be praying to?), but how does that change the fact that some actually pray to statues?
Oh I am sorry. I didn't realize that you were an authority in declaring that people can "only have respect for a person, not for an inanimate object"! So do you think that people cannot show respect for things like their country's flag? When Americans treat "Old Glory" with respect, are you going to tell them that they can't do that, because according to you, "one can only have respect for a person..."? Come on, you're making me laugh too much!
Tell that to the millions of people who believe that their idols have actual powers. Tell that to the people who make offerings to their idols. Tell that to the people who believed that their idols were alive and capable of drinking milk ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiyTogk9kp4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiyTogk9kp4 ).
Well then, you are not well aware. Jews and Muslims do not have a physical object that serves as the "focus for their worship". I would say most Christians are like that as well, except for those who do pray to statues (as in the pictures above). Muslims pray in the direction of the Kaaba, but it is not the "focus" of our prayers. Jews who pray at the Western Wall are praying in the direction of the Temple, but it is not the "focus" of their prayers. In contrast, idols are literally the "focus" of the Hindu practitioner. A statue of Mary or a saint is literally the "focus" of a Christian practitioner. In these cases, the person is literally praying to the statue.
That is true, but the point remains that possible consequences do not always serve as effective deterrents against certain behavior. That is especially true when you have things that can allow you sidestep the possible consequences, as in the case of condoms or other forms of contraception with regard to adultery or fornication.
And that somehow makes it more credible than the website I referenced?
You didn't answer my question. If these people can pray without an idol, then why do they make offerings to it and literally pray to it? Can you show me an example of a Hindu temple that has no idol?
This would be true IF we had no prior knowledge about these religions. But since we DO know for a fact that Hindus pray to idols and that some Christians pray to their statues, the answer is that the above pictures are examples of idolatry. Of course, even without idols, praying to any other than God is a sin from the Islamic point of view, but that is another issue. ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 02 July 2014 at 4:53pm
|
You know, it struck me today, as I was watching the news regarding elections in Afghanistan.... Don't people make idols of leaders in some parts of the world.... the middle east... Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and others... N. Korea, China... possibly Ukraine and Russia... Malaysia, Indonesia... maybe UAE and Qatar as well? I so often see huge posters of political leaders... whole walls painted with images of leaders... Isn't this making idols of men? You don't see this in western nations. ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 03 July 2014 at 9:35am
You started this discussion by asking us to "look at the pictures below and determine if the act shown constitutes the act of idolatry." Okay, have a look at this picture:  Can you determine from the picture alone whether the act shown constitutes idolatry? Why would you draw such a conclusion from those other pictures, but not from this one?
Some Hindus, with a lesser understanding of their religion, do literally pray to their idols. This error is not regarded as serious because according to Hinduism, divinity (i.e. Brahman) is literally present in all things, so they are not that far wrong; and because as explained previously all worship is idol worship, so the error is inevitable. Not a single Christian literally prays to a statue. They pray to God. The statue is just a representation of God, not the actual God.
They are showing respect for the ideals that the flag represents, and for the people who cherish those ideals. The flag itself is just a piece of cloth. Everyone knows that.
For Jews, it was originally the Ark of the Covenant, the "Holy of Holies" containing the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments. That Ark as since been lost, but each synagogue has its own "ark" which contains a copy of the Torah. For Muslims, it is the Kaaba, which contains the Black Stone.
Yes, they are all praying in the same direction. That is what "focus" means. That is what I meant when I originally used the word. No, it is not the object of worship, though it may appear that way to a superficial observer.
No, not the statue, but at what it represents. If I gaze admiringly at a picture of my wife, does that mean I am in love with a picture? I'll agree with you that the Catholic habit of praying to saints and to the Virgin Mary is tantamount to polytheism (not idolatry), however. I've never understood how they can claim to be monotheists.
Yes.
Because they want to. Why do they have to pray the way you want them to? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 04 July 2014 at 9:43am
|
Don't people make an 'idol' of Muhammad when they get so offended whenever anyone has a question about him, and about the things that are written of him? Shouldn't people be able to discuss this historical figure and the writings about him? I just read someone's comment that said they love the prophet more than their own family, their own children. Isn't this 'making an idol' of him? Does Muhammad deserve the same worship as allah? asalaam. ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 05 July 2014 at 2:12am
| Assalamalecum,if we love Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) it is only because of Allah we r loving him which is the first reason because Allah says in ch 21 v 107 of Quran that Allah had send Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a mercy for mankind, second reason is this that prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was extremely peaceful and loving man.he used to stand and pray at night to the extent that his legs swell and he pray for forgiveness and guidance for all of us, so y we won't love him??? Moreover Allah in ch 60 v 3 says that no relatives will b of use on hereafter, in ch 19 v 95 Allah says that everyone will b alone when his account will be taken. |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 05 July 2014 at 3:06am
If he's a young man with curley hair and one eye then he's definately the Dajjal.
|
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 05 July 2014 at 11:10am
Ugh, still not getting it? As I stated before, and am now repeating for like the 5th time, we already know for a FACT that Hindus pray to idols of their gods and some Christians pray to statues of their saints! Did you get that? The pictures I showed were a visual confirmation of what we already know. Get it? With this in mind, anyone who knows even the basic facts about Islam (which I admit most westerners may not know - but then again, they don't know many simple facts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0RH0cYs4lw - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0RH0cYs4lw ), would know that Muslims pray in the direction of the Kaaba but do not pray to it. They would also know that the Black Stone serves as a marker and not an object of worship.
Some Hindus?! Wow Ron, can you really be that disingenuous? The vast majority of Hindus pray to their idols and even make offerings to them!
With this statement, you have shown how ignorant you really are, even though you pretend like you are knowledgeable.First of all, Catholics do pray to statues of the Virgin Mary and even to saints. They pray to them to ask for intercession. Catholics even pray to angels like Michael to protect them ( http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=1389 - http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=1389 ). Second, no Christian (Catholic or otherwise) believes that a statue can be a "representation of God". They believe God is formless and thus cannot be represented by physical form, though it is still common to see paintings of God in churches (the Sistine Chapel is an example). Now of course, they do worship Jesus as God, and statues of Jesus are common in churches, but they do not believe that God "the Father" has a form. You will not find any statue of the "Father" in any church. Such an idea would be blasphemous to Christians. Then again, historically speaking, drawing images of the "Father" has been common in Christianity, though I am not sure if Christians actually pray to these images.
My goodness, you must be joking! Your entire post has so far been highly disingenuous! Even if the flag merely represents certain "ideals", people still do respect the flag, do they not? If someone were to disrespect the flag, people would get upset, would they not? So they are literally showing respect to that "piece of cloth" and not merely to the "ideals" it allegedly represents.
Your ignorance is appalling. First of all, the Kaaba does not "contain the Black Stone". The stone is actually on the outside of the Kaaba and serves as a marker for Tawaf. Second, the Kaaba is not the focal point of Muslim prayer. Muslims pray in the direction of the Kaaba but not to it. We don't even look at the Kaaba or in its direction during prayer. When we pray, we actually look at the ground. In contrast, Hindus and some Christians literally pray to their statues, and Hindus even make offerings to them. Muslims do not make offerings to the Kaaba.
You should have said "ignorant superficial observer". In contrast, we know for a fact that Hindus and Christians do pray to statues. So, any "superficial observer" would be correct to think that the statues are literal "objects of worship", although Catholics would deny that they "worship" the statues. Catholics would argue that even though they pray to statues of Mary or the saints, they are not worshiping them as deities. But, from an Islamic point of view, offering prayers (even if it is to request intercession with God) to any other than God is an act of worship.
What if you offered flowers to the picture or burned incense around it?
They would argue that they do not worship the saints or Mary, but as I said, praying to anyone other than God would be an act of worship, and hence would be tantamount to polytheism. But it would be idolatry if the prayer was made in front of a statue. If they just simply made the prayer without the aid of a statue, that would not be idolatry but it would be polytheism.
You are missing the point. They can do whatever they want. I would never force them to do what I want. That is not the issue. The issue is that if your contention, that people can pray without idols, is true, then why do people literally pray to idols and make offerings to them? They obviously don't agree with your views! ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 29 July 2014 at 8:07pm
I lost track of this discussion but was reminded of it when I read this article:
Apparently ISIS (or at least some of its members) also sees a resemblance between Muslim prayer and idolatry. I know, I know, he is wrong to call it "worshipping stones"; but he is wrong in exactly the same way that that you are wrong to say that about Christians "worshipping statues".
Only if their intent was to express disrespect for the ideals it represents. If the flag is worn out or no longer needed, it can simply be tossed it in the trash and nobody would be upset. (Well, maybe a few "ignorant superficial observers", but nobody with a lick of sense.)
