News: Orthodox Metropolitan of Belgium calls for unity in preparation for holy war

[Moreau]

Every Religion even Atheist in this world is violence except Hinduism and Buddhism. Islam, just like Christian, also a war mongol itself, and it never be a peaceful religion since it write on Qu'ran itself

 

Wait, why the !@#$ am I even care about violence and death rate?

 

Go and look up what so-called "pacifist Buddhists" are doing to Muslim Rohingya in Burma... I'm sure you will change your opinion once you see them actually skinning someone alive (seen it). And Hindu's have killed, injured, raped, and kidnapped thousands upon thousands of Muslims in Kashmir and to a lesser degree in the India/Bangladesh border area.

 

Sorry about that.....I completely missed your initial response....my bad!  Anyway, you may not have clergy but you do have Caliphates and according to this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam they were used to spread Islam.  Sounds like clergy to me.  Like I said, a cult leader will send out his most trusted people to spread the word and to bring others into the fold.

 

A caliphate is nothing like a clergy: The Caliph is not God on earth or a prophet or a representative of God but a normal human being. He has absolutely no power over rites/rituals, as any Muslim with sufficient knowledge may lead prayers or perform rituals such as weddings or funerals. The Caliph can even be taken to court by any Muslim and punished according to the Shariah or deposed by a Shura Council. Again, you are making a false comparison. 

Edited March 31, 2016 by Moreau III

[Sailor Jerry]

 

A caliphate is nothing like a clergy: The Caliph is not God on earth or a prophet or a representative of God but a normal human being. He has absolutely no power over rites/rituals, as any Muslim with sufficient knowledge may lead prayers or perform rituals such as weddings or funerals. The Caliph can even be taken to court by any Muslim and punished according to the Shariah or deposed by a Shura Council. Again, you are making a false comparison. 

Things change over time.  When the spread of Islam was happening, how did a newly converted Muslim gain "sufficient knowledge"?  Probably through the Caliphs.  They might not have been prophets or what not, but they were representatives and official spokespersons for Islam who had to teach those in the ways of Islam.  I'd find it hard to believe that those who were looking to convert to Islam just woke up one morning and said......"hey....I have "sufficient knowledge" now.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

> Choosing to ignore my response.   

Says you >.>

[Abu Haddad]

Go and look up what so-called "pacifist Buddhists" are doing to Muslim Rohingya in Burma... I'm sure you will change your opinion once you see them actually skinning someone alive (seen it). And Hindu's have killed, injured, raped, and kidnapped thousands upon thousands of Muslims in Kashmir and to a lesser degree in the India/Bangladesh border area.

 

 

A caliphate is nothing like a clergy: The Caliph is not God on earth or a prophet or a representative of God but a normal human being. He has absolutely no power over rites/rituals, as any Muslim with sufficient knowledge may lead prayers or perform rituals such as weddings or funerals. The Caliph can even be taken to court by any Muslim and punished according to the Shariah or deposed by a Shura Council. Again, you are making a false comparison. 

a can back the former point

http://alqesas.com/StoriesOfTheSahabah/2014/12/ali-ibn-abi-talib-and-the-jewish-man/

[Abu Haddad]

Things change over time.  When the spread of Islam was happening, how did a newly converted Muslim gain "sufficient knowledge"?  Probably through the Caliphs.  They might not have been prophets or what not, but they were representatives and official spokespersons for Islam who had to teach those in the ways of Islam.  I'd find it hard to believe that those who were looking to convert to Islam just woke up one morning and said......"hey....I have "sufficient knowledge" now.

They would visit their local mosque and would learn if not they would migrate to islamic lands or learn from the missionary

[Franz Von Dietrich]

They would visit their local mosque and would learn if not they would migrate to islamic lands or learn from the missionary

Yes, to go to a "mosque" where they totally won't intake biased information that's filled with illogical circumstances.

[Moreau]

Things change over time.  When the spread of Islam was happening, how did a newly converted Muslim gain "sufficient knowledge"?  Probably through the Caliphs.  They might not have been prophets or what not, but they were representatives and official spokespersons for Islam who had to teach those in the ways of Islam.  I'd find it hard to believe that those who were looking to convert to Islam just woke up one morning and said......"hey....I have "sufficient knowledge" now.

 

The Caliph was never the only one with "sufficient knowledge" to lead the prayer, lol.

• Being a "Caliph" means there are Muslims under your command.
• Every Muslim knows at least 3 chapters of the Quran by heart as that is the minimum required for a Muslim to be able to pray the 5 daily prayers.
• Any Muslim who knows 3 chapters of the Quran by heart (everyone) can lead the prayer. 

