Reasons for killing: money, land, power, politics, vengeance, jelousy, hate, anger, honor, fear, protection AND religion. No reason is better than any other.

About communication with the dead.
That was a answer because many say that God forbid communication with the dead, what i meant is that i dont see them as Dead, and using this word is incorrect. Death do not apply to the soul, therefore do not apply to the being. So there is communication with the Alive, that are no longer living in a matterial body.


and...
yes, it may be and overly depressing view of the world, and yes we are progressing in much ways. I think religion was an essencial part in progress so we could start acting better. Stop being violent and hostile, to try to leave in a good community system.

But I do know that the uglyness is a reality. At least for a great number of living people at this moment. Whatever kind of evil you can think of, there is a good number of people suffering it at this exact same moment. And i think that still people living a bad condition is majority. (maybe about 60-70%, much different that the 95-99% of the past).
The reality is that your singular most traumatic event in your past is of more importance to the formation of your personality and your reactions than years of education for example.
While we are being able to stop wars, there is still children getting abused. And even if there is only 1, is 1 too many.
I insist in this of seeing the life because that is the reality for many, and they are the ones that need our help the most, and need to find God the most, and need Gods comfort to get over their awfull experiences and being able to grow and not to become the agressor themselfs.


For the record, i didnt liked very much how many of the things I wrote came out, I am very tired. Hope some of the intent remained.

|> About communication with the dead.

So, communication with an (eternal, and therefore alive) spirit, even if the body it used to live in has died? Ah, that makes a lot more sense. :)

|> For the record, i didnt liked very much how many of the things I wrote came out, I am very tired. Hope some of the intent remained.

Don't worry about it; I'm used to communicating through the imperfect medium of plain, expressionless text without intonation. Adding a little tiredness into the equation only makes things even more interesting. ;) Nothing you wrote offended me, if you were worried about that.

@devilnis
------The Qur'an itself doesn't say much about how women are supposed to be treated
That’s wrong. The quraan clearly mentions multiple times about how women should dress. One clear verse is in the surat about women. Surat Al-Nisa.

------One of his daughters (the mother of his only surviving male progeny, Ali) even led a revolution against various power factions after Muhammad's death - those on her side were called the Partisans (Shi'a) of Ali, which is basically where the schism between Shi'a and Sunni began.
WRONG! Sorry but, I have to clear this place up. Ali was the nephew of Prophet Muhammad and was under his care since his father died. He was the first male muslim and he married the Prophet’s daughter Fatimah. (Peace be upon them all). The separation of the muslim community comes because of one act. The prophet had entitled that Imam Ali would be managing the people after him. After he died Abu Bakr, Omar and other people denounced it and took power themselves by force while Imam Ali was grieving the prophets death. This meant that they had secured their place in power while he couldn’t. Some people sided with him and urged him to take power. He could have taken it, everybody agrees, but he didn’t because bloodshed would occur and many muslims would die, so he decided not to. This led to some part of the society following Ali even when the other Caliphs were in place. But Ali didn’t try anything and even helped the Caliphs in their endeavors if they asked for it.
What the Shia’s main evidence is that in the last pilgrimage of the Prophet he announced to everyone that Imam Ali should be their ruler after him. But what the Sunni’s have problem with this is: One of the words that the prophet said to tell the people that Ali should their ruler ALSO means friend. The Sunni’s say that Ali should be their friend, not ruler. But the word friend does not make sense in the context.
(that probably didn’t make sense, sorry im tired)

------Shi'a have a more hierarchial system with generally the Grand Ayatollah on top, much like the pope of the Catholic church or the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch.
Not really. Each Shia is given the choice on who they want to follow. Each marjah (person who is really advanced in the quran and that their fatwas have large followings) has a different set of rules for whoever follows them. Its not a big difference, its just that they have a bit of difference on minor details. I would say a majority of Iranian shia’s choosing NOW would choose the grand ayatollah. When the last Grand ayatollah was alive a much bigger majority (i would say around 85%) would follow him. Now there are people who follow Shirazi or Sistani or other ones. But in other countries its different. In Kuwait I know for a fact that 90% of the shias follow Sistani while in Bahrain mostly follow the grand ayatollah. I wouldn’t compare it to the catholic church either.

------By and large, the Shi'a lost this struggle but managed to maintain themselves as a sect of Islam.
They didn’t. It is widely known that Imam Ali told the Shia’s not to struggle as it would not be beneficiary.

------ 3rd Caliph and the line of Muhammad
We say 3rd Imam :D

------the two major branches of Islam continues to this day in much fiercer
Well Shia’s and Sunni’s don’t have problems with each other. You can see this in Iran where we have 2-3 counties which have a sunni majority. There isn’t a problem there. What the problem is are the Wahabbis. These are extremists that all shias say are not muslims and most Sunni’s say are not true muslims.