And what if I kiss it, as some romantic fellows are inclined to do? It still doesn't mean we are in love with a piece of paper. At the heart of all of this is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29 - fallacy of reification : the mistake of confusing the symbol with the thing that it represents. Many Hindus make that mistake, and maybe even some Christians; but any knowledgable worshipper understands the difference. Apparently ISIS makes the mistake too -- and so do you. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 30 July 2014 at 3:15pm
Well, first of all, it has not been verified that the specific tweet was from an ISIS member or was promoted by the group itself. According to the Huffington Post:"The Twitter account https://twitter.com/nm8smyh - https://twitter.com/nm8smyh , which sent the original message, has been suspended. The authenticity of the account as belonging to an ISIS member has not been verified." ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/01/isis-destroy-kaaba-mecca_n_5547635.html - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/01/isis-destroy-kaaba-mecca_n_5547635.html ) Second, your clownish ineptitude keeps getting funnier and funnier! As I have already stated several times, we know for a fact that some Christians literally pray to statues and that Hindus pray to their idols. Do Muslims pray to the black stone? NO! Ding, ding, ding!
What difference does that make? The fact remains that to many people, the flag is a sacred object and deliberately desecrating it is seen as an offensive act.
Except that Muslims don't kiss pictures of the black stone, but actually the stone itself. But some Christians and most Hindus literally pray to their statues. Hindus even make offerings to them and some have even claimed that their idols accepted offerings of milk!
Oh, so Mr. Ron Webb is going to set the record straight, eh? Let it be proclaimed: All Christians and Hindus who pray to statues, Mr. Ron Webb is going to set you straight! You may not know it, but he has an impressive resume. He has done about 10-15 minutes of Google research and wants to let you know that you have made some "mistakes" in how you practice your religion... So, now it seems that you are not only a fake Sheik, but a trickster Minister and phony pundit... After all this, the original question remains unanswered. Were the pictures shown examples of idolatry, especially in light of the fact that Christians and Hindus definitely do pray to idols (despite Mr. Ron Webb's special pleading)? ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 31 July 2014 at 3:41am
| Ron don't say a word! |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 August 2014 at 4:21pm
Find me a single Christian who literally prays to a statue. That's utter nonsense.
Of course it is, because http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/desecration?s=t - desecrating implies intent.
And surely kissing the stone itself would imply idolatry more strongly than kissing a picture. Whose side are you arguing here? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 August 2014 at 6:29pm
http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvIV4UIBSHE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvIV4UIBSHE "Utter nonsense", indeed.
What difference does that make? Intent or not, if the flag is really just a piece of "cloth", then who cares if it is desecrated or not? Obviously, if someone gets upset at the flag's desecration, they must see it as more than just a piece of "cloth".
Idolatry means the worship of idols. Worship means to pray to something or give it homage as if it is capable of responding. Simply kissing something does not imply idolatry. But making offerings to it and praying to it definitely does. ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 August 2014 at 9:30pm
FOX "News"? Okay, there's your first problem.  Trust them to describe it as "praying to a statue".The obvious intention of the people praying is to address their prayers not to a heap of plaster and paint, but to the person it represents, i.e. the Virgin Mary -- which I agree is a problem in itself, but the problem is polytheism, not idolatry.
OMG, you're actually serious! Sorry, I didn't realize the first time that it was a real question. Okay, bear with me. I'll try to answer, but if you truly don't understand the distinction, then this is going to be difficult. I'll go slow. Suppose I meet someone for the first time, and his first words to me are a string of obscenities. I will naturally assume that he is rude and disrespectful, and will want to have as little as possible to do with him. ...Until he explains to me that he suffers from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette_syndrome - Tourette Syndrome . He is not intending to be rude or disrespectful; the words just burst out of his mouth at random, and he can't suppress them no matter how hard he tries. Knowing that makes all the difference. The "words" do not convey any meaning at all. They are simply noises he inadvertently makes with his mouth, and I will disregard them accordingly. That is the difference that intention makes. If someone destroys a flag for purely practical reasons, without any intention to be disrespectful to the country it represents, then no reasonable person would be offended by that. On the other hand, if he desecrates a flag, it is with the deliberate intention of insulting the country. That would be offensive -- but it is the intention that is offensive, not the act of destruction itself. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 August 2014 at 10:10pm
I think it is abundantly clear that you are simply incapable of admitting when you are mistaken. You go off on rambling arguments based on nothing except your personal opinions. The people in the video were praying to the statue. If they were simply praying to Mary, without a statue, that would be one thing. But, the reality is that emphasis is placed on the actual statue. That is idolatry!
OMG, more ignorant rambling? Are you aware that, at least in the United States, even disposing of a damaged or worn out flag has to be done in a "respectful" way? "As a revered symbol of freedom and justice, the flag of the United States of America needs to be http://www.wikihow.com/Respect-the-American-Flag - treated with the utmost respect. This respect extends to the flag's eventual retirement and destruction. The United States Flag Code (4 USC Sec 8 Para (k) Amended 7 July 1976) states: "The Flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem of display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." Follow the steps in this guide to dispose of a worn or damaged flag with the respect it deserves." ( http://www.wikihow.com/Dispose-of-a-Damaged-American-Flag - http://www.wikihow.com/Dispose-of-a-Damaged-American-Flag ) Hence, just throwing the flag in the garbage would be considered disrespectful, even though that was not the "intention". It is expected that the flag be destroyed in a "dignified" way. If it was just a piece of "cloth", who would go to such lengths to destroy it? Did you get that, dummy? Should I go slower? ------------- 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) |
Trust them to describe it as "praying to a statue".Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 02 August 2014 at 7:43pm
No, it doesn't have to be done in any particular way. If you want to follow the instructions you linked to ("edited by BarefootedWonder and 28 others" ), go ahead; but trust me, if you choose to dispose of your worn out flag in the trash, nothing bad will happen.The US Flag Code presents guidelines for public and ceremonial use of the flag. It "errs on the side of caution" so as not to offend anyone; and yes, if a nosy neighbour happens to see a US flag in your trash, he might be offended. So just tell him it was an old worn-out flag and you intended no disrespect. If he persists, tell him he is committing the fallacy of reification. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 02 August 2014 at 8:36pm
Sure, it doesn't have to be disposed that way, but the very fact that there are "suggestions" shows that the flag is much more than just "cloth". Also, there is a law which prescribes a fine and possible jail time for anyone who deliberately desecrates the flag: "Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both." ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/700 - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/700 ) Again, why would this be so if the flag is just a piece of "cloth"? What if someone deliberately defaced a bedsheet made from the same material? ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Andrew Eby
Date Posted: 04 August 2014 at 11:50am
| Yes, my brother. As a follower of Christ I believe our actions have stripped away from us by FALSE teachings. The act of kneeling before your savior, the KING!! Has been stripped from the publics eye. I myself see this very evident throughout the United States. I want to get back to God and give him my FREE WILL back because my WILL is to serve HIM, rejoice in HIM and KNEEL before HIM. So I believe you still don't understand the meaning in being a follower. All the religions are connected and the day we come together and philosophy like logical human beings and stop fighting on who's wrong and who's right, why don't we all come together out of love and piece this together. One people, one destiny, one GOD is our destiny as the human race. I would love to speak with the leaders of Islam about this issue we have in religions. So much fighting an desperation from the one TRUE fact, that ALL of us are HIS children and look at how GOD must feel right now with all the religions fighting and bickering I'm who's right and who's wrong, CHILDISH, as we are STILL CHILDREN fighting amongst ourselves, let's grow up and come together and fight for what is TRUTH and what is RIGHT and put the past behind us so we can grow in HIM together as one PEOPLE. I beg the leaders of the world to lay down the weapons and stop death. Why do you think there is son much death?? Truth has been long hidden, and you know that saying?? " you can't handle the truth" that's absolutely TRUE. We can't handle the truth in these days because the TRUTH has been manipulated, distorted to the point where we fight amongst ourselves I have the evidence for that. Tower of Babel. Telling the truth is a hard thing to do because it can make someone mad, angry, jealous, hated and everything that that coincides with evil if you do not tell the truth. Why do you think there is so much death in the world?? All those emotions lead to one ending and that's DEATH. Like I said I love all of the people in this world and my words are kind and gentle. Power of info is our finger tips, and really appreciate this site for letting express my feelings to other religions around the world and to hear what other people have to say. We are connecting as we speak lol |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 August 2014 at 6:16pm
Indeed, it is also a symbol of American values. It is the symbolic significance that is treated respectfully (or not), not the mere cloth.
FYI, the Flag Protection Act was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman - struck down as unconstitutional in 1990. It was deemed to be an unreasonable infringement on freedom of expression. The http://journalism.uoregon.edu/~tgleason/j385/EBrennan_j385.html - Supreme Court's ruling emphasized the distinction between the symbolic value of the flag, versus its physical manifestation: "The Government's interest in protecting the 'physical integrity' of a privately owned flag rests upon a perceived need to preserve the flag's status as a symbol of our Nation and certain national ideals. But the mere destruction or disfigurement of a particular physical manifestation of the symbol, without more, does not diminish or otherwise affect the symbol itself in any way. For example, the secret destruction of a flag in one's own basement would not threaten the flag's recognized meaning. Rather, the Government's desire to preserve the flag as a symbol for certain national ideals is implicated "only when a person's treatment of the flag communicates [a] message" to others that is inconsistent with those ideals." ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 04 August 2014 at 7:10pm
|
Re: idols and idol worship The Lord tonight has revealed to me this thing which may be useful to putting aside misunderstandings and aggreviances. When Muhammad came to the arab people to teach them about the One God... they were worshiping many gods, one of which was The God, al-Lah. Their idols of these gods were present in the ka'aba and the people came to give them tribute. Muhammad made clear that there was only One God(allah) and these idols to other gods were worthless. The statues of the Catholic church are not idols to other gods... they are in honor and representative of the One God... the One who chose Mary to conceive, carry, and bear Yshwe... they honor and represent Yshwe, sent to bring the Word, the Gospel, the Good News, to all people.... they represent the saints that have gone to their deaths in service to the One true God. asalaam. ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 04 August 2014 at 8:18pm
Oh please. If it was "mere cloth" and only the "symbolic significance" was important, then no one would get upset at the desecration of the "cloth".
