9 1 1

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
More like a Microsoft reworking. Sorry... couldn't resist.

He he
Microsoft is the gate to the bill, and islam is the gate to heaven

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

First, thanx for not being hurted by my last statement. It was not done to hurt anybody, even that anonymous coward.
Second, when I said are you still working on christian 1.0, it was just a joke (I forgot to put a smiley).
But you came to prove my point, it is not because you did not update your religion that it gets old.
And, religion is God work, religion is based on the prophets that God send us. Religion is based on books that those prophets lets us.
Like said Tony Alicea, Coran is Islam base, and Coran is God's word.
Now what you do of your own life is between you and God. If you decide to follow the half of the religion, it is your choice, but Islam won't change for that.
Again, people may have changed but nothing in Islam has changed.

Frankly, your statements are a little vague and so here are my questions again:
1. What do you think about the statement that I mentioned above. Is it right or wrong?
2. I have mentioned before that there is no need to for Quran or Bible to change. But it must be interpreted in today's context. Is this right or wrong.
3. You said that Islam hasn't changed but people have. So are today's followers of Islam, true Muslims? If I understand you correctly, since Islam has not changed and people have, there these people are not true followers. Is that right? Are you a true Muslim?
4. Again, you say that religion is God's work. And that's your faith. Fine. But that also means if you don't follow exactly whatever is written in the holy book, you are not a true Muslim.
Here is my point:
1. A person who works hard her whole life, who does good (good is as perceived by her conscience) deeds is a true follower of Islam, Christianity or any religion there is. While doing so, she may even have violated several laws of Islam or Chritianity. Such a person cannot be tied down to any religion. That's the person I want to be. And that's why I don't believe in religion because it is too narrow. It has to be, because it is just a work of man.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

AW I can show you the changes, come India, you wont find veiling OR (Burqua), its still here but most of woman are now not using it.
Men follow monogamy....
Women get education...

OOOOOh that's a good point. As I said ,people change not religion. Muslim womens have the obligation to hide their bodies, the way they do it is at their own appreciations. Again, you are free to follow those obligations or not. It is your own choice. In afghanistan, womens are wearing Burqua, but it is not a picture of a muslim women . There is many other "Muslim" country and you won't find any Burqua.
Do you think that by the birth of Islam mans were all maried with several womens? Islam gives the right to a man to have 4 womens, but the conditions to achieve it are quite hard to fullfill. And by Mohamed's time (ss) some womens begins to get educated.
In fact Islam is the first religion which gave rights to women. (the right to work, the right to get educated, the right to divorce,...).
People don't apply those rules, but Islam has not changed and there is no reason for it to change.

[Tracy Woo]

yes I would disagree with your statement Tracy.
Religion (according to Islam) is a complete way of life defined by God. I beleive it is God's work. And I would like ot refer to the post by Tony earlier on his readings highlighting some key differences between Islam and Christianity and how there are many "Man made" elemnts/books/teachings in christianity but this is not at all the case with Islam.

To me, Bible is no different that Quran. Both are books written by human inspired by *something*. And I believe both are so old that they must have been mutated anyway. And if you agree that Bible is mutated, you cannot argue that Quran is not mutated.

As to whether it is applicable to all times or must be updated: First are you familiar, in software land , with completely extensible and scalable design? Platform independant? hehe

What does this mean

What if, just hypothetically speaking, like Tony was reading earlier that the Quran is God's spoken word..In this case the "designer" is not a mere designer..He is creator of the underlying
machine (human being), and everything around it and everything else..He forsees the future and created a system that works for all time. I know you cannot ascribe great design qualities as such to ourselves...but assume the author is not
us???

I am with you this far.

What if the author is our Creator, adn religion is our manual?

I totally disagree. Software does not need any manual. It works exactly as written by the creator. People who use the software need manual.
On the same line, since God has created people, people do not need any kind of manual. Other Gods ( ) need a manual to operate people.

Let's not live in imagination land...I will take you on the challenge to name one thing that is inside ISLAM
that is not applicable to life today? But please come up with something from Islam and not from people's own vaired and sometimes wrong practices!!!

I cannot because I haven't read Quran. BUT, if you say that there is nothing in Islam that is not applicable today then whatever is happening in Islamic countries is definitely not Islamic. [Primarily, injustice to women. The laws favor men in almost all of the cases. Ok, again, this is as per I read in news papers] And that means, it is they how are truely infidel because they say that are Muslims but they are actually not.

