kai
ragamuffin
if Egypt was not conquered in any military manner what was the army of Caliph umar doing there at the battle of Heliopolis ?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Islamic Extremism: Do you agree?
- Thread starter tomspug
- Start date
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
The Battle of Heliopolis was not fought between Egyptians and Arabians, you know. It was fought between the army of the Caliph and the Byzantines. The Byzantines were no more the native speakers of demotic or coptic than the Macedonians before them.
The native population of Egypt was not particularly on the side of the Byzantines.
Regards,
Scott
The native population of Egypt was not particularly on the side of the Byzantines.
Regards,
Scott
kai
ragamuffin
but conqured egypt none the less and militarily hence the arabic
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
kai
ragamuffin
of course that is the genius of Islam arabic , the koran is arabic you have to learn the koran so you learn arabic even today translations are not to be trusted over the arabic versions never before has such assimilation taken place
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
McBell
Admiral Obvious
How can the translations be trusted?
I mean, they cannot even agree on how to spell the TITLE.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
You're speaking of transliteration, not translation.
Different spelling conventions at different times.
Arabic has its own alphabet. Scholars cannot agree on how to transliterate Greek either.
Regards,
Scott
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You have only furthered my point...
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
McBell
Admiral Obvious
The fact remains that they cannot agree on how to spell the TITLE of their holy book.
hahahaha OMG!!!!1 :biglaugh:Somebody tell me this guy isn't serious!
In case you don't know the Quran was written in one language that we commonly know as "Arabic". In Arabic there is only one spelling of the Quran (see bottom)
When we transliterate it into other languages then it may be spelled differently simply because Arabic letters may differ than the letters of other languages.
and the Muslim faith is probably have the most united beliefs compared to other religions.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
World Religions Religion Statistics Geography Church Statistics points out that Islam is divided into several sects and denominations.
The Baha`i Faith on the other has 99% of its adherents answering to the same authority. So Baha`i is more unified than Islam.
Classical World Religions Ranked by Internal Religious Similarity:
Most Unified to Most Diverse
- Baha'i
- Zoroastrianism
- Sikhism
- Islam
- Jainism
- Judaism
- Taoism
- Shinto
- Christianity
- Buddhism
- Hinduism
Regards,
Scott
kai
ragamuffin
indeed thats exactly my point.
kai
ragamuffin
but they are not true Qurans only the Arabic version of the quran is accepted it is impossible to translate the quran in a away that would reflect its exact meaning in any other language, thats why Arabic has been liturgical language of Islam since the 7th century.
kai
ragamuffin
again thats why it has to be arabic! its only when you try and translate it into another language you get the different spellingshahahaha OMG!!!!1 :biglaugh:Somebody tell me this guy isn't serious!
In case you don't know the Quran was written in one language that we commonly know as "Arabic". In Arabic there is only one spelling of the Quran (see bottom)
When we transliterate it into other languages then it may be spelled differently simply because Arabic letters may differ than the letters of other languages.
and the Muslim faith is probably have the most united beliefs compared to other religions.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
Sanskrit is the liturgical language of Hinduism.
Hebrew is the liturgical language of Judaism.
Greek and Latin are the liturgical languages of Christianity.
You have a point? Actually, of those three religions, only Islam has a living language for liturgy. Greek, too for that matter.
Dead languages aren't alive and we lead our lives with living languages.
Scripture has to translate or it might as well be Ronga-Ronga..
Regards,
Scott
kai
ragamuffin
the quran can not be literaly translated so to be a true muslim and understand the quran you have to learn arabic , hence my reasoning for the spread of arabic .
gnostic
The Lost One
1. If you talking about them trying to control the global markets and their commercial interests, then yes, they are imperialistic. If you are talking about territorial expansions, then sorta yes, but mostly no.
2. As someone already said, morality are different to different culture and different people. Freedom does and doesn't promote immorality, depending on what your standard, and how far short people fall in meeting such standard.
3. Again, yes and no. Morality are not the same, even among different religions. If religion to sacrifice a person, it some case it may be right, but today, most would see it to be wrong. Some people use promote violence, depending on the circumstance. Is it right to stone or whip a woman for adultery? In certain circumstances, the religion (Judaism, Islam) would promote such penalty.
4. No. Depending on where, some western countries promote tolerance in religion, whereas others may not be so. The same with the east or Middle east. Atheism and agnostic are small in the west, and the majority of people have religions.
5. There is no such thing as "perfect" culture in religious or secular world. Anyone who think there can be such perfection, would those people try to force other people to accept them? The idea of promoting perfect society, often breeds intolerance for people or their needs are different.
6. Violence should always be the last resort. Too bad George Bush doesn't understand that.
7. Or you could say "Religion is an enemy of secularism". I'd prefer separation of state and religion, separation of law and religion, of secular education and religious education, of science and religion, etc. Why must religion encompassed every aspect of society? We have seen what religion did to the west in the past and present, and have been far more repressive than their Islamic counterpart. Look what Islam doing now. Religion don't always promote freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom to choose, etc, because religion in government would like to control how we think, and that's no better Nazism or Communism.
8. It is the sort of nonsense that Christians sprouted in the past about their religions. I don't think much of Christians or Muslims who are militant and radical in thoughts and actions.
2. As someone already said, morality are different to different culture and different people. Freedom does and doesn't promote immorality, depending on what your standard, and how far short people fall in meeting such standard.
3. Again, yes and no. Morality are not the same, even among different religions. If religion to sacrifice a person, it some case it may be right, but today, most would see it to be wrong. Some people use promote violence, depending on the circumstance. Is it right to stone or whip a woman for adultery? In certain circumstances, the religion (Judaism, Islam) would promote such penalty.
4. No. Depending on where, some western countries promote tolerance in religion, whereas others may not be so. The same with the east or Middle east. Atheism and agnostic are small in the west, and the majority of people have religions.
5. There is no such thing as "perfect" culture in religious or secular world. Anyone who think there can be such perfection, would those people try to force other people to accept them? The idea of promoting perfect society, often breeds intolerance for people or their needs are different.
6. Violence should always be the last resort. Too bad George Bush doesn't understand that.
7. Or you could say "Religion is an enemy of secularism". I'd prefer separation of state and religion, separation of law and religion, of secular education and religious education, of science and religion, etc. Why must religion encompassed every aspect of society? We have seen what religion did to the west in the past and present, and have been far more repressive than their Islamic counterpart. Look what Islam doing now. Religion don't always promote freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom to choose, etc, because religion in government would like to control how we think, and that's no better Nazism or Communism.
8. It is the sort of nonsense that Christians sprouted in the past about their religions. I don't think much of Christians or Muslims who are militant and radical in thoughts and actions.