Granted new Muslims wouldn't know this but they would quickly learn as it is a requirement.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Moreau III

[Sailor Jerry]

They would visit their local mosque and would learn if not they would migrate to islamic lands or learn from the missionary

.....And the early mosques were built in their regions under the close, watchful eye and instruction of the regional Caliph would they not?

[Abu Haddad]

.....And the early mosques were built in their regions under the close, watchful eye and instruction of the regional Caliph would they not?

no and regional caliph? what?! caliph is leader of all muslims

[Moreau]

.....And the early mosques were built in their regions under the close, watchful eye and instruction of the regional Caliph would they not?

I don't know what your obsession with the Caliph is...

 

What's the point you're trying to make?

[Mutsuo Toi]

Go and look up what so-called "pacifist Buddhists" are doing to Muslim Rohingya in Burma... I'm sure you will change your opinion once you see them actually skinning someone alive (seen it). And Hindu's have killed, injured, raped, and kidnapped thousands upon thousands of Muslims in Kashmir and to a lesser degree in the India/Bangladesh border area.

Say the Muslim.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India

 

But you're right about Hindus today. Back in the Golden age India was more advance than us today even more peaceful than that. But after that, just like Egypt, the monk abuse the power and ruin the religion itself.

"Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East" by Blair Thomas Spalding say it all.

[Moreau]

But you're right about Hindus today. Back in the Golden age India was more advance than us today even more peaceful than that.

 

I agree and the golden age of India you are referring to is when it was under Muslim rule. 

[Nationalist]

I agree and the golden age of India you are referring to is when it was under Muslim rule. 

Which shows how a strong religion can unite a strong nation under nationalist principles. 

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Islam does not have a clergy so your argument is invalid. Try again.

Shia Muslims have clergy. Or are they not Muslims because of your sectarianism?

[Moreau]

Shia Muslims have clergy. Or are they not Muslims because of your sectarianism?

 

They are not Muslim because they've associated partners with Allah.

[Sailor Jerry]

Sorry for the long time in my response......I'm trying to do this at work......shhhhhh, don't tell my boss!!!!!!

 

The point I'm trying to make, is that you say Islam has no clergy.  Fine, is the following definition of "Caliph" accurate and expectable? http://www.britannica.com/topic/caliph  If so, then the part stating "When the Prophet Muhammad died (June 8, 632 ce), AbÅ« Bakr succeeded to his political and administrative functions as khalÄ«fah rasÅ«l AllÄh, “successor of the Messenger of God,†but it was probably under Ê¿Umar ibn al-Khaá¹­á¹­Äb, the second caliph, that the term caliph came into use as a title of the civil and religious head of the Muslim state. In the same sense, the term was employed in the QurʾÄn in reference both to Adam and to David as the vice-regents of God."  The following definition is of the "Pope" from the same source: http://www.britannica.com/topic/pope  The statement about "Doctrinally, in Catholic churches, the pope is regarded as the successor of St. Peter, who was head of the Apostles. The pope, as bishop of Rome, is thus seen to have full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal church in matters of faith and morals, as well as in church discipline and government.  These two sound very similar.  And with the case Imams......from the same source: http://www.britannica.com/topic/imam  with this being the main part from that "The title imam also is sometimes given to the specially trained Muslims who lead prayers in the mosques.  Now as for a priest: http://www.britannica.com/topic/priest-Christianity and the part of interest: "With the spread of Christianity and the establishment of parish churches, the presbyter, or parish priest, adopted more of the bishop’s functions and became the principal celebrant of the Eucharist. In this capacity, as well as by hearing confession and granting absolution, the priest eventually assumed the role of the church’s chief representative of God to the people.

 

With all that said, the two heads sound very familiar in scope and function, the next two, I'll agree, as by the definitions, the Priest does way more of the ceremonial side of things but both lead their own in prayers.  So, just like a cult, as I mentioned before, there is always one physical person at the top of their religious pyramid with their henchman just below them and filtering down through lesser important people until you reach the base.....where the common, average person is.  As with the weight of the pyramid crushing down on the base, so do religions/cults and religious/cult leaders, build their pyramids on those who think they have no say.  

 

EDIT: Sorry about that, just realized there were several hyper-links in there that I just removed.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Sailor Jerry

[Clarke]

Say the Muslim.

 

I thought he was just stupid or trolling, a Muslim in Sweden. Hopefully the only thing he is raping is our brains. 

[Moreau]

Sorry for the long time in my response......I'm trying to do this at work......shhhhhh, don't tell my boss!!!!!!

