Re: 알고 싶니?
Christmas and 25th of December
Many Christians are unaware that the true spirit of reverence which Muslims display towards Jesus and his mother Mary spring from the fountainhead of their faith as prescribed in the Holy Quran. Most do not know that a Muslim does not take the name of Jesus , without saying Eesa alai-hiss-salaam i.e. (Jesus peace be upon him).
Jesus is commonly considered to have been born on the 25th of December. However, it is common knowledge among Christian scholars that he was not born on this day. It is well known that the first Christian churches held their festival in May, April, or January. Scholars of the first two centuries AD even differ in which year he was born. Some believing that he was born fully twenty years before the current accepted date. So how was the 25th of December selected as the birthday of Jesus ?
Grolier's encyclopedia says: "Christmas is the feast of the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated on December 25 ... Despite the beliefs about Christ that the birth stories expressed, the church did not observe a festival for the celebration of the event until the 4th century.... since 274, under the emperor Aurelian, Rome had celebrated the feast of the "Invincible Sun" on December 25. In the Eastern Church, January 6, a day also associated with the winter solstice, was initially preferred. In course of time, however, the West added the Eastern date as the Feast of the Epiphany, and the East added the Western date of Christmas".
So who else celebrated the 25th of December as the birth day of their gods before it was agreed upon as the birth day of Jesus ? Well, there are the people of India who rejoice, decorate their houses with garlands, and give presents to their friends on this day. The people of China also celebrate this day and close their shops. Buddha is believed to have been born on this day. The great savior and god of the Persians, Mithras, is also believed to have been born on the 25th of December long before the coming of Jesus .
The Egyptians celebrated this day as the birth day of their great savior Horus, the Egyptian god of light and the son of the "virgin mother" and "queen of the heavens" Isis. Osiris, god of the dead and the underworld in Egypt, the son of "the holy virgin", again was believed to have been born on the 25th of December.
The Greeks celebrated the 25th of December as the birthday of Hercules, the son of the supreme god of the Greeks, Zeus, through the mortal woman Alcmene Bacchus, the god of wine and revelry among the Romans (known among the Greeks as Dionysus) was also born on this day.
Adonis, revered as a "dying-and-rising god" among the Greeks, miraculously was also born on the 25th of December. His worshipers held him a yearly festival representing his death and resurrection, in midsummer. The ceremonies of his birthday are recorded to have taken place in the same cave in Bethlehem which is claimed to have been the birth place of Jesus .
The Scandinavians celebrated the 25th of December as the birthday of their god Freyr, the son of their supreme god of the heavens, Odin.
The Romans observed this day as the birthday of the god of the sun, Natalis Solis Invicti ("Birthday of Sol the invincible"). There was great rejoicing and all shops were closed. There was illumination and public games. Presents were exchanged, and the slaves were indulged in great liberties. These are the same Romans who would later preside over the council of Nicea (325 CE) which lead to the official Christian recognition of the "Trinity" as the "true" nature of God, and the "fact" that Jesus was born on the 25th of December too.
In Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon says: "The Roman Christians, ignorant of his (Christ's) birth, fixed the solemn festival to the 25th of December, the Brumalia, or Winter Solstice, when the Pagans annually celebrated the birth of Sol " vol. ii, p. 383.
Christians opposed to Christmas
There are several Christian groups who are opposed to Christmas. For example, they take the verse from the Bible in Jeremiah 10:2-4 as an admonition against decorating Christmas trees.
The King James Version reads: "Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen.... For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."
In order to understand this subject, it is helpful to trace some of the history of Christmas avoidance, particularly its roots in Puritanism.
The Puritans believed that the first-century church modeled a Christianity that modern Christians should copy. They attempted to base their faith and practice solely on the New Testament, and their position on Christmas reflected their commitment to practice a pure, scriptural form of Christianity. Puritans argued that God reserved to himself the determination of all proper forms of worship, and that he disapproved of any human innovations - even innovations that celebrated the great events of salvation. The name Christmas also alienated many Puritans.