Secondly I'm glad you are now distinguishing between Islam and the "practices". And you are right "Islam" is not against pursuing art or even watching TV or embracing technology or anything that will help humans progress.

But then, by definition, that Islam has not changed, you are not a true Muslim. OR others in the Muslim countries are not true Muslims. What do you say now?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
In various European country, there is approximately 2-5 convert per day.And Also well known american scientist (I know that you'll ask for the name, but just don't remember them).
[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Younes Essouabni ]

What's your point? Or your source for that matter. What is the rate of converts to Chrisitanity in Europe (sourced please) per day? I cannot speak for Europe, since I know it's percentage of muslim population outweighs ours to some degree, however in the US people convert to Christianity quite a bit (I don't have any sources I'm afraid, anecdotal evidence only). Conversion certainly doesn't speak to a religions greatness or correctness. Conversion rates probably reflect the amount of effort a religion puts into attracting converts.
Since we have such a diverse variety of religions, often these conversions are done to facilitate marriage, where one party agrees to convert to the other's religion. I have most often seen conversion for marriage purposes in Catholicism and Judaism, but have also witnessed this in Islam. Additionally, different flavors of Christianity, Baptist in particular, place much emphasis in converting (or "saving", or "helping to find God") as many people as they can.
In general though, the percentage of a population that is of any particular religion, and specifically Muslim, will most often show larege increases as a result of immigration.

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

Islam gives the right to a man to have 4 womens, but the conditions to achieve it are quite hard to fullfill.

That, right there is a thing that is not acceptable in today's times. Whether or not the conditions are difficult to meet is a different issue altogether. The present of such a right to men is unapplicable. Why isn't such a right (with similar difficult to achieve conditions) given to women?

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

Frankly, your statements are a little vague and so here are my questions again:
1. What do you think about the statement that I mentioned above. Is it right or wrong?

I'll try to be more clear. But keep in mind that it is the only place where i practise english, so please be tolerant.
I state that religion is God's work, and like said Anonymous, God forsees the future. He is able to a guide valid until the end of days. And that is what God made, he told in his book (Coran) that those words are valid until the end of days. So there is no need to change the book like the Bible was changed.

2. I have mentioned before that there is no need to for Quran or Bible to change.
But it must be interpreted in today's context. Is this right or wrong.

Well it's right and wrong. In Coran you will find some scientific truth (Speed of light,birth of mountains, some foetus facts too,...) that could not be well understood without the light of nowadays science. But others things don't need interpretations. Like womens,mans right and obligations.

3. You said that Islam hasn't changed but people have. So are today's followers of Islam,
true Muslims? If I understand you correctly, since Islam has not changed and people have,
there these people are not true followers. Is that right? Are you a true Muslim?

Islam did not change and will never change, the most you follow the source of Islam, the better muslim you will get. Don't missunderstood me, following the source of Islam, don't obstruct you from living a happy life in our society or from having christians friends. It is totally feasible, it just get more sacrifice.
I am nobody to judge people, and no I'm not a true muslim (who said that I am muslim).

4. Again, you say that religion is God's work. And that's your faith. Fine. But that also
means if you don't follow exactly whatever is written in the holy book,
you are not a true Muslim.

Every muslim must earn his entry to heaven, the more good things he is doing on earth the more good things he will get in heaven. Even in heaven there is grade, so even if you've done mistakes (human nature) you have your chance to enter heaven. If you follow whatever is written in the holy book, you're a perfect muslim. Nobody is perfect. So nobody will follow whatever is written in the coran, but God said that there will be 120 rows of people who will enter Heaven (80 of them will be muslims). I let you the conclusion.

Here is my point:
1. A person who works hard her whole life, who does good (good is as perceived by her conscience) deeds is a true follower of Islam, Christianity or any religion there is. While doing so, she may even have violated several laws of Islam or Chritianity. Such a person cannot be tied down to any religion. That's the person I want to be. And that's why I don't believe in religion because it is too narrow. It has to be, because it is just a work of man.

For a muslim being a good person is not enough to enter heaven,a muslim has to fullfill conditions ton enter heaven. But only God judge. So if you think that God exists and you want to bet that you may enter heaven just by being a good person, go for it. It is your choice, and I respect it. (but I'm not God ).

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

That, right there is a thing that is not acceptable in today's times. Whether or not the conditions are difficult to meet is a different issue altogether. The present of such a right to men is unapplicable. Why isn't such a right (with similar difficult to achieve conditions) given to women?

