Abusing muhammad?

[Reuben_J]

R_not:

So, basically deception has to be a big part of islam. Putting the aura of goodness on bad deeds also has to be a part of islam. And here is why? Because normal people want goodness and to feel good. But, that is not really what mohammed was about - being good or doing good - mohammed was about himself. He wanted to spread islam and to get as much as he could out of it. And he found that he had to kill and he grew to like the loot and slaves he was getting so he had to make the bad into good so people would do what he bid them to do. He had to make promises that all their carnal desires would be met because he couldn’t promise anything spiritual - he knew nothing spiritual.

This is proper observation considering how untouchable and infallible Mohammad was and is in Islam. Liken him to a cult leader is quite appropriate.

 

[Reuben_J]

Paarsurrey:

agree with your above words. One source of knowledge, among many, is:
Observation – > Interpretation / Analysis – > Knowledge

but only if the interpretation/analysis is done within the context; that is why I always say to quote the quranic verse with five preceding and five following verse for the usual context. Then there is no harm.

I love Jesus

Thanks

Quranic verses are not compiled in any chronological order. It is merely different statements haphazardly put together by scribe such as Zaid Ibn Thibist. Therefore it would be hard to really know what’s the context even if you are to read the whole book. I agree with a poster before this – you need interpretation of the verses just like any other holy scriptures. Your problem is you do not have that authority in Islam who can came out with a single authoritative interpretation.

 

[Reuben_J]

Verisimilitude:

More likely in my view Mohammed is visited at Hira and some time afterward by the same spirit that tempted Christ in the desert 600 years before. Hadith name that spirit as the same that spoke to Moses in the burning bush, but its clear Mohammed did not know who accosted him. This spirit is quoted in the Quran.

He said: “Seest Thou? this is the one whom Thou hast honoured above me! If Thou wilt but respite me to the Day of Judgment, I will surely bring his descendants under my sway - all but a few!”
( سورة الإسراء , Al-Isra, Chapter #17, Verse

Frankly, this seems like it is straight from horror movie. It gives me the goose pimple just to think of the implication.

I have so long ago maintained that angel does not frighten but instead it brings peace or sense of peace. The characteristic should not change and never change. The so-called Gabriel of Mohammad should rightly be questionable in its real identity by using references to the nature of appearances of angels in the past.

 

[Reuben_J]

Sister Amy:

I know you all don’t agree with me and I’m not about to try to convince you of anything.

But before you run away with yourselves, I will reiterate once again, that Muhammad himself instructed his companions that it was better not to hit their wives. The permission to do it was, according to scholars later, only lightly with something akin to a toothbrush.

There are so many restrictions on this so-called “beating” (i.e., that the man not do it out of anger, only do it after attempting to correct his wife in another way first, that it be with a toothbrush, that he not leave a mark, that he not do it in public) that frankly you can’t find it at all comparable to domestic abuse–something which happens in every religion and culture.

Islam actually explains how men are to treat their wives if they are in error–and it is to be kindly without causing harm.

My simple answer to this: Islam permits the beating of wives. Beating makes no sense if it is not to inflict pain that’s why the qualification stated by you is laughable. It makes this verse seems very stupid indeed when you explain it that way because it makes no sense at all if a beating that being executed should inflict no pain at all.

However, no matter the qualification for the painless beating, Muslim women have no chance against their husband in this area because of the place Islam put their women in an Islamic community. Clearly their women are second-class citizens, inferior and to be treated with disdain just like domestic animals. In this situation, the reality of the beating when it happens will surely not the unrealistically non-beating that you professed. Sorry, but I have to disagree with your understanding on all this. I know that can be the Islamic teaching but the verse concerned and Islam’s position of women in its society does not point to it. So you are teaching something that is actually the opposite of what the Quran and Islam has on the treatment of women.

I tell you this, it is a bad verse on women. It should not appear in the Quran. Thus when you have it and all the hadiths on women, your explanation seems to be against the context altogether.
Sister Amy:

I’m personally not aware of any religion so explicit, and consider that to be only one aspect in which Islam excels other ways of life.

If you mean Christianity does not excel on the way it views women, I think you are under-informed. But this should be for another thread.
Sister Amy:

Wife-beating was up until recently generally accepted in Christian countries, for instance–why?

This is simply not true. It never was and has been.
Sister Amy:

In Islam, the limits are clear, and far from “condoning” or “encouraging” it, Islam actually discourages it (through Prophetic example) and limits it.