Nevertheless, the fact that a law was even considered shows that the flag is much more than just "cloth". The Supreme Court may have struck down the law and given its own opinions, but it doesn't change the fact that the law was in place to prosecute those who desecrate the flag. This illustrates that it is not just a "symbol". Besides, the Supreme Court struck down the law simply because it was, in its opinion, a violation of the First Amendment. What does that have to do with whether the flag is a symbol or not? ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 05 August 2014 at 6:03am
|
 That's what I just said. No one should be upset at the destruction of a piece of cloth. (Not "desecration" -- you can't http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/desecrate?s=t - desecrate a piece of cloth.) The only people who would get upset are those who mistakenly see a symbolic significance in the act, where none is intended.
It has everything to do with it. The mere destruction of a piece of cloth does not communicate anything and therefore cannot be a violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment only comes into play when the flag is used as a symbol and the act of destroying it is intended to communicate a message of disrespect for the values it represents. That intention is what makes the act offensive -- not the mere destruction of a piece of cloth. And in exactly the same way, bowing or praying before a statue is only an act of idolatry when the intention is to worship the statue itself. If the statue is a symbol for God and the intention is to direct one's prayers to God, then it is merely a focus of worship (like the Black Stone), not an object of worship. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 05 August 2014 at 8:45am
Your personal opinions are irrelevant. The fact remains that people do take offense when a flag is "desecrated", regardless of whether you feel that they shouldn't. So yes, you can desecrate a "piece of cloth".If it was merely the "symbol" that is important, then there shouldn't even be a "flag". What the flag supposedly stands for are abstract concepts like "freedom" or "democracy". You can't "desecrate" freedom or democracy, but you can desecrate the physical representation of them, i.e. the flag. So, if people simply stop using flags, then there will not be a problem at all of desecration. You can't desecrate something that has no physical form.
What does "intention" have to do with the simple fact that the law was struck down on the basis of "freedom of expression" or that the law was put into effect at all before being struck down? Whatever the intention was, the law was in place and was then declared "unconstitutional". Period. and by the way, even the Supreme Court was divided on the issue. It was a 5-4 decision to declare the law "unconstitutional". Praying to a statue and making offerings to it is idolatry because those are acts of worship. If "focus" was the intention, then people could just stare at a wall or at the ground, or just close their eyes. Idols would not even be needed, in the same way that a flag is not needed as a "symbol" for "freedom". ------------- 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) |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 05 August 2014 at 9:45am
| http://www.ktre.com/story/25970417/houston-county-flag-desecration-case-gets-new-life |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 05 August 2014 at 10:45am
|
We're all expressing our personal opinions here. People who take offense are also expressing personal opinions. I happen to think they are wrong to be offended, and I am explaining why. You're welcome to express a contrary opinion and give your reasons, but you can't just dismiss other opinions as "irrelevant".
Expression implies intention. As the Court pointed out, whether it's a protester burning a flag to make a political statement, or an official burning the flag to dispose of it, the physical process is the same. The only difference is the intention of the person doing it -- whether as an expression of respect, or disrespect.
It makes no difference to our discussion whether the law is in effect or not. Either way, the law was aimed at desecration of the flag, not just disposal. Desecration is an act of disrespect; and disrespect assumes intention. It doesn't count if you "mean no disrespect".
You're absolutely right. The flag is not needed, statues are not needed, the picture of my wife on my desk is not needed. I could just close my eyes and imagine her. Christians can pray without crucifixes. And despite what you think, Hindus can pray without idols. We just prefer not to. We like to have images and other physical reminders of the things we love. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 05 August 2014 at 6:12pm
Greetings Andrew, Sorry to see that your post was so delayed. It should be the last posted on this page.  asalaam and blessings. ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 08 August 2014 at 10:02pm
But that's the point that you have missed over and over again. I started this thread by showing some pictures, and asked if those pictures depicted acts of idolatry. Based on what we know about the people and their religious beliefs regarding praying to statues, the question is if those pictures do indeed depict idolatrous acts. This is not a matter of opinion. We are not talking about whether they are right or wrong to believe what they believe. We are talking about whether what they believe is akin to idolatry. Based on the facts (not opinions), it seems pretty clear that the pictures are indeed examples of idolatry.
But either way, the act is protected under free speech. The law was "unconstitutional" because of this principle.
When did I say anything about the law being "in effect"? I pointed out that even the judges were divided on the issue. Four judges believed the law was not "unconstitutional" and that desecrating a flag is not protected by the Constitution.
Except that Christians and Hindus pray to their images. They don't simply "love" them. Hindus even go so far as to make offerings to their idols. Is that idolatry? Yes or no? By the way, I previously mentioned the incident which occurred several years ago in Hindu temples around the world when idols allegedly began "accepting" offerings of milk. What is your view on this? Since the people obviously believed that their idols were alive (remember - whether they were right or wrong is a separate issue), was that idolatry? And I am curious as to what you make of the alleged "miracle" itself? How do you explain it? ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 11 August 2014 at 12:01pm
Well, we can agree on one thing: it's not a matter of opinion. Opinion would hopefully be informed by evidence. This is a matter of sheer idle (no pun intended) speculation. You can't look at a picture and know what the people in the picture are thinking. They may be bowing in a particular direction (an idol, a statue or a Black Stone), but that does not tell you which god they are praying to or where they think that god is physically located.
That's true. It wasn't my example and I'm not suggesting that it illustrates either my point or yours. I'm just saying (and the Court in this case is agreeing) that disrespect is an act of intention. What matters is not the physical act, but intention of that act, i.e. the message that the act is intended to communicate. In the same way, when a person bows to an idol, or to a statue, or to a black stone, what matters is not the physical act (which is all you can see in a picture), but what is going on inside the person's head -- what their intention is.
If they believed that the idols were literally alive, then it was idolatry. If they believed only that the gods represented by the idols performed the miracles to encourage belief, then it was not. I don't know, you would have to ask the individuals.
I think it was a fad, or in other words what some would call "mass hysteria". In the span of a few days/weeks, there were hundreds of accounts all around the world of Hindu idols drinking their milk offerings. The explanations were probably various: capillary action, evaporation, observational error, and probably a fair amount of fraud, "pious" or otherwise. How do you explain it? And why would you doubt this "miracle", yet naively accept the various "miracles" associated with Muhammad? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 11 August 2014 at 1:37pm
Ugh...why are you still having trouble understanding this? I have already abundantly shown that Christians and Hindus do literally pray to their statues. It has nothing to do with "direction" or "focus". The only time you can appeal to "direction" is in the case of Muslims and Jews. Muslims pray in the direction of Mecca, and more specifically, the Kaaba. Jews pray in the direction of Jerusalem, and more specifically, the Temple Mount.
We have already seen the "intention". Most people literally pray to these statues. Hindus even make offerings to them. The "intention" seems pretty clear to me!
Of course they believed the idols are literally alive! Even in the absence of these events, Hindus have always made "offerings" to their idols. That is part of their normal, everyday rituals. The only difference in the case of the events in question is that on those occasions, the idols actually began to literally "accept" those offerings. And certainly, there is no talk here of mere "direction" or "focus". The idols were the talk of the town.
I expected this sort of response, and you certainly did not disappoint! I think the various explanations all have weaknesses. If it was something as mundane as capillary action or evaporation, then surely, it would happen again and again. It should be readily observable even now. Yet, no one is reporting these events. "Observational error"? You mean to tell me that thousands of people all had "observational error"? Even the media? Even all those curious people who just came to see if all the hype and "hysteria" was true? Even the scientists who argued that capillary action or evaporation could explain the phenomena? All of these people somehow misinterpreted these events? "A fair amount of fraud"? If it was just one or two places that reported these phenomena, a hoax could be a plausible explanation (although, without proof, it would be just speculation). But, as you admitted yourself, there were reports from all over the world. I find it hard to believe that there was some sort of international conspiracy by a consortium of Hindu temples to pull off this elaborate hoax.
See, unlike you, I don't simply try to explain it away using skeptical scenarios which make no sense when scrutinized. You seem content to simply suggest various scenarios, without even considering if they make any sense and if they really explain what actually happened. Its the "Agnostic Code", all over again... Based on the available information, I think it is quite possible that this was a genuine supernatural event, but one that was the work of demonic forces. Demons would love nothing more than to get people to worship idols and false gods. If there is anyway they can misguide and deceive human beings, they will do it. So, unlike you, I don't just "naively" reject events such as these based on an a priori belief that the supernatural realm does not exist. I don't just "naively" believe alternative explanations which simply do not explain these events. You do. ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 11 August 2014 at 2:06pm
In which post(s) did you do that?