Christmas, after all, meant "the mass of Christ." The mass was despised as a Roman Catholic institution that undermined the Protestant concept of Christ, who offered himself once for all. The Puritans' passionate avoidance of any practice that was associated with papal Rome caused them to overlook the fact that in many countries the name for the day had nothing to do with the Catholic mass, but focused instead on Jesus' birth. The mass did not evolve into the form abhorred by Protestants until long after Christmas was widely observed. The two customs had separate, though interconnected, histories.
As ardent Protestants, Puritans identified the embracing of Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the early 300s CE as the starting point of the degeneration and corruption of the church. They believed the corruption of the church was brought on by the interweaving of the church with the pagan Roman state. To Puritans, Christmas was impure because it entered the Roman Church sometime in this period. No one knows the exact year or under what circumstances Roman Christians began to celebrate the birth of their Lord, but by the mid-300s CE, the practice was well established.
when Christ was born Ahmed Deedat a lecture debates youtube
Re: 알고 싶니?
Why are two women witnesses equivalent to only one man?
This question is asked my by many people even by Muslims who don’t have sufficient knowledge about their religion as they consider it as injustice and inequality in Islam concerning woman.
It is not true that two female witnesses are always considered as equal to only one male witness. It is true only certain cases like financial transaction. However, Islam accepts a woman’s testimony as equal to that of a man. In fact, the woman’s testimony can even invalidate the man’s.
The woman’s testimony can even invalidate the man’s. If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, he is required by Quran to swear five times as evidence of the wife is guilt. If the wife denies and swears similarly five times, she is not considered guilty and in either case the marriage is dissolved. God, Almighty, said: “And for those who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own, their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by God that they are solemnly telling the truth; and the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of God on themselves if they tell a lie. But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By God, that (her husband) is telling a lie; and the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of God on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth.”(chapter 24: verse 6- 9)
In other cases, women’s testimony is more valid than men. In case of breastfeeding, she is the only one and the more valid to claim that this person is your brother or sister foster. The woman maid is the only who may claim that this boy is the son of certain lady or not. Another example from Prophet Mohammed’s era is the solitary witness of Lady Aisha, prophet’s wife, is a reliable source for many men and women to take Hadiths, the saying of the prophet, as an authentic one. Lady Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) has narrated no less than 2220 Hadiths (the saying of the prophet) which are considered authentic only on her solitary evidence. This is sufficient proof that one witness of a woman can also be accepted.
ركن المتحدثين الداعية محمد حجاب و زائرين فى الهايد
Why are 2 witnesses who are women, equivalent to only 1 ...
Why are 2 witnesses who are women, equivalent to only 1 witness who is a man?Dr. Zakir Naik(Urdu) - YouTube
Re: 알고 싶니?
. A man is permitted to have more than one wife, then why can’t a woman have more than one husband?
Islam teaches that Allah has created men and women as equals, but not as identical beings. They are different, physically, biologically and physiologically and each have different capabilities. Their roles and responsibilities are therefore different but they complement one another.
Some may object to a man having the right to more than one wife by insisting that, in fairness, women should also be able to practice polyandry. However, the following few points could be part of the reason behind its prohibition by God:
a) One of the benefits of polygyny is that it solves the problem of women outnumbering men.
b) In general, men are polygamous by nature while women are not.
c) Islam assigns great importance to the recognition of parents, both the mother and father. When a man has more than one wife, the parents of children born in such marriages can easily be identified. But in the case of a woman marrying more than one husband, only the mother of children born within the marriage would be known without resorting to laboratory tests. Psychologists tell us that children who do not know their parents, the father in particular, undergo severe mental disturbances and trauma, and often have unhappy childhoods.
محاضرة بعنوان معنى كلمة الإسلام المحاضر : الداعية عبدالرح ...
محاضرة بعنوان معنى كلمة الإسلام المحاضر : الداعية عبدالرحيم جرين Meaning of the word Islam - YouTube
#55 Original Poster (OP)
Re: 알고 싶니?
القرآن يذهل العالم ويكشف 10 أسرار تاريخية عن الفراعنة ومصر القديمة لم تُكتشف إلا حديثاً
أحمد ديدات -- عتاد الجهاد -- كينيا -- مترجم
#56 Original Poster (OP)
Re: 알고 싶니?