Because it is not! Why God didn't gave us wings to fly? Because he didn't wants to. It is God's choice, and God has his own reason for that we don't know. But it is sure that God gave the right to a women to refuse it. I mean a woman may refuse that his husband marry another woman. She may even write it in her wedding contract.

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

I mean a woman may refuse that his husband marry another woman. She may even write it in her wedding contract.

Is that written in Coran or it is your interpretantion?

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

Is that written in Coran or it is your interpretantion?

It is not my own interpretation.

[Anonymous]

------------------------------------------------
I totally disagree. Software does not need any manual.It works exactly as written by the creator.People who use the software need manual.
-------------------------------------------------
you're so right. I would like to fix my analogy: Let the analogy be that we humans are the hardware created by God, Islam is the software also created by God and the Quran is the manual (also written by God) that gives instructions for us to install it onto ourselves and operate our lives!

-----------------------------------------------

BUT, if you say that there is nothing in Islam that is not applicable today then whatever
is happening in Islamic countries is definitely not Islamic.
-----------------------------------------------
Yes you are absulutely right. Most people,
especially governemnts/laws/constitutions
are not in accordance to ISlam. However, let's not fall in the generalisation
trap...there are true muslims who folow Islam out there but they are the minority.

------------------------------------------------

[Primarily, injustice to women.
The laws favor men in almost all of the cases.
Ok, again, this is as per I read in news papers] And that means, it is they how are truely
infidel because they say that are Muslims but they are actually not. [\B]
-------------------------------------------------
It is such a paradox as Islam has given women more rights than they ever had. However,
the mal-practices are there, and a lot of them are cultural (local to certain societies practices)and not derived from Islam. I will give you an example: There are laws in Saudi Arabia that prevent women from driving. Saudi Arabia deems itself an "Islamic country"
and its citizens mulims. However, nowhere in the Quran and in Islam the religion, does it
say that women can't drive. In Islam women and men are equal in value. They walk different lines
in society but they get their full rights to learn, work, take control of their future etc.
So yes..what you see is people who are not practising!

I also wanna add to that: "no news is good news!" The media "lives on" disasters and problems
and short commings of the world. It over-magnifies what it wants to and ignores what it likes to ignore...
------------------------------------------------
[B]
But then, by definition, that Islam has not changed, you are not a true Muslim. OR others in the Muslim countries are not true Muslims. What do you say now?

------------------------------------------------
Ok we need to address the issue of "change" here cuz I think there is a big confusion.
There is a difference between changing your "faith" and teachings of your religion
and changing to become advanced and to progress with technology and make your life easier.
Progressing from someone who used to travel by horse to one who travels by plane
does NOT mean I have changed with regards to being a good muslim. Islam does NOT limit you
to a certain time, or era of advancement. ISlam allows you to CHANGE..yes CHANGE in ways of the world to harness the powers of this earth..but this does not mean you're "faith" changes. Islam expects you to remain constant in your beleif in God,in praying to him, in seeking to go to heaven by doing good and abstaining from evil,
in being kind and treating others with love and respect, in honesty, in vbeing generous
with your family in abiding by the laws
of God and submitting to Him. These are some of the things Islam asks of you to be constant in those regards...but you can progress and remain a good muslim..
It is funny how you keep claming that "what Islam teaches" must be outdated bearing in mind
you did not read what it does teach..You use as a referance the mal-practices you see and whatever is presented in the news/media...Thats not a way to make objective judgements without looking at the SOURCE..
My challenge still stands in case you plan to look at Islam ,the religion..Come up with one thing in Islam that is not applicable to life today!

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
More like a Microsoft reworking. Sorry... couldn't resist.

Hey, this guy has finally some sense of humour

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

That, right there is a thing that is not acceptable in today's times. Whether or not the conditions are difficult to meet is a different issue altogether. The present of such a right to men is unapplicable. Why isn't such a right (with similar difficult to achieve conditions) given to women?

Can I ask you why it is not acceptible/applicable? Firstly, polygoumous marriage is not the general rule and should happen for a good reason. Secondly like Younes said, the man's wife does not have to accept it and can have that in her marriage contract. Thirdly, among the good reasons could be:
protecting the chastity of women who are not yet married or who are divorced and raising children on their own..especially in conditions were men go to war and many men die and women outnumber the men.or the first woman does not/could not have any children and sometimes that may lead to separation or divorce. If you compare it to out of marriage relation (cheating, which happens pretty frequently) while you are married it might be a better sollution...at least the rights of the people invilved are guaranteed.
Well, women are not granted that right because they would not be able to tell who's te father of the children..which adds a whole spectrum of complications and lost rights.