Can you see this intention by looking at a picture?
The offering is symbolic, not literal. It cannot have escaped even the Hindus' notice that generally speaking when they place food offerings in front of an idol, it does not get consumed.
Of course they do. No single explanation accounts for all cases. What happens is that one such observation is made, other people and/or media pick up on it and start looking for such events; and if you look hard enough, you'll find them (or imagine them, or invent them). The phenomenon grows exponentially for a while, until it reaches some practical limit and the bubble bursts.
Whereas your alleged "moon splitting" miracle, for instance, couldn't possibly be explained the same way, right? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Power of GOD
Date Posted: 11 August 2014 at 3:16pm
|
It does not matter what muslims worship a black stone or allah which is both idols,allah is a imaginary idol which Muhammad made up in his briliant mind you may not be able to convince a muslim to worship a real God
The integrity of Muhammad is all important. He was either whom he
claimed to be, a liar or a nut case (mentally insane or demon possessed).This is why the Traditions went to such great lengths to create a model of Muhammad that depicts him as a "super man" as well as a prophet. What do we find in the Hadith? Muhammad's credentials for prophethood are unacceptable. The two prominent Hadithic "proofs" of his prophethood came from pagan ideas of what a shaman would look like and the manner in which he would be inspired. The Hadith explains that when the Qur'an an refers to the seal of prophethood being upon Muhammad (Surah 33:40), the seal was a large hairy mole on his back. This is found in both Bukhari (vol. I, no. 189; vol. IV, no. 741) and Muslim (vol. IV, no. 5790,5793). This mole was the physical proof that Muhammad was a prophet according to Tabari and other later Muslim authorities. They even claimed that the mole was a fulfillment of such Scriptures as Isa. 9:6. We cannot accept this proof. While such ideas can be found in pagan traditions from many primitive cultures, it is not a part of the religion of Abraham, the prophets, the apostles or Jesus |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 11 August 2014 at 3:46pm
Are you having bouts of memory loss? Go back to the previous posts. I showed a video clip which showed how some Catholics prayed to a statue of Mary. Your best argument in response was "well, its from Fox News", as if somehow that serves as a viable argument! I have also pointed out repeatedly that Hindus literally pray to their idols and make offerings to them. What is that if not idolatry?
If you know beforehand about their beliefs, then yes. But, I will admit, that if you are an ignoramus (which you seem to be ), then no, you probably could not tell whether the people in the pictures are actually praying to the statue or just facing it. Of course, a picture can be supplemented by a video or perhaps a series of pictures which would show more information. In fact, here are some for you:http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkP1TF16z1M - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkP1TF16z1M http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME4CDvgmB5g - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME4CDvgmB5g
How do you know it is "symbolic"? The idols are literally given offerings! If these were "symbolic", then you could offer a pencil and it would be fine. Yet according to the following source, only certain types of offerings can be made, because apparently, the deities prefer certain things:
Moreover, it is forbidden to consume the offering. Why would that be the case if it was "symbolic" and not "literal"? The source states: "It is believed that the devotees should never consume whatever they have
offered to the shivling as it brings bad omen, leads to loss of good
luck and money and can also cause illness."
So, in other words, you have no actual explanation. What a shock!
You could make the argument, but that would bring us back to the hypothetical argument that Satan started Islam. The pieces just don't fit. If anything, when the pagans asked for a miracle, Satan would have split the moon (assuming he has that power) and put an image of one of the pagans gods or something. Why would Satan want to make idol worshipers believe that their idols are nothing but lifeless pieces of wood and stone and that they should only worship the One, Supreme God? ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 12 August 2014 at 1:18pm
My response was that Fox News captioned the story incorrectly. Nobody in the video clip (did you actually watch it, or just read the caption?) said they were praying to a statue. Even the reporter said that they were "gathering and praying in front of the statue". So, evidence of polytheism perhaps, but not idolatry.
Okay, I think I see the problem. Do you seriously think that repeatedly "pointing out" something is the same as providing evidence? You can "point out" your opinions as often as you want, but that doesn't make them true. In response, I pointed out the official Web site of the http://sanskrit.org/?p=691 - Sanskrit Religions Institute , which says very clearly that Hindu worshippers "are not bowing down to stone, they are not worshipping a statue; they are approaching these sacred images as the means to get to the God behind the image." (emphasis added) No offense intended, but I think the Sanskrit Religions Institute is a far more reliable source for the true principles of Hinduism than the opinion of some anonymous Muslim on the Internet. No matter how many times he repeats those opinions.
So, your views are based on prejudice rather than the pictures themselves?
No, a pencil would have no symbolic significance.
I have lots of possible explanations. I just don't know which one applies to each situation.
If splitting the moon was sufficient for Allah, why would it not be sufficient for Satan? One could argue that if Allah really wanted to convince non-believers, He would have inscribed the Quran on the surface of the moon. (Shucks, that would probably convince me too.) But He didn't. Why not? I don't know, you tell me -- but whatever the reason, it's the same reason that Satan would not have put an image of a pagan god on the moon in my hypothetical.
I've answered that several times already: because by definition a polytheist religion is tolerant of many gods, whereas monotheism is by definition intolerant of them. You may not agree that the distinction bears out in practice, but a theoretical answer should suffice for your theoretical question. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 August 2014 at 8:29pm
You are so full of crap, it's not even funny (oh wait, yes it is). The people in the video were gathered around the statue, and were engaged in prayer. The statue was the center piece. It had to be there. Here is some more proof of how Catholics pray to statues of Mary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-p1EAWF7jE - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-p1EAWF7jE Notice how in this video, Pope Francis looks up at the statue and utters a silent prayer. Is that not idolatry? Hint: It's a rhetorical question. And by the way, Catholics would contend that even though they pray to Mary, it is not polytheism. Polytheism implies the belief in multiple gods, but Catholics believe in one God. They don't regard Mary as a "goddess". So, praying to Mary would not be "polytheism" in the strict sense of the word. From an Islamic point of view, it is definitely shirk, but not necessarily polytheism. Shirk is not necessarily synonymous with polytheism. Any act which should be directed to God alone is shirk, even if the person does not believe in another "god".
No offense, but I think you are full of crap (oh wait, I do mean offense!). The "Sanskrit Religions Institute" can try to whitewash what millions of people literally do, but just because it is an "institute" (ooh, that's impressive!), does not give its argument more weight. You are simply appealing to authority. I have shown you evidence of how Hindus literally pray to their idols and make offerings to them. What is that if not idolatry?
No, no, no. It's based on observation, whereas your views are based on ignorance and an appeal to uncertainty and theory. That seems to be your mantra in life.
And fruits and coconut water, which are obviously not consumed (either by the idol or the worshiper) are? If they "symbolic", then why can't a person just "symbolically" offer a piece of fruit without actually literally providing a piece of fruit?
No, all you have are more crackpot theories. You just literally make up arguments, irregardless of whether they make any sense or are supported by the evidence. I responded to each of your "explanations" and showed why they were weak. You didn't offer a rebuttal, besides more theories. Again, that does seem to be your mantra.
Again, Satan would have had no reason to help Muhammad (peace be upon him) to convince idol worshipers that there is only One God. Also, it was the pagans who had requested that Muhammad (peace be upon him) split the moon. They asked for that, and that's what they got. Yet, like all unbelievers, they still refused to believe. If anything, Satan would have made Muhammad (peace be upon him) think that a miracle would occur, and yet after several tries, not allow the miracle to occur, thereby vindicating the pagans and damaging Muhammad's reputation.Shucks, I doubt a blind atheist like you would believe even if an angel came down and slapped you upside the head!
And I have already refuted this nonsense several times by pointing out that polytheistic religions don't follow the "definition". You are still stuck on theory and going in circles. The reality is different. Moreover, Satan could care less about "tolerance" or "intolerance". His goal is to lead people astray, in any way possible. Therefore, to suggest that he would actually discourage idol worship and other pre-Islamic practices (such as female infanticide, hedonism and greed, tribal warfare etc.) is the epitome of nonsense. ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Andrew Eby
Date Posted: 13 August 2014 at 2:10am
| To settle this argument you guys have here is the third eye point of view. Both of you are correct. If the Quran says like the Bible says that you shall not Bow before any Other God or Idol before me. Here lays the problem, I could say to you that your false as a follower Christ myself, but I won't because I do not believe that. The mere fact of bowing before ANYTHING is a symbol of worshiping, dedicating, repenting, talking is a form of idolizom no matter how put it, you can't play with words there. We all have the same beliefs just told diferently. Why do we have to fight or argue??!! Why can't we join together and share the secrets of the past as I have come to know myself through many years of reading and searching for the TRUTH. The TRUTH is our governments wants us to be like this, sheep without herder, cattle without it's wrangler, so easy to manipulate and distort the TRUTH, but just as BUDHA said " there are three things that cannot be long hidden; the sun, the moon and the TRUTH. We are finding the TRUTH, City of DWARKA found mythical place now proven not mythical. Huge city under Japan's water no name yet. Mayan or Incan city found under lake TITICACA. We are much much older then what main stream HISTORIANS have said for over thousands of years. Imformation is at your fingered tips my brothers and sisters. The day we come together as one PEOPLE, one GOD, one DESTINY is the day the world will know peace. So I ask YOU, Islam, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Catholic and very other religion, when do you really want to act like what believe in?? It's not with guns and war, it's with our mouths, pen and paper, the mass majority who are spiritual. We should all be at our governments front door. They are all not for the people of this PLANET. When can we start acting like a planet and stop with the race and religion and start growing with each others beliefs. We haven't figured out really who the heck we are yet let alone what happened in the past. So how can we sit here today and fight over this after thousands of years of doing so. We are like children in GODS eyes. Seriously think about it. We all believe that there is a GOD right?? So ask yourself how pissed off he is??!! I pray for the day we come together as a planet of humans and rejoice in our GOD and HIS MAJESTY. There is one thing in life that I do not get though is atheism. My point of view is that first there was noting, out of nothing came time, out of time came our GOD. Why do you think he knows the past present and future? Plus every word and every thought. That concept should open some eyes. I grew up in a Presbyterian house where my dad is the pastor. In my young years I thought to myself the world, universe had to much more grand then what the BIBLE told. I was right, one day I asked myself what reality meant to me. After a few months my eyes where open and it was like taking the red pill, TRUTH is our REALITY. REALITY is what a collective society and individual deem to be TRUE. That should be the defintion. Every theory you look up dances around the TRUTH. I have lots more knowledge for taking. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 14 August 2014 at 7:55pm
"It had to be there"? So Catholics can't pray to the Virgin Mary without a statue? You know better than that. Why waste time with such foolishness?