Monks With Guns: Discovering Buddhist Violence
he publication of Buddhist Warfare, a book I co-edited with Mark Juergensmeyer, is a bittersweet experience as it marks the culmination of a journey that began with an exploration of the peaceful aspects of Buddhism only to end up chronicling portions of its dark side. This journey, which consumed much of the last six years of my life, began in 2003 when my wife and I spent a little over a year in Thailand. It was then that I began to research Buddhist social activism which was going to be the topic of my dissertation.
Buddhists do not fight without belief, and the hideous massacres that they are carrying out against defenseless Muslims in East Asia stem from their belief that no one else who has attained the degree of enlightenment and is less than an ant, and the killer does not form a mental image of the murdered (as Their students teach us who promote the Law of Attraction and the Power of Being), because it does not even exist, so there is nothing wrong with killing it to preserve the balance of the universe.
Consider the principle of Buddhist clerics in killing opponents! They claim that killing those who do not believe their beliefs is a kind of mercy killing in order to purify themselves in Hell and transfer their souls to the realm of truth, for it is in fact not considered murder. It is no different from wiping out a terminally ill beast. This is a dangerous excuse that they hide behind in order to harvest human lives, especially Muslims, as they did and do in Thailand and Burma.
There is another principle by which Buddhist monks justify killing their opponents, which is the belief of Buddhism that existence is just an illusion, and that truth is only perceived by attaining nirvana (i.e., annihilation in God). Accordingly; For everyone who does not believe in Buddhism and is not enlightened by its light, then killing him in this life is not a real killing. Because it is an accident in the realm of illusion. These victims, who were slaughtered by monks, are referred to in Buddhist theology as “icchantika”, meaning: veiled from the light
In the book "Sostitamati Baribricha" - which is described as the guide to "how to kill with the sword of wisdom" - the enlightened "Manjushri" of the Buddha shows that the slain is only a name and an idea, and if the killer is able to clear his mind of these thoughts and names during the killing, then this is not considered murder Rather, there is no killing, nor a murderer on the face of the truth, because “there is no sword, karma, or punishment,” but rather it is a matter of imagination .
Since my initial realization in 2004, I began to look critically at my earlier perspective on Buddhism—one that shielded an extensive and historical dimension to Buddhist traditions: violence. Armed Buddhist monks in Thailand are not an exception to the rule; they are contemporary examples of a long historical precedence. For centuries monks have been at the helm, or armed in the ranks, of wars. How could this be the case? But more importantly, why did I (and many others) hold the belief that Buddhism=Peace)?
It was then that I realized that I was a consumer of a very successful form of propaganda. Since the early 1900s, Buddhist monastic intellectuals such as Walpola Rahula, D. T. Suzuki, and Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, have labored to raise Western awareness of their cultures and traditions. In doing so, they presented specific aspects of their Buddhist traditions while leaving out others. These Buddhist monks were not alone in this portrayal of Buddhism. As Donald S. Lopez Jr. and others have poignantly shown, academics quickly followed suit, so that by the 1960s U.S popular culture no longer depicted Buddhist traditions as primitive, but as mystical.
Yet these mystical depictions did not remove the two-dimensional nature of Western understanding. And while it contributed to the history of Buddhism, this presentation of an otherworldly Buddhism ultimately robbed Buddhists of their humanity.
Thupten Tsering, the co-director of “Windhorse,” encapsulates the effects of two-dimensional portrayal in a 1999 interview with the New York Times. “They see Tibetans as cute, sweet, warmhearted. I tell people, when you cut me, I bleed just like you.”
In an effort to combat this view and to humanize Buddhists, then, Mark Juergensmeyer and I put together a collection of critical essays that illustrate the violent history of Buddhism across Mongolia, Tibet, Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and India.
Our intention is not to argue that Buddhists are angry, violent people—but rather that Buddhists are people, and thus share the same human spectrum of emotions, which includes the penchant for violence.
Why a Former Buddhist then Christian accepted Islam? TheDeen
الجزء 1 سيدة الكنيسة مندهشة للتعلم عن المرأة في الإسلام
الجزء 2 سيدة الكنيسة مندهشة للتعلم عن المرأة في الإسلام