[Anonymous]

Tracy, you're the one who is pro-change and beleive that you should adapt religion or its interpretation to suit a changing environemnt...
Well then the polygomous marriage is not forced on muslims..think of it as an "Option", granted only by consent of the parties involved. Don't you think that "option" allows for change or adaptation to more vaired situations according to need? It's an option..u can take it or leave it

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:

Can I ask you why it is not acceptible/applicable?

Because "especially in conditions were men go to war and many men die and women outnumber the men." does not hold true any more.

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:
[b]Tracy[/bWell then the polygomous marriage is not forced on muslims..think of it as an "Option", granted only by consent of the parties involved. Don't you think that "option" allows for change or adaptation to more vaired situations according to need? It's an option..u can take it or leave it

It's not that simple. Why is Marijuana illegal? Make it optional too

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:
[QBIt is funny how you keep claming that "what Islam teaches" must be outdated bearing in mind
you did not read what it does teach.[/QB]

I am not saying that ONLY Islam is outdated. I am saying all religions (every concept basically, and religion is also a concept) becomes outdated in due course of time. There is no need to actually read what it says. It, by the virtue of being a concept, is eligible for updation.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

Because "especially in conditions where men go to war and many men die and women outnumber the men." does not hold true any more.

Since when?

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

It's not that simple. Why is Marijuana illegal? Make it optional too

I agree with you that Marijuana should be made illegal (that's if you beleive so). However, the law makers of Amsterdam will not agree with us. So now how do we define right and wrong? Obviously what you see as right or applicable, someone else might see as wrong or inapplicable and vice versa...So when you say that Islam is
not applicable to today's life...I would like to ask you "not applicable or practical relative to WHOM?" The people in Amsterdam or the people in America or the people in the Middle East? Obviously these people each have a different perception of what laws/values are applicable or worth adhering to and which ones aren't!! I'm curious to your response to my question.

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

Since when?

Well, I don't keep the census but I don't think women out number men 4:1 And women are in military too.
[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Tracy Woo ]

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:

I agree with you that Marijuana should be made illegal (that's if you beleive so). However, the law makers of Amsterdam will not agree with us. So now how do we define right and wrong? Obviously what you see as right or applicable, someone else might see as wrong or inapplicable and vice versa...So when you say that Islam is
not applicable to today's life...I would like to ask you "not applicable or practical relative to WHOM?" The people in Amsterdam or the people in America or the people in the Middle East? Obviously these people each have a different perception of what laws/values are applicable or worth adhering to and which ones aren't!! I'm curious to your response to my question.

Great, so then add another parameter of region to update the religion. You also agree that right and wrong are relative. So that mean a religion that originated 100s of years ago from a far off land (from say US) cannot possibly govern what is right and wrong in today's US. Right? So, we come back to my point that religion should interpreted as per todays time and (thanks to you) region.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

There is no need to actually read what it says. It, by the virtue of being a concept, is eligible for updation.

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

Here's my proof that your statement is false:
You said you never read the Quran and you don't need to because by virtue of it's content being a concept then it must be outdated right?
Imagine this hypothetical situation: You open the Quran for the first time and you find nothing at all except one statement:
true = true.
Having never read the Quran, can you confidently with precision claim that the Quran is anything different from the above statement?
That's it!! The statement which you have never read before turns out to be a tautologous statement..one that holds true for all time.
Hence: The need to read the Quran before making as assertion that it's concept(s) are outdated
is NECESSARY for you to make that conclusion!
Prove me wrong!

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

Islam did not change and will never change, the most you follow the source of Islam, the better muslim you will get.

Younes and exactly here is the point I disagree.
Quran is a text and can be, was and is interpreted diferently in times and regions, like any text. Even it is a holy text, because it is read by men.
I have no energy to back this with examples. But there are plenty examples of pluralism of interpretation in this book, I recently read:
http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/2020134934/qid=1032900333/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/171-0717460-1305050
[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:

Thirdly, among the good reasons could be:
the first woman does not/could not have any children and sometimes that may lead to separation or divorce.