No. You can't tell by looking at a picture who or what the prayer is addressed to, but I'm quite sure that it would have been addressed to the Virgin Mary herself, not to her statue.
I am indeed. Appeals to authority are valid if the authority is valid, which is the case here. At any rate, they are far more authoritative then you.
You have shown me pictures, but pictures cannot show the intent of the person praying.
It's not based on observation if you have to know the answer beforehand. That's called prejudice. By observation alone, you cannot know the intent of the person praying.
I don't know, you should be asking a Hindu that question. My suspicion is that if you don't have an actual piece of fruit to spare, a symbolic offering of a picture of a piece of fruit might suffice.
How many wars were caused, and how many people died, because Muhammad convinced idol worshippers that there is only one God? How much terrorism and hatred continues to this day because of it?
Which would have accomplished exactly nothing. Why would Satan dictate the Quran to Muhammad, and then sabotage Muhammad's attempts to promulgate it?
Some do, some don't. The question is, are monotheist religions more likely than polytheist ones to be intolerant of other beliefs? I can't give you any statistics, but you only have to watch the nightly news to know the answer to that. You've given me a few examples of polytheists. I could give you dozens, maybe hundreds, of Muslim/Islamist examples alone. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 August 2014 at 9:08pm
I already pointed that out, dummy. I already stated that both Catholics and Hindus should be able to pray without the use of idols, but that's the point! They deliberately use idols! You are the one "wasting time with...foolishness" because you refuse to acknowledge what can be be plainly observed. The Agnostic Code has really blinded you to clear facts.
Sure, sure. Apparently, looking up at the statue and praying (I am pretty sure he was not praying to God ), is not proof to your befuddled mind that the Pope was praying to Mary. Of course, he was praying to Mary! But, why does he need the statue? Why does he look up to it while he is praying? What is that if not idolatry?
Your appeal to authority ignores the counter-evidence. That is why it is a fallacy. You are essentially claiming that in spite of the fact that millions of people worship idols, the "Institute" knows that they are not actually worshiping the idols. Tell that to the people!
I also showed you videos and even instructions from websites showing faithful Hindus how to properly make offerings to idols of their gods. I think the intent is pretty clear. You can continue to live in your uncertain fantasy world, but the reality is very clear.
Observation is based on research, dummy!
So, now I should ask a Hindu? If you don't know the answers, then why the hell are you making silly arguments that you cannot even support? Did you ask a Hindu that the offerings are "symbolic", or was that just your own "suspicion"?
We're back to that again, huh? I guess there is just no convincing a prejudiced atheist that this *****ic views have no basis in facts and logic. Idol worshipers are just as capable of violence as anyone else. Even your so-called "humanists" have been the cause of great violence in the world. People fight over many things. They always have, and they always will. Did you read Charles Kurzman's book? And the idolaters in Arabia were not peace-loving people. They were known for their violence, too. Satan had no reason to destroy the Arab pagan religion, in favor of monotheism, if his goal was to incite violence. He had many options at his disposal, including further exploiting the tribal conflicts (which Muhammad (peace be upon him)) preached against!
Why don't you ask him when you are both in Hell? As I said, Satan had no reason to start a monotheistic religion in the first place. That is why the argument is absurd from the get-go. If anything, Satan would have used the opportunity to further entrench idolatry. He could have made Muhammad (peace be upon him) believe that he was a true Prophet and then when the time was right, betray him (such as at the time when the pagans asked for the moon to be split).
Even if this was true, it does nothing to change the fact that polytheists can and do persecute others. Therefore, your argument is moot. Satan would have known that polytheists can also be driven to "intolerance". ------------- 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) |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 August 2014 at 9:10pm
It does not go unnoticed that Ron Webb still has no reasonable explanation, only crackpot theories... ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 August 2014 at 9:21am
Yes, they should be able to, and they can and they do. But they like having images of their gods, just as I like having a picture of my wife on my desk. So what? That doesn't mean I am in love with a picture.
Then show me the research. Don't just show me pictures that prove nothing unless you assume your conclusion beforehand, as you already admitted.
If the idols are symbolic ( http://www.hinduwebsite.com/idols.asp - which they are ), then obviously offerings to it are also symbolic. But no, I don't have all the answers. (Unlike you, apparently.) If I needed to understand their symbolism in detail, I would ask a Hindu.
Such as?
Yup, polytheists can and do persecute others. The question is, is there less intolerance and persecution in the world now, with Islam, than there would have been without it? I'd love to see you make the case for that. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 August 2014 at 8:16pm
Again, you are going in circles. Comparing Catholic veneration of statues to a picture of your wife is absurd. Do you make prayers to the picture? Do you make offerings to it (as at least most Hindus do)? Suppose that Mary or the saints were physically present on the earth. Obviously, in that situation, a statue would definitely not be necessary? Correct? So, Catholics would pray to the literal Mary or to a literal saint. Would that not be idolatry? Now, replace the literal Mary or the literal saint with a statue. What changes? Prayers are still being made to a physical object, even if it is a "symbol" which represents the actual being. Is that not idolatry?
I have shown you the research already. You have simply rejected it. I have provided material from websites. I have provided pictures and videos. Here is some more research. In most Hindu temples, the idol is "woken up" every morning and given a bath. Here is how a Hindu source describes it: "Early in the morning, generally before sunrise, they wake him up to the accompaniment of music and devotional hymns, give him a bath, dress him up fully and gloriously and then worship him with all ardor and fervor making various offerings and chanting hymns of encomiums." (h http://ttp://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/pantheonfaq.asp - ttp://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/pantheonfaq.asp ) Is this all "symbolic"? Is this something you would do to a mere "symbol"?
The same source explained in detail the various rituals that Hindus perform on these alleged "symbols", as shown above. Moreover, the same source states clearly:"A devout Hindu is not much ashamed of going to a temple and bowing before an idol. He has no hesitation to stand in front of it and speak to it as if he is talking to an individual with the faith and devotion that is exemplary." The source also states that sometimes the idol actually responds! Would a mere symbol respond to acts of worship? "But sometimes as recorded by human experience, the idols do respond and converse with man."
Memory loss again? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Remember?
Oh, your clownish responses make me laugh! Since we know that people from all walks of life, whether religious or not, are capable of violence and persecution of others, it is not hard to imagine that the world would not be very different if Islam did not exist. Of course, I cannot prove what the world would have been like in this alternate reality, but neither can you prove that there would been "less intolerance and persecution". It's hilarious how you ask for proof of an hypothetical scenario when in all your time suggesting your crackpot theories, you have not provide one iota of evidence to support them. Bozo being Bozo...  By the way, you might want to read Graham Fuller's book http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Islam-Graham-Fuller-ebook/dp/B003JTHXUO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=8-1&keywords=a+world+without+islam - "A World Without Islam" . He provides some key insights, if you are really interested in this hypothetical scenario. Your reading list is getting bigger by the day! I sure hope you do some reading, if you are really interested in seeking answers. Of course, if you don't, I won't mind. It will just confirm that you are just a troll who has a very prejudiced view of Islam and Muslims. Surprise, surprise! ------------- 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) |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 August 2014 at 8:20pm
Still avoiding this topic like the plague? I guess I can't blame you. Most people tend to avoid anything that might contradict their world view. ------------- 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) |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 August 2014 at 8:25pm
Hi Andrew. Welcome to the forum. I do appreciate your attempts to promote peace, but we are merely having discussions. We have disagreements, and there is passion on both sides. That's okay. I disagree with you that we all have the same beliefs but told differently. When you compare the various religions, there are certainly similarities. For example, all religions emphasize compassion. But there are also differences. There is no denying this. And in most cases, the differences are very significant. For example, Christians worship Jesus. Muslims do not. Such a belief is anathema to us. There just cannot be any compromise in this regard. ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 15 August 2014 at 10:34pm
Greetings islamispeace, I could say that muslims worship Muhammad, based on behavior. It is wrong to say that Christians worship Jesus. They worship God. Christians are led to God through Yshwe. Just as you would say that muslims are led to allah through Muhammad. Muhammad is no less revered than Yshwe. The only difference is that Yshwe told His disciples; "I and My Father are One."This is a mystery we try to understand... how God could come to earth in the form of the Son... but the Creator is a mystery that we should not expect to understand all that He does, or all aspects of what He is able to do. We have the mind of human, not Creator. �Can you fathom the mysteries of God?asalaam. ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 15 August 2014 at 10:35pm
------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 15 August 2014 at 10:39pm
Sounds like a worth the while read. ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: Andrew Eby
Date Posted: 16 August 2014 at 2:04am
|
Equation for reality or the truth as I would say.
