oh no. there are a lot of answers here.

Submitted by bayezid (Bangladesh), Dec 27, 2008 at 13:29

your baseless, arbitrary comments are proof of your hysteria inducing talent.

>>

The question was do you agree that other and older civilizations had knowledge(amongst other things) of the passage of the sun? You claim Islam was the first to make this basic observation. I gave you two well-known examples, New Grange and Stonehenge in Europe.

You have not admitted you were incorrect."

im sorry, where exactly were you when i sent you the last post explaining about the newgrang and stonehenge? im sure you were here grinding your teeth at the efforts of a muslim man breathing fire all over daniel pipes here. lol . all civilizations knew the sun moved. even when it was actually the earth thats moving it looks like the sun moved. thats what they saw. and thats what they said.the stonehenge and its likes served as nothing but a calender. it wasnt a space faring object to observe that the sun had a solar apex. those primitie people believed that the sun moved based on its view from the earth. the sun does not rise, or set, its the earth thats moving. no one knew that the sun too moved with all its planets along a path. i also mentioned how you shouldnt feel proud of your ancestors for this simple caender since we indians had it and so did the incas. no nation on earth knew that the sun moved , that it revolved around with the entire solar system along the solar apex. not until the quran came.

>>

I also pointed out the Muslims seem incapable of admitting when they get it wrong. Your silence tends to prove this."

oh you did did you? then that must mean you have awful observational skills, dosent it? till now the muslims have not said anything wrong. or maybe you imagine things. please write to me saying one wrong thing muslims said about anything.

>>OK, well then tell us whether Muslims claim the Bible and Torah, Rig veda and Bhagavad Gita are corrupted.
If I am ignorant on this matter and Muslms do not claim they are corrupted - then I stand corrected. But the corrolary of that is the Islam is not 'supreme'. So I expect you to come up with an explanation which somehow tries to say theses scriptures are both corrupted and not corrupted.

the bible and rig veda and bhagavat gita are definitely corrupted. thats because they werent revealed word for word from ALLAH ,as the quran was. quran was dictated to the prophet. no other prophet had that privilege. their revelations came as ideas and words partially. but never dictated word for word. you can easily tell the difference here. in the quran, we see ALLAH talking and no one talking for him. HE is the narrator. in other books its the prophets and wise men talking and making prayers. ALLAH was not directly addressing people there.

>>

" muslims believe in the revelation of previous books. the ones we know of are the torah to moses, the injeel to christ, and the zabur to david. and islam encapsulates and works on the underlying aspect of all these messages : the oneness of GOD almighty. tht is the message from time to time. we just dont have problem with it, we actually celebrate it. "
as do all other religions - so what's new?

whats new is you just got to know of it today. muslims have to remember god in every thing they do. everything they do they do it with a profound understanding of GOD's mercy and grace to humanity. that means everything from going to the bathroom to running a state to praying . islam is a way of life. it isnt something tucked away for a temple. it is life according to will of ALLAH. show me another religion that claims the same. another religion that proclaims that it is a code of life.

>>

Don't you mean atheism here? Secularism is defined as ' the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs' . This is an eminently sensible approach to governing societies. The alternatives are the ridiculous and barbaric Sharia law - and the fanaticism found in such countries as Iran - where currently 'moral police' drive around haranguing people who have western haircuts or wear dresses they consider too short.

And secularism is quite appropriate for attempts by the West to accommodate the concept of so-called 'multiculturalism'. In fact Islam has benefitted from 'secularism' Imagine if England or the US was ruled by the Church of England or the Southern Baptists. Do you think there would be as many mosques as these countries so graciously allow there now? Unlike the totally intolerant and hypocrical Sharia-controlled Saudis - not allowing churches in their country.

no i mean secularism. they say, ' the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs' . i ask, according to who? why should religion be seperated? religion was never meant to be seperated. religion is commad of GOD. the very idea of religion is that it is meant to fuse all activities of man into that one set of duties which is subservient to the will of god.we live life for god. so our lives are to be governedas per his will. without this, religion cant be called religion. seperating religion from everyday life would mean religion tucked away as a mere showpiece.which in tun woud mean being arrogant and taking god lightly. now why would any right thinking individual want to do that ? you may call this progress. we call it blasphemy.

>>

All I have done is transcribe some of the tenets of the Bahai's. You interpreted then as secular ideals. YOu still have not pointed out which of their tenets you do not like.'

and i have been trying to explain to you about the fallacy of their claim. the bahais seek to attain peace according to their own man made program. truth is peace cannot be attained without the mindset ALLAH wants all people to have. so it can be said that the bahais are being arrogant here thinking they can get something that only god can give without doing what god told them to do.. i have explained to you this before and i only wonder if youve been reading them or not.

>>

A bit of a Freudian slip there from you - and reveals a lot. While Islam might seek to program man true religion guides man to the real goal - which is gnosis.

your idea of the real goal is actually a bored librarians version of hell.

gnosis, or knowledge, shows you things. things you should do and places you should go to. knowledge is merely the tool that leads one to the goal and not the goal itself knowlesge is only as good as you making use of it. so according to you, the real goal is not a goal at all, it is only awareness to do more. and why? when does this struggle end? where indeed is the real goal and what is it? it is ALLAH. our maker. the source frim whom all came. it is a return to the source. where all struggle ends. where the purpose is fulfilled and there is no more to prove. it is completion. >>

that's a not so subtle way of saying you won't admit you were wrong on many previous points?'

i think we all know which is the wrtong one among us, dont we .

>>

True religion seeks to still the mind calm the emotions and connect consciousness to its Source.'

ok, so what is your problem with islam. ALLAH, the source, says that mens hearts indeed find rest at the remebrance of god. it is what ALLAH said in the quran.

>> O SERVANT, where dost thou seek Me?
Lo! I am beside thee.
I am neither in temple nor in mosque: I am neither in Kaaba nor in Kailash:
Neither am I in rites and ceremonies, nor in Yoga and renunciation.
If thou art a true seeker, thou shalt at once see Me: thou shalt meet Me in a moment of time.
Kabîr says, "O Sadhu! God is the breath of all breath."

Would you agree with this?

What does the last line mean?'

beautiful. but kabir was simply a romantic. his owrks arent meant to be taken as dogma. and besides we arent taking about god's nearness nd absoluteness here. those things are absolute taken for granted. religion is concerned with duties to the same god kabir wrote a poem about. if indeed you love god that you wish to be near to him, it would behoove you to at least listen to hjim, no? that is religion. god's message to us. if we seek harness to him, im sure listening to him and obeying him would be a start.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".