What if there is a problem with the husband? Does Coran still give right to women to keep second husband? Or it does not consider a possibilty that a man too could have problems
If you try to justify each and every word of Coran (or any book for that matter), you'll have a tough time. A book is a snapshot of the era in which is was written. It was "probably 100% correct in that era but with time, it needs updation.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

So, we come back to my point that religion should interpreted as per todays time and thanks to you) region.

Does the tautologous concept "true = true"
need updation and interpretation as per today's time and (thanks to me) region?
Having not read the Quran, How can you claim that the Quran is any different from the above statement "true = true" ?

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

Here's my proof that your statement is false:
You said you never read the Quran and you don't need to because by virtue of it's content being a concept then it must be outdated right?
Imagine this hypothetical situation: You open the Quran for the first time and you find nothing at all except one statement:
true = true.
Having never read the Quran, can you confidently with precision claim that the Quran is anything different from the above statement?
That's it!! The statement which you have never read before turns out to be a tautologous statement..one that holds true for all time.
Hence: The need to read the Quran before making as assertion that it's concept(s) are outdated
is NECESSARY for you to make that conclusion!
Prove me wrong!

Your point is totally baseless. You don't have a point actually. You are just arguing for argument sake.
Anyway, there could be a caveman who drew something like 0=0. If you see it today you may think, wow...what a genious... 0 = 0. In all possibility the caveman might been thinking about drawing a face and left it half way through. (This is just a crude example of how people can interpret things differently...you never know.)
Outdated does not mean each mean that each and every word is false. It just means each and every word may not be true.
Ancient astrologers assumed that Earth was the center of universe. However, they did calculate a lot of things with great precision, which are correct even today. But that does not mean their assersion that earth is the center of the universe is true.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

What if there is a problem with the husband? Does Coran still give right to women to keep second husband? Or it does not consider a possibilty that a man too could have problems

In this case the wife can get a divorce. It is no shame to say some rules are different for men than from women. Did you forget that men and women are biologically different? Needless to say
we have different organs we have different functions in bringing a child to this life and nurturing him/her suited to our bilogical makeup.
And the "rules" that come along because of those differences will address men and women differently. This does not mean they are equal in value. They most definitely are. They are not identical but they are equal in value and they complement each other..
Similarly you will find other "rules" that may seem to give more rights to women than to men. For example women in Islam are not obliged to financially support the family. They can do it if they want...but men are obliged...NOW does this mean men are being mistreated?!

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:

For example women in Islam are not obliged to financially support the family. They can do it if they want...but men are obliged...NOW does this mean men are being mistreated?!

In today's times, most definitely yes. Today women are working hand in hand with men. With rights come responsibilities and responsibilities require rights.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:
[QB]
Your point is totally baseless. You don't have a point actually. You are just arguing for argument sake.
Anyway, there could be a caveman who drew something like 0=0. If you see it today you may think, wow...what a genious... 0 = 0. In all possibility the caveman might been thinking about drawing a face and left it half way through. (This is just a crude example of how people can interpret things differently...you never know.)

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

Come on...you are a lot more intellegent than that!!! YOu know I am refering to the concept
"true = true" or Zero = Zero and not their representations on paper and how they could resemble a smily! Since we're talking about concepts !!! There are concepts that are ALWAYS true Tracy you cannot deny that! Like the concept of: true is true. And from here my argument is how do you know that the "concepts"
in the Quran are any different having not addressed them one by one? Is it a BIG GIGANDO generalization you're making based on a strong "feeling in the tummy"

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Hey, this guy has finally some sense of humour

Who? Tom? Are you kidding? He has the best sense of humor (or at least "one of the best senses of humor" if there is such expression ) I've ever seen! Had you been around before Sep. 11 2001? Actually, only yesterday I was thinking how sad it is that Tom is now fighting more than anything else in this forum. It wasn't like this before.

[Anonymous]

Here's my proof that your statement is false:
You said you never read the Quran and you don't need to because by virtue of it's content being a concept then it must be outdated right?
Imagine this hypothetical situation: You open the Quran for the first time and you find nothing at all except one statement:
true = true.
Having never read the Quran, can you confidently with precision claim that the Quran is anything different from the above statement?
That's it!! The statement which you have never read before turns out to be a tautologous statement..one that holds true for all time.
Hence: The need to read the Quran before making as assertion that it's concept(s) are outdated
is NECESSARY for you to make that conclusion!
Prove me wrong!