Cp-p=r>p Cp- common properties/ commonalities of all of life P-probability (false) R- reality (true) Reality has to be greater than probability. Basic understanding of TRUTH is that you have to acknowledge that there is truth in false and false in truth. Until the day the TRUTH is fully revealed by our governments and leaders of the Catholic Church |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 17 August 2014 at 9:28am
Not me personally. I'm not actually a sentimental type. But I know lots of people who are, and I could easily imagine them talking to a picture when no one is around. An better example would be how people treat the dead. I've seen lots of graves that look like shrines. Some even have pictures of the deceased. Relatives visit regularly, bring flowers and other gifts, have "conversations" with the dead, etc. These people know perfectly well that their loved ones are departed and only the corpse or the ashes are buried there. It's all symbolism. But it comforts them to do these things.
No, not correct at all. No more correct than suggesting that because my wife is physically present on earth, then a picture of her is not necessary.
No, prayers are still being made to Mary, not to a physical object. If I call my wife on the phone, I'm still talking to my wife, even though my voice is being directed to a physical device.
Of course it is. They obviously can't do those things to the "real" god, so they do it symbolically.
Yes, as in the so-called "milk miracle", for instance. You believe it was demons acting through the idols. The Hindus believed it was the gods themselves. Just as if Muhammad "split the moon", it would actually be Allah acting through Muhammad, not Muhammad himself performing the miracle.
Do you even know what " http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III - humanism " is?
I wouldn't ask for proof of a hypothetical. I said I'd like to see you make the case for it. It's interesting that your response was that the world would not be very different. So you agree that "the religion of peace" has not not brought peace to the world? There has been a state of almost continuous tension between Christianity and Islam ever since the beginning, with innumerable wars and incalculable bloodshed. Are you sure this isn't something that Satan would have wanted to bring about?
Thanks, I'll see if I can track it down at my local library. Meanwhile, I have enough reading just trying to get through your posts. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 17 August 2014 at 12:05pm
This is again an absurd comparison. Praying to a statue is completely different from "talking" to a loved one at their grave. First of all, for people who believe in the afterlife, a loved one who has passed on is not just a "corpse" or "ashes", because the soul still exists. So, conversing with the departed makes sense in the regard. In fact, it is stated in a hadith that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) would greet the "inmates of the graves" and pray to Allah that they be granted safety and forgiveness (of course, there is nothing in the Islamic sources about being able to have actual "conversation" with the dead). Now, of course, there are some people who take graves as literal "shrines" and even pray to the dead person. This is also idolatry. Some extremist Sufi sects practice this as well. This is all shirk and a grave sin.
How do you know? Do you think there were statues of Mary when she was still alive (assuming people actually prayed to her)? What about Jesus? Obviously, if Mary was physically present, for example, in front of the Pope, he would not need a statue to pray to her. He could just tell her what he wanted!
Is Mary, or any other person, not a "physical object"?
Are you kidding? If it was all "symbolic", then there would be no need to use music to "wake up" the idol (and yes, it is the idol that is being literally "woken" up). There would also be no need to "bathe" the idol (and yes, it is the idol that is literally being "bathed"). This is all literal, not symbolic. Your special pleading will get you no where.
And you believe it was either capillary action, evaporation, mass hysteria, observational error etc., and yet after being confronted with the facts, you have avoided further discussion!
Yes, I know what "humanism" is and I also know that atheistic apologists are embarrassed at the fact that fellow atheists have committed monstrous acts of violence (despite their insistence to the contrary), so they use the word "humanism" instead, because it sounds so much better. The reality is that using different words does not change the fact that atheists are a bunch of clowns who try to whitewash history. By the way, do you even know what "Islam" is? I think not!
No, you ninny, that's not what I said. I said that even if Islam did not exist, the world would still be a violent place. People are the problem, not some ideology or religion. So even if Islam did not exist, the problems in the Middle East (for example) would still exist. Conversely, if people actually followed the tenets of Islam, then the world would be a much better place. In fact, I would actually say that if Islam did not exist, the world would be a much worse place, because then there would not be the moral compass of Islamic tenets to persuade people to avoid sinful behavior, such as violence against the innocent. Islam abolished savage acts like female infanticide, tribal war etc. It also jump-started the European Renaissance. If it did not exist, then it is unlikely that the Renaissance would have ever occurred. At the very least, the Renaissance would have been delayed for hundreds of years.
There you go again with your clownish statements. Satan could just as easily have caused "continuous tension" by spreading the pagan religion instead, wouldn't you say? After all, the Christians weren't exactly known for their tolerance of other religions and as we have seen, polytheists have also been know for their intolerance! And yet, with the spread of Islam, many once oppressed communities (including Christians themselves) were given much more freedom than they previously had. Even Christians themselves admit this! For example, author David Bercot has observed: "Sadly to say, when the Muslim armies invaded Egypt in 639, most Christians in Egypt welcomed them as liberators, for they fared better at the hands of the Muslims than they did at the hands of their fellow Christians." ("Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today�s Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity� p. 123") Also, i-d-i-o-t-s like you tend to ignore the fact (or are completely oblivious to the fact) that in many cases, Muslim and Christian leaders showed mutual respect to each other and did not have "continuous tension" between them. For example, the Abbasid caliph Harun Al-Rashid had friendly relations with Charlemagne and each would send gifts to the other. I hardly think that all of this was part of Satan's plan!
Oh, you're making me cry!  If you are at all interested in learning about Islam, free of all your m-o-r-o-n-i-c prejudices, then you should be much more enthusiastic at all the "reading" you have to do. But, I know that you are just another Islamophobe living in his fantasy world, so I frankly doubt that you are interested in really learning anything. I have suggested a few books already for you to read. Will you actually read them? Time will tell, but I doubt that you will. ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Andrew Eby
Date Posted: 17 August 2014 at 2:19pm
| Man you guys are still bickering about this subject!! This is what religion does, cause a belief so strong that we are willing to die for. Plain and simple TRUTH. The Bible was created by CHARLEMAGNE. Before that the BIBLE the KING JAMES version ALL the so called Christians and followers of Christ go by and all the different versions NIV, NKJ, all these RE-written versions that the BIBLE clearly states not to RE WRITE. Look up KING JAMES and who he was!! He was a tyrant, queer, was believed to have sex with animals, loved torture And made the BIBLE in HIS name to DENY the GENEVA version. He believed a king should have the divine right by his mom who was an adulterer, pretty much slut in modern day terms. Islam clearly states not to bow down before any other GOD. In a sense everyone who is religious in these days are following wrong teachings. All of our beliefs are connected and until the day we come together and find the TRUTH, you two will still be having this st**id argument calling people *****s and *****s. I could do the same but that's not my mission. My mission is to open your eyes to the facts if history. |
Posted By: Andrew Eby
Date Posted: 17 August 2014 at 2:30pm
| Sorry but the Sumerian texts is the oldest texts on this planet, they had it right!! All the great leaders and martyrs and all that they taught will be nothing if we don't come together and find out the TRUTH about our PAST!!! You guys sit here and bicker like two children when the majority of the planet refuses to accept the facts and TRUTH about what went on in the past!! So the mere fact that you two have continued this for this long shows me that this process will take longer than it should. Look up city of DWARKA, PUMU PUNKU, check out the FACTS that our ANCIENT SOCIETY LEFT US. |
Posted By: Andrew Eby
Date Posted: 17 August 2014 at 2:32pm
| TRUTH IS OUR ONLY REALITY FOR THE UNIVERSE AND OURSELVES. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 18 August 2014 at 7:56pm
First of all, who is talking about the Bible? This thread is about whether the pictures shown in the first post are evidence of idolatry. Second, where did you get the idea that Charlemagne created the Bible?! Charlemagne was born in the 8th century CE. The Bible, even though it has been edited and corrupted many times, did exist before then. The historical proof contradicts your claim. The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are the oldest manuscripts of the Bible, and they date to the 4th century CE. Third, you are complaining about "bickering" and "argument". When people have different views, there is going to be "bickering" and "arguments". That is part of the problem! Of course, if everyone believed the same thing, then we would not be arguing in the first place, but people don't believe the same thing. That is why we "bicker", in an attempt to make the other person see the truth. The problem is that people simply choose not to accept the truth. But it is hoped that through the "bickering", perhaps someone will accept the facts, even if it is not the person you are bickering with. ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Andrew Eby
Date Posted: 18 August 2014 at 10:31pm
| Brother do you think I don't know that? Charlamagne was the main person behind what the BIBLE is today. Not disputing any of your other facts cause they are correct among many other as you know, I take it your smart and intellectual just don't undermine me when you should know what I'm taking about from previous posts. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 August 2014 at 7:49am
Hi Andrew. I wasn't trying to "undermine" you. I was simply responding to what I saw as an inaccurate statement. I still fail to see how Charlemagne was "the main person behind what the Bible is today". Please clarify. I also don't see how this is relevant to this particular thread. We are not even talking about the Bible. We are not even talking about whether idolatry is right or wrong (of course, I believe it is wrong and a grave sin), but whether the pictures I showed were indicative of it. ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Andrew Eby
Date Posted: 19 August 2014 at 12:02pm
| First there was the Geneva then king James the 1st made the King James Version then Charlemagne had a meeting with the leaders of the church to discuss peace between the fighting religions at that time and they all came together and this is what we have as the BiBLE today. I only bring up the bible because that's what most other religions go by. Just to add on the king james part as well, he was a majorly documented homosexual, tyrant, murderer, torturer among many other. His mom as well was in these day and even those days a whore and adulterer. It is disputed if king james was of royal blood at one point. Any way, the only reason why I interjected was because I wrote something on here not knowing it was on this thread and have been getting what you to have been writing. I read all of them and both of make very correct statements. The thing is, through thousands of years of the TRUTH being manipulated and distorted, doesn't matter who's right any more cause we all are in a sense so it will be never ending struggle is all I'm saying. Just as you put it, it takes arguing to see someone else's point of view and hopefully open their eyes. In many cases that's true. But what I can give you now is the evidence, the cold hard facts, the TRUTH, the cheese haha. It's all at our finger tips you just gotta search for it and research. Basic understanding of truth though is that there is false in truth and truth in false, up until the day the whole truth is revealed is when we can start growing as a human race and to unite and be free from these slave masters that we have in power and that has been for the last few thousand years. Maybe this will open your eyes to see that arguing does nothing, I can lay down cold hard facts that we can't deny and so can you and so can everyone else. But the truth is, is that the Greek version of what went on back then is our most truthful account. It goes along with 90%of what the other ancient civilizations foretold. I do be Allah, Jesus, BUDHA, Mohamed and every other great person had role to play in our figuring out the truth. It's just weeding and seeing things how they were and to use the facts we have today and stop refusing to deny us the TRUTH any more. We aren't alone in this UNIVERSE and the FACTS FOR thousands of years is in our freaken faces!! Wake up!! |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 August 2014 at 2:26pm
Just as the god represented by the statue still (hypothetically) exists. How is it "completely different"?