That might be but I don’t see how that can be practiced in your community considering Islamic way of life would not permit this culture to really flourish. I am very convinced of this – you cannot establish a practice if you put in contravening rules there. You need a conducive structure, teaching, culture and spirit in order to make honoring and respecting women a reality. Not in Islam where in principle Mohammad and the Quran had clearly put women in less than equal position with the men. There are many examples, one of which is the permission of polygamy.

 

[R_not]

sister amy brings up Chechnya. And we witnessed muslims following their prophet in the way they attack children.

On September 1, 2004 Chechen Muslim terrorists raided a school in Beslan Russia . They packed the children into the school gym with wired explosives. They kept hundreds of children with thirst and raped them at gunpoint. On the third day the standoff ended when shooting broke out between the hostage takers and Russian security forces. According to official data, 344 civilians were killed, 186 of them children and hundreds more wounded.

Now, I will tell you the truth that I am not a big fan of Russia but they do not go after children like this. And I really do not blame them for what they did after they decided to go in after the hostage takers.

Of course, muslims are always outraged after muslims attack/violate others in an area ‘opening up the area to islam’ that the infidel would fire back at them. OOOOHHHH, then they start with the victimhood stuff.

 

[Jay53]

Sister Amy, for whatever reason, your post here just made me sad. You seem to have closed your mind to learning the truth (or maybe I misinterpreted your earlier posts where you seemed to put forth more objective arguments.)

I Refusal to admit? Not quite. Declaration of exactly the opposite. They did not crucify him, nor did they kill him–that’s what the Qur’an says. That being the case, what Muslims say or don’t say is pretty much irrelevant, since God himself has told you what you need to know.

No, this is what Muhammad told you. He contradicts the Bible which has yet to be proven corrupted. I found some medical and historical evidence for the crucifixion here:
creatingfutures.net/crucifixion.html#Medical
Maybe it will help you if you actually read it.

I can forget about the resurrection for the rest of my life, honestly. It can’t have happened if he never died.

I hope not. IMO, I don’t think you fully studied Christianity when you were a Christian in the same way you are studying Islam now. Not sure why, but that’s your own business. I hope that you will keep an open mind and that the Holy Spirit will lead you.

So you consider Josephus to be more authoritative than God?

No, but I would consider his evidence more trustworthy than Muhammad.

Too bad for you, really. I mean, if you believe that John actually witnessed a crucifixion that didn’t happen, yet you refuse to believe the Qur’an–it doesn’t say much for you, I have to admit. But if you refuse to open your mind and your heart to the truth, there’s nothing else for me to say.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge eyewitnesses’ (plural) accounts, but you are willing to accept the testimony of one man (Muhammad) when his words contradict Jesus whom you accept as a prophet? I thought prophets were not supposed to contradict previous messages?

Have you even considered that some of Islam could be false - I don’t mean in a debate or on a forum, but in your own personal thinking. Just for one example, do you not ever wonder why God would void someone’s prayer just because he didn’t say it at the “right” time or he didn’t wash himself in a prescribed manner. Deep down inside does this sound logical to you? Maybe it does, in which case I’ll just have to pray harder.

Perhaps, if your mind is still open to learning, you can read about the lives of the Saints or the other book I suggested in another thread about Eucharistic Miracles. God has been and is still today trying to bring His children to the Truth.

Edit: I thought of a Saint you should look up: St. Faustina Kowalska. I think her diary would be interesting for you to read.

Actually both Muhammad and Jesus are right, since they both preached the same thing–they both taught their followers to worship God, alone. And that is the teaching I follow.

If that was the only teaching Muslims followed I would have no problem with Islam. It’s the condoning of murder (which you have already accepted), poor treatment of women (which you sometimes excuse/rationalize as being ok), and the evil intention to “take over the world” (not sure where you stand on that one.) that I have a problem with.

 

[chrisse]

Sister Amy is giving us all the perfect reason of why we must continue our critical examination of mohammet, the qur’an, hadiths, and sunnah. Islam is a cult of enslavement and indoctrination of its followers, and is very dangerous for mankind now and the future.

I at least will not die without putting up the good fight for the salvation of mankind from this death cult.

:knight1:
The 21st Century Crusade : arm yourself with knowledge, fire with words.

 

[swariffin]

How can you not believe in Mohammed? He really existed.

He is indeed existed. The thing I believe about Muhammad that he did existed around year 600 AD. I don’t believe in his attitude and life, I believe that he was sincerely looking for God, but I don’t believe that he found God.