Your idea is flawed. "True == True," is correct because of definition. It proves nothing. It's like saying "5==5"; it's a given. However, things that are expressed in the Koran are not given. The basic one of which is "God == Allah" - this cannot be proven. Also, until something is proven to be fact, i.e., "True == True", there will always be room for error; hence, updates. Concepts have always gone through revision until it is _FACT_.
"concept" - def., A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
I, too, have not read the Koran. However, I don't think it just contains things like "True==True", "car=car", etc... If I am wrong than, you are right. It can stand through the test of time..... but then it would be a trifle.
-Eleison

[Michael Ernest]

Equality like any concept has attributes which may vary according to context. Whether equality is reflexive, symmetric, commutative or associative, for example, depends on the system.
To argue that "true = true" is to presume a world composed of, or least accessible through, some absolute perspective. Mathematics does not offer absolutes, nor doeslogic: both begin with a set of laws that are held to be true unless they can be proven otherwise. That itself is a flawed but reasonably useful premise.
There are no absolutes that do not begin without the absolute presumption that absolute truth exists. Nothing so variable as a human being can be expected to master that.
[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Because "especially in conditions were men go to war and many men die and women outnumber the men." does not hold true any more.

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Since when?

Perhaps contempopary American war is meant...

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:
[QB]
Come on...you are a lot more intellegent than that!!! YOu know I am refering to the concept
"true = true" or Zero = Zero and not their representations on paper and how they could resemble a smily! Since we're talking about concepts !!! There are concepts that are ALWAYS true Tracy you cannot deny that! Like the concept of: true is true. And from here my argument is how do you know that the "concepts"
in the Quran are any different having not addressed them one by one? Is it a BIG GIGANDO generalization you're making based on a strong "feeling in the tummy"

I did reply to your point. Either you did not read it or you ignored it. Here it is again:
1. Outdated does not mean each mean that each and every word is false. It just means each and every word may not be true.
2. There is a possibility that the concept of toutology that you are talking about was not in the mind of the writer while writing true = true.
To add, theoretically speaking, true = true may not always be true. If you apply the theory of space time convergence (who the hell knows, it might even be true afterall), 'true' might be equal to 'false'

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:
You also agree that right and wrong are relative. So that mean a religion that originated 100s of years ago from a far off land (from say US) cannot possibly govern what is right and wrong in today's US.

Most religions will disagree with the statement that moral right and wrong is relative. What is wrong is always wrong. If morality is relative then morality is whatever society agrees it should be. Relativism is a heresy in the Catholic Church and I would imagine that people who practice Islam would also be opposed to the idea of moral relativism.

[Thomas Paul]

As to the concept of "true==true"... a book that had only concepts such as this wouldn't be worth reading. Religions such as Islam and Christianity are based on the assumption that there are absolutes and that these absolutes are spelled out in a book. However, no matter how absolute a truth may be it still needs to be interpreted. Why do we have so many sects of Islam and Christianity which don't believe the exact same things? Because they interpret what the books say differently.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
There are no absolutes that do not begin without the absolute presumption that absolute truth exists. Nothing so variable as a human being can be expected to master that.
[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

But the real question is :
Are there any non-absolutes that do not start with the very "absolute" presumption that "truths could be non-absulte"
Just think of this statemnt "Truth is not absolute"! If this statement is true, then this statement has
to be also false (or not absolutely true) PARADOX PARADOX PARADOX!
Seems like we need an absolute premise or axiom to build anything on!

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Most religions will disagree with the statement that moral right and wrong is relative. What is wrong is always wrong. If morality is relative then morality is whatever society agrees it should be. Relativism is a heresy in the Catholic Church and I would imagine that people who practice Islam would also be opposed to the idea of moral relativism.

are you supporting this (morality is not relative and wron is always wrong) or you are just saying what the religion says....just curious.

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:

But the real question is :
Are there any non-absolutes that do not start with the very "absolute" presumption that "truths could be non-absulte"
Just think of this statemnt "Truth is not absolute"! If this statement is true, then this statement has
to be also false (or not absolutely true) PARADOX PARADOX PARADOX!
Seems like we need an absolute premise or axiom to build anything on!

What's your point?

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

What's your point?

My point is: If you beleive that truth is not absolute and that there is not a single truth that applies for everyone then you will have to build your argument on an absulute truth...which means you are contradictng yourself because you are acknowledging the existance of an absulute truth..namely the statement "truth is not absolute" and Hence you must admit that there is a truth that applies to everyone!