And if my wife is physically present, for example in front of me, then I wouldn't need a picture of her. But if I'm at work and she isn't there, it's nice to have the picture. Still not seeing the difference...
I don't think I'm following you. When you referred to a "physical object", I assumed you meant other than Mary herself. I hope you can see people as more than mere physical objects. You believe in the concept of a soul, don't you? I don't happen to share that belief, but surely we agree that reducing people to "physical objects" is overly reductive and simplistic.
From our point of view there is no need for any of this ritual, but it is part of their tradition. Who are you to tell them what is necessary? And yes, obviously it is symbolic. The music is literally being played, and the idol is literally being bathed; but they don't play the music expecting any response from the idol, and they don't wash the idol because it is dirty.
Sorry, which facts have I been "confronted" with? Capillary action was actually demonstrated by India's Ministry of Science and Technology in at least one case. It is a real phenomenon -- as are evaporation, mass hysteria, observational error, etc. Did you disprove these phenomena at some point? Because if so, I missed it.
In other words, you don't know what humanism is. You seem to think it is a synonym for atheism. It is not.
Maybe, maybe not. I think we just agreed that neither of us can know for sure. Which means that neither of us can say for sure that Satan (or some other malevolent supernatural being, call him whatever you want) would not want to create a plethora of monotheistic religions, just to watch them go at one another.
IMHO it would be a drab, dull, boring place for men, and a repressive, misogynistic place for women. But that's a topic for another time, perhaps.
Do you have to reach back hundreds of years to find anything good to say about Islam? It may have had a positive influence when it first began, but the world has changed, and Islam has not. In fact, the very idea of "innovation" is anathema to Islam. What has Islam done for us lately? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 August 2014 at 8:26pm
The statue is given worship and offerings. Also, a statue is (as you have admitted) not even needed in the first place. People simply choose to have it. In contrast, there really isn't a way for a person to "visit" or "converse" with his/her loved ones without actually physically going to the grave of that person, unless of course seances are available.
Of course you're not "seeing the difference"! You're still stuck on the absurd analogy of your wife's picture!If Mary or a saint was physically present, then the statue would not be needed and the devotee could simply physically pray to the flesh and blood Mary or saint. That would be idolatry, would it not? Now, if you remove the flesh and blood person and replace it with a statue, would it still not be idolatry? Of course it is!
Oh really? If you don't believe in the soul, then what else is there? Certainly, evolutionists don't see much in humans or any other living thing. To them, we are all just accidents living out a pointless existence. That sounds pretty "reductive and simplistic" to me.My point was that, in general, we are all "physical objects", but if you want to get technical, then of course we are more than that. By praying to Mary or to a statue of her, Catholics are praying to a physical object. God, on the other hand, has no "physical" body. See the difference?
I am simply asking whether the "rituals" they perform are akin to idolatry. Bowing down to an idol, praying to it, making it offerings, "waking" it up in the morning, "bathing" it, etc. are all literal acts, not merely "symbolic".
I responded to your theories by pointing out the weaknesses in them. You then ignored the issue for a while. As I said, the various theories simply do not take all the facts into account. If it was "capillary action", then why has the phenomenon stopped? Why are people not reporting the same phenomenon? It's been almost 20 years since the alleged miracle! Surely, you could walk into a temple right now and demonstrate capillary action. The same questions can be applied to the theory of "evaporation". In fact, the evaporation theory is impossible given that the boiling point of milk is around 100 degrees Celsius (the same as water), which is equivalent to 212 degrees Fahrenheit! Do you really think that someone was applying that much heat to the milk in all those cases and yet no one noticed? The same problem exists with the claim that it was "observational error". Do you really think that thousands of people, including journalists, all made the same error?
Humanism is synonymous with atheism. Atheism denies the existence of the supernatural, and hence of God. Your so-called "Humanist Manifesto" even states: "Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."
Don't drag me down to your level. I don't follow the "Agnostic Code".It is already abundantly clear that humans will always fight over something. Hence, even if Islam (or Christianity or any other religion, and yes even atheism) did not exist, there would still be violence because people would find something else to fight over. Like I said, people are the problem.
No one cares about your "humble" opinions, because we know that you are just another troll with very little knowledge about Islam.Misogynistic, huh? How so? Oh right, because Islam places more value on virgins than non-virgins...or something like that?
Haven't you learned to keep your mouth shut when you don't know what you are talking about? You could save yourself more embarrassment. "Innovation" is not "anathema" to Islam. Sure, religious innovation is anathema, but I assume you are talking about secular innovation, such as in science and medicine, which as we have seen, Islamic civilization was very adept at. Your special pleading that "what has Islam done for us lately" just goes to show what a clown you are. If it wasn't for Islam, the modern world would probably not exist, or at the very least would have been delayed for hundreds of years. If that had happened, chances are that you would probably be a peasant living in the European Dark Ages! The advances made by Islamic civilization made this world possible. You owe a lot to Islam! Yet, like some spoiled child, you ask "well, what have you done for me lately". That's like an adult asking the woman who gave birth to him and raising him as a child "hey mom, what have you done for me lately?" Anyway, how about offering a path to salvation? I know you don't believe it, but trust me, a time will come when you will wish that you had, inshaAllah. ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 21 August 2014 at 12:34pm
Why isn't there a way? A person could just as easily "converse" with a picture as with a tombstone. (It's all make-believe anyway, as far as I'm concerned; but you can play make-believe with a picture just as well as a tombstone or a pile of bones.)
When you speak with someone, are you communicating with their body, or with their spirit? No, it's not idolatry (though it may well be polytheism) to pray to a living, physically present Mary, as long as your prayer is addressed to her spirit and not to her physical body (but that would be weird -- "my eyes are up here, creep" ).Now, if you remove the flesh and blood person and replace it with a statue, it's still not idolatry, again assuming you're addressing her spirit and not the statue. Again, it's a matter of intention.
I'd like to explain it to you, but it's off-topic and probably beyond your comprehension level. You are still struggling with much more basic concepts, like differentiating the symbol from the thing it represents.
No, they are praying to her spirit. Just as they pray to the Holy Spirit, a.k.a. God. No difference.
They are both. A literal act, but symbolic of some greater meaning.
You could, and India's Ministry of Science and Technology did, as I said. Why did they stop reporting it? Probably because someone explained capillary action to them. Or maybe because the media just got bored with the story.
Now I have to explain http://www.learner.org/courses/essential/physicalsci/session3/closer2.html - evaporation to you?
No, just a few of them -- the ones who reported the stories.
This would be news to the majority of atheists who are not humanists, and have probably never heard of humanism.