 

The point I'm trying to make, is that you say Islam has no clergy.  Fine, is the following definition of "Caliph" accurate and expectable? http://www.britannica.com/topic/caliph  If so, then the part stating "When the Prophet Muhammad died (June 8, 632 ce), AbÅ« Bakr succeeded to his political and administrative functions as khalÄ«fah rasÅ«l AllÄh, “successor of the Messenger of God,†but it was probably under Ê¿Umar ibn al-Khaá¹­á¹­Äb, the second caliph, that the term caliph came into use as a title of the civil and religious head of the Muslim state. In the same sense, the term was employed in the QurʾÄn in reference both to Adam and to David as the vice-regents of God."  The following definition is of the "Pope" from the same source: http://www.britannica.com/topic/pope  The statement about "Doctrinally, in Catholic churches, the pope is regarded as the successor of St. Peter, who was head of the Apostles. The pope, as bishop of Rome, is thus seen to have full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal church in matters of faith and morals, as well as in church discipline and government.  These two sound very similar.  And with the case Imams......from the same source: http://www.britannica.com/topic/imam  with this being the main part from that "The title imam also is sometimes given to the specially trained Muslims who lead prayers in the mosques.  Now as for a priest: http://www.britannica.com/topic/priest-Christianity and the part of interest: "With the spread of Christianity and the establishment of parish churches, the presbyter, or parish priest, adopted more of the bishop’s functions and became the principal celebrant of the Eucharist. In this capacity, as well as by hearing confession and granting absolution, the priest eventually assumed the role of the church’s chief representative of God to the people.

 

With all that said, the two heads sound very familiar in scope and function, the next two, I'll agree, as by the definitions, the Priest does way more of the ceremonial side of things but both lead their own in prayers.  So, just like a cult, as I mentioned before, there is always one physical person at the top of their religious pyramid with their henchman just below them and filtering down through lesser important people until you reach the base.....where the common, average person is.  As with the weight of the pyramid crushing down on the base, so do religions/cults and religious/cult leaders, build their pyramids on those who think they have no say.  

 

EDIT: Sorry about that, just realized there were several hyper-links in there that I just removed.

 

The Caliph is the successor to the Prophet (saw) in governing the affairs of the Muslims by the Shariah of Allah but not in Prophethood. 

 

• If the Caliph orders disobedience to Allah then there is no obedience to him. 

 

Yes, we have Imams and Scholars but Muslims are not required to pray behind an Imam or to listen/obey Scholars.

• Any Muslim can pray in any clean space, devoid of images, by themselves or lead a group of Muslims in prayer. 
• Any Muslim can reject the opinion of any Scholar if it contradicts the Quran and Sunnah. 

Edited March 31, 2016 by Moreau III

[Nationalist]

I thought he was just stupid or trolling, a Muslim in Sweden. Hopefully the only thing he is raping is our brains. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Sweden

 

Plenty of Muslims there. I think they should be deported myself back to the Middle East, but I don't run the country.

[Clarke]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Sweden

 

Plenty of Muslims there. I think they should be deported myself back to the Middle East, but I don't run the country.

Moreau III needs to be deported anyway, they're deporting a bunch anyway but probably not enough. 

[Moreau]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Sweden

 

Plenty of Muslims there. I think they should be deported myself back to the Middle East, but I don't run the country.

 

Sweden will become an Islamic country someday soon, Inshallah.

 

Moreau III needs to be deported anyway, they're deporting a bunch anyway but probably not enough. 

 

Are you going to be the one to deport me? Cause I would really like to see you try.

[Clarke]

Are you going to be the one to deport me? Cause I would really like to see you try.

Deporting you would be the only kindest I would show you, if you resist do so at your own risk. 

[Moreau]

Deporting you would be the only kindest I would show you, if you resist do so at your own risk. 

 

Lol - okay - whatever you say. 

[Hereno]

Just three staunchly atheist dictators - namely Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot - have killed more people than all the "religious wars" combined x10.

if we accept the holodomor as an orchestrated event, and include the purges and whatnot, we've got a few million for stalin. the black book of communism's 50 million number is absolutely ridiculous and easily debunked by anybody interested in doing so. let's call it 3.

 

mao, he actually didn't like killing people. when he wanted people dead, he preferred to have them followed and eavesdropped on until they committed suicide, or simply sent them off to re-education. he did this with some people numerous times over the course of several years, getting rid of them and then bringing them back after a year or two. the famine under him almost got him the equivalent of being impeached, and was largely caused not purposefully but by a series of stupid errors not only on behalf of the government but the entirety of china. pretty standard stuff, really - lying about how much they were getting, not really doing their jobs, having bad information about how to actually go about what they were trying to do. it wasn't a purposeful massacre, it was a sad event that has happened numerous times in chinese history with or without "communism" involved.

 

pol pot was funded and supported by the US government and was about as non-communist as you can get. not only did he massacre intellectuals and liberals en masse, but he was stopped by the "communist government" of vietnam.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVadWk7ufZs

Edited April 3, 2016 by Hereno