------defeated and killed the leaders of the Shi'a sect in the battle of Karbala as part of the "second fitna" (a fitna being a religious civil war)
Seems you don’t really know the story of Ashura. Ashura means tenth in a sense. It marked the tenth day that the 3rd Imam was besieged as he was going to Iraq. He was invited by people in Iraq to come there. As he was being harassed in Madina he started going there with all his family and household. He had 72 warriors which were his friends. The Umayyad heard about this, paid the Iraqis not to rally behind him. And made the people who were supporting the 3rd Imam not to reach him. The Umayyads gathered a 3000 manned army and besieged the whole household, imam etc. This meant no water for the people in the third Imam’s camp. This also included a 1 month old baby and lots of children. The 1 month old baby was shot via an arrow from the Umayyad while on the Imam’s lap. They didn’t shoot at the Imam but at the child. Then on Ashura the 72 warriors fought the 3000 army and they died. The tents of the women and children were put on fire and the head of the Imam severed and taken back to Damascus. The women and children were arrested and taken too.
That’s just a brief summary of it :\

- I didn't say that there was NOTHING in the Qur'an about women, just that there were many details that had to be filled in later through the Sunnah and fatwas.

- What you said about Ashura is pretty much what I said, just with more details filled in.

- Sorry, yes, 3rd Imam.

- By struggle I don't necessarily mean fighting, though the first and second Fitnas did indeed include plenty of it. I mean a struggle or competition through whatever means to secure power. Even if the first Imam essentially abdicated his worldly power, the rift was still there and continues to this day.

- It's a far better comparison between Shi'a and the Catholic church than between the far more theologically fragmented Sunni and the rigidly hierarchial Catholics. I wasn't trying to say that Shi'a and Catholicism are direct mirrors to each other, just that there are similarities :) The grand Ayatollah and yes, Sistani too are the closest Muslim parallel to the Catholic pope that I can think of, unless you want to bring the Ba'hai into it, and he's more of a Messianic figure (he claimed to be the Occluded Imam, the term for that is Madhi right?) than a worldly leader of the faithful.

- Wahhabis are just as muslim as anyone else from an American perspective, even if their viewpoints aren't held by a wide majority of the followers of Islam. They believe themselves to be Muslim, they derive their viewpoints from one of the 4 great schools of Islamic jurisprudence, their holy book is the Qur'an, they follow the Sunnah in accordance with their reading of it. Trying to say that they aren't "true" muslims is a value judgement, not an empirical fact.

- Beyond all that, thanks for the clarifications - I do pretty well on the Islamic knowledge front considering that I'm an American Agnostic, but it's a vast subject that's easier learned by living it rather than reading about it :)

@rvw i would rather go saudi arabia than iran because iran is sanctioned by most countries nuclear scientist there are getting assassinated and civilians could be killed while trying to eliminate the scientist.And i bet i could get good holiday deals in suadi arabia maybe even more than iran.E.t.c

i am a good church going roman catholic i recently made my confirmation i believe that al religions that describe a god or a heaven are describing the same being in different ways nobody religion is perfect but i dont think that there are any (unless your a satanist) that are wrong god is with all of us we just have to find him in our own way

Hey, Il Duce! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation

Also, I wouldn't mention that you were just confirmed. In most Christian relgions, this happens around 10-14, yes? In a discussion such as this, try to avoid mentioning that you are a kid, it might make people (such as myself) take you less seriously.

Just look at RvW. He is (if I remember correctly) quite young as well, yet see how well he/she expresses him/herself.

mussolini666,
satanism is a form of christianity... for how can you believe in the christian devil *satan* if you don't believe in christianity..?


Being a satanist requires acknowledging God, just, depending on the individual view, perhaps not believing he is as benevolent as the main faith would have one believe.

Actually I dont think that the main point with getting cloth is strictly nakedness, but it is shame. And shame is a very human trait with various content. Some social surroundings define that differently, but lets say it is about covering your vulnerable parts whatever that might be. In a world under the rule of sin, which is anti-divinelove, such as covering those personal things which makes you feel ashamed of, or what might be the target of other people most hurtful attacks that might strike your inner being, is vital and is unquestionable necessary. Someone famous said once that the loss of shame is a sure sign of mental illness.

This thread is bound to get somebody in trouble...

Why did you bump it then...?

The irony...

i just found this thread to be potentially provokative

i butchered that spelling, i know

The sole person it shall 'get in trouble' is you for reviving it.

Whoa... sorry for posting a comment in this thread, i will remember not to do that in the future

ARC, I don't think anyone minds you posting in the forums. Perhaps Richard, but he is a crotchety old man and not to be trusted.

The issue people are having is that you are clearly searching 3 MONTHS back into the forums, just to find some old thread that you can say something (ANYTHING) in.

If you had made a comment relevant to the thread's topic, then people might have been merely annoyed. As it was, you said "Hey, look at this shitty and divisive thread! I should slam my fingers on my keyboard, making a completely irrelevant post. My number of posts on the forum is directly related to my worth as a human being!".

how about we let this go back to the dead? ARC understands his mistake (i hope).

I could not care less. Just seems silly to bring a post back from months ago, especially if the sole intent is to stir up trouble.

how does he have that much time... o.o