Actually, to be precise, the current Humanist Manifesto describes secular humanism, the more common form and the one most people mean when they say "humanism". Originally there was also something called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_humanism - religious humanism , which adopts the same value system but within a religious framework. However, I haven't heard much about it recently and I'm not sure if it's still a "thing". So in summary, it's fair to say that most humanists are secular, and all secular humanists are atheist; but not all atheists are humanist.
Yeah, we can agree on that. The question is, would there be as much fighting? Realistically, neither of us knows the answer to that.
"Was". I think that was my point.
You probably should review the definition of http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading - special pleading .
It's true that the Muslim world preserved a lot of ancient knowledge that might otherwise have been lost in the so-called "Dark Ages" (a term no longer much in use among historians). However, for whatever reason, Muslim involvement in science and technology has virtually disappeared in the last century or so. FWIW, my theory is that as secular progress continued in areas such as medicine, astronomy, and evolution, Islamic religious doctrine found itself increasingly in conflict with secular knowledge. Unable to adapt or "innovate" its own world view, Islam could only withdraw from secular science in general. Again, another topic for another time, maybe. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 21 August 2014 at 6:42pm
You missed the point. I said that in order to "converse", a person needs a physical grave. You said that it would be "just as easy" to converse with a picture of the deceased, which is true. But how is this the same as praying to an idol? A person could just as easily pray without the idol. A Hindu could pray to his gods without an idol. A Catholic could pray to Mary without a statue.
What, in your view, is "idolatry" then?! I would love to know, because it seems that you have decided that any act of worship directed at a statue is not "idolatry".If Mary was physically present, the prayers would be directed to her. That is idolatry! And if you replace her with a statue, it is still idolatry!
Don't flatter yourself. I don't need to you to "explain" it to me. What do I need from an atheist nut? It's hilarious for an atheist to complain about "reductive" and "simplistic" approaches to humans as "physical objects", when by definition, an atheist believes that we are all just chemical accidents and not created by a higher power. How much more "reductive" and "simplistic" can one get?
No difference?! Praying to a created spirit is not the same as praying to God!
But if they are literal acts, then why are they not "idolatry"? I don't doubt that they have some "greater meaning", but I would think that a literal act of worship directed at an idol would be indicative of...well...idolatry!
More theorizing. What a shock. If it was indeed capillary action, then it should be observable at any time. Hindus should be able to go into a temple right now and see an idol "drinking" some milk. Yet, no one seems to be observing this, which is strange given that Hindus regularly make offerings to their idols.
I didn't realize you were so inept. Oh wait, yes I did! Your source makes it clear: "...as most people are aware, liquids evaporates faster at a higher temperature." In order for your theory to work, the milk had to evaporate quickly, like it did during the "milk miracle", so that it would appear that the idol was drinking the milk. In other words, it had to completely and quickly evaporate, and not just at the surface. That would only be possible at very high temperatures.
Um, the incidents were reported all over the world and were witnessed by, at the very least, thousands of people, including journalists.
Humanism, according to your definition, espouses atheism. Or are you suggesting that anyone can be a "humanist", even religious people?
So then, "secular humanism" is synonymous with atheism. If it wasn't, then "all secular humanists" would not be be atheists, but only some.
True. But then, why are atheists so adamant in assuming that religion is the cause of most violence, when humans have fought for many different reasons? And why do they claim that if religion was to disappear, the world would magically become less violent?
If Islam "was" adept at it, then there is no reason why it shouldn't be adept at it now as well. Early followers of Islam were very cultured and advanced. That can happen again. Like I said, people are the problem.
"...a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs." You first claimed that Islam has not had a net positive effect on humanity. I dispelled that claim by pointing out that Islam was heavily influential in the development of the modern world. You then argued that what was done in the past is irrelevant, and demanded to know what Islam has done for you "lately". It goes back to your original argument that Islam has not had a positive effect. That sounds like special pleading to me, since you are demanding "special considerations" for your "particular premise" that Islam has not offered anything positive.
Great, another theory. Well, you got me! ------------- 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) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 24 August 2014 at 1:06pm
Yes, a Hindu could pray without an idol. A Catholic could pray without a statue. I could think of my wife without a photo. And a widow could imagine a conversation with her deceased husband without actually being at his grave. Still not seeing the difference.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idolatry?s=t - Idolatry is "the religious worship of idols". Not the worship of a god symbolically represented by an idol, but the actual worship of the physical statue. Which some Hindus actually do, but knowledgeable Hindus know better.
As a humanist I believe in much more than that; but again, I don't think you would understand.
What is God, if not spirit?
Literally washing a statue is not worship. It is the intent, i.e. the symbolism, that constitutes worship.
It is undoubtedly observable at any time. I repeat, India's Ministry of Science and Technology demonstrated it. They don't report it anymore because it has been debunked and is no longer considered a "miracle", just a natural phenomenon. If you want to see capillary action yourself, http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/experiments/escapingwater.html - here's a neat little experiment you can try. For bonus points, instead of a rolled up paper towel, carve yourself an elephant god with a trunk made of hemp or wrapped in fabric or something. Dip the trunk into a glass of milk, wait a while and watch the idol "drink" the milk.
Why does it have to happen quickly? You put a saucer of milk out for the god on a hot day, and in a few hours it's gone. Miracle!
I'm not sure how you know it was "thousands". Seems like an exaggeration to me; but even so, there are about a billion Hindus, so thousands is still a very small percentage.
Well yes, as I just explained, I believe there are also religious humanists. But it's true that secular humanism by definition implies atheism. It is not true, however, that atheism implies humanism (secular or otherwise). Hence humanism is not synonymous with atheism.
All secular humanists are atheist, but not all atheists are secular humanists. Therefore secular humanism is not synonymous with atheism. (I feel like I'm teaching a Logic 101 class.)
We were talking about eliminating a particular religion, or exchanging one with another. It's hard (for mortals, anyway) to know what the net effect of that would be. I'm guessing that the remaining religions would just take up the slack, for no net benefit. Eliminating all religions is a different matter. I don't think it's possible, really. People invent comforting myths about heavenly protectors and magical forces because they like them, and they probably always will. However, I think that less religion, and less reliance on religion, would be a good thing if it meant a greater focus on the real needs of humanity and more reliance on rational solutions to our problems.
I just gave you the reason: the world has changed, but Islam has not and cannot. It is becoming increasingly difficult to wrestle the Quran into conformity with modern astronomy, physics, biology, etc. Other religions, notably Christianity, have faced the same problem, and have (mostly) solved it by reinterpreting scripture in the light of modern knowledge. In theory Islam could do that too, but unfortunately Muslim scholars "closed the doors of ijtihad" about a thousand years ago, and few Muslims have dared to go there ever since. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 25 August 2014 at 7:32pm
How many people do you know who actually have such a conversation, instead of going to a tomb?
So, if "some Hindus actually do" worship idols, then that is idolatry. So, what exactly has been your point of your posts?
I asked whether the pictures (and subsequent videos) shown were example
of idolatry. Since you seem to think that "some Hindus" do indeed
worship their idols, then were those pictures and videos examples of
idolatry?
What do you mean by "believe"? Is "humanism" like a religion to you? What is your "belief" based on? Do tell what you believe! I'm all ears. 
God is not created. God has always existed. You were comparing praying to a created spirit such as Mary to praying to God. They are not the same thing.
Literally making offerings is not worship? Literally "waking up" the idol is not worship? 
This just further proves how out of touch you are with the facts. Hindu idols can be made from various materials, not just "hemp or wrapped in fabric or something". During the alleged miracle, idols made from different materials were "drinking" the milk. For example, according to the book "What is Hinduism?", p. 193 (which was published by the editors of the magazine "Hinduism Today"), people reported copper statues "drinking milk". The only plausible explanation I have read that may prove capillary action is the claim made that the idols were washed before each feeding, which would cause the milk to drain over the water. I cannot verify whether this is true or not. Based on the videos I have seen, it does not appear that the idols were washed.
With this statement, you have unwittingly refuted the evaporation
theory. Have you even seen videos of the alleged miracle? Didn't I
give you a link previously?In those videos, and as reported by journalists, the milk was removed quickly. Do you really think that people would have waited in line for milk to disappear "in a few hours"? They were waiting in line to get the opportunity to offer a spoonful of milk, which was then taken up by the idol. The whole incident would last a few seconds or minutes at most, not "a few hours".
Learn to pay attention, because it's getting embarrassing. I said that
it was "at the very least". It could easily be tens of thousands given
that the alleged miracles were reported all across India and throughout the
world. And let's not forget the numerous journalists who reported the
incidents.
You just said that "secular humanism by definition implies atheism". So how are they not synonymous? A secular atheist would be, by definition, an atheist, correct?
You would be the last person who should teach Logic 101, since you seem
to lack it. If all secular humanists are atheist, then the two terms
are synonymous. I could refer to a secular humanist as an atheist and
not be wrong.
That is clearly not true given the fact that "less religion, and less reliance on religion" has resulted in some pretty bad things happening, such as, oh you know...the mass murder of millions.
Why are you so insistent on making a fool of yourself? "Ijtihad" has nothing to do with scientific advancements. Islam does not need to change in order for Muslims to re-emerge on the scientific scene. ------------- 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) |