 

[sedonaman]

Madam, I do not show concern for persecution that is self-inflicted, while at the same time those same people inflict persecution on innocents.

I used to be neutral on the Arab-Israeli conflict until one day I looked at a map of the world and noticed that Islamic countries form a wide swath of land from North Africa’s Atlantic coast all the way through Southeast Asia. There’s lots of oil under it. But for some strange reason Muslims can’t do without an itsy-bitsy strip of desert land [called Israel] right in the middle, with not a drop of oil on it.

If Muslims truly wanted peace, they would have used a small portion of their land and their vast oil wealth to resettle the so-called Palestinians, instead of buying solid gold palaces, solid silver Rolls Royces, and expensive travel to the West for the men to gamble and drink in exclusive casinos and for the women to shop in Gucci stores, and to support the families of suicide bombers. But no. Jordan even threw them out of their country. I’m not talking about asking them to take in people of a different culture, but their own kind – culture, language, and religion. And why won’t they let them in? It is because Islam is all about war, conquest, and death, even if it is their own people who have to die.

To hear Muslims talk, you’d think there is enough room on the planet for only Muslims.

That’s why “Wherever you have Islam, you will have war.”

 

[swariffin]

sorry swariffin, I didn’t understand your question.

No problem, my dear brother. Actually I was to a point of making a joke only. Please don’t take it too seriously. My point is, to be asked to our Muslim brothers/sisters, it to what extend that we ask things about Muhammad is considered as an abuse.

 

[sedonaman]

Quranic verses are not compiled in any chronological order. It is merely different statements haphazardly put together by scribe such as Zaid Ibn Thibist. Therefore it would be hard to really know what’s the context even if you are to read the whole book.

Its confusion is considered profoundness. [Check this out http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/20959/sec_id/20959]

I agree with a poster before this – you need interpretation of the verses just like any other holy scriptures.

It’s more basic than that. Everything has to be interpreted. It’s what the brain naturally does to understand something. This kind of philosophy is not recognized by Islam because the Prophet, the “perfect” example didn’t do it.

Your problem is you do not have that authority in Islam who can came out with a single authoritative interpretation.

There can be no authoritative interpretation because Sister Amy says that Islamic texts are not subject to any human interpretation.

 

[sedonaman]

How can you not believe in Mohammed? He really existed.

Saying you believe he existed is not the same as saying you believe in him, and you know it.

 

[sedonaman]

I found some medical and historical evidence for the crucifixion here:
creatingfutures.net/crucifixion.html#Medical
Maybe it will help you if you actually read it.

No, no. You don’t understand.

The message of Islam is something like this :

“Believe in God. Do good deeds. If you do enough of them, you’ll get to heaven. Respect Jesus, for he was a mighty prophet, who delivered God’s message to the children of Israel. Also believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he performed many miracles, and that he was the Messiah. But whatever you do, don’t believe that he died on the cross for your sins. And don’t believe that he rose from the dead. In fact, the worst possible sin you can commit is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God."

Notice that Islam rejects Christianity’s essential requirements for salvation while accepting certain other doctrines. For instance, Muslims are commanded to believe in God, but even Satan and his demons believe in God.

Muslims are commanded to do good deeds, but all religions teach this. Muslims are allowed to believe certain things about Jesus (such as his prophet status and virgin birth), but these beliefs do not save a person. Yet when we come to beliefs that are essential for salvation – the deity of Christ, his death on the cross, and his resurrection from the dead – we find that Islam is violently opposed to these crucial doctrines. Islam, then, looks exactly like the religion we predicted that Satan would form, for it denies what is necessary for people to come to God.

 

[sedonaman]

One source of knowledge, among many, is:

Observation – > Interpretation / Analysis – > Knowledge

Hi:

What are some of the other “many”.

 

[Jay53]

Islam, then, looks exactly like the religion we predicted that Satan would form, for it denies what is necessary for people to come to God.

I agree. And you have to throw in the “all prophets are sinless” so that everything Muhammad does against the Ten Commandments is OK and he becomes “perfect”.
(I’m still seeing this phrase around here and I just don’t get how rational, intelligent people can see a “sinful” person as “perfect” - whether they believe his teachings or not.)

 

[swariffin]

No, no. You don’t understand.

The message of Islam is something like this :

“Believe in God. Do good deeds. If you do enough of them, you’ll get to heaven. Respect Jesus, for he was a mighty prophet, who delivered God’s message to the children of Israel. Also believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he performed many miracles, and that he was the Messiah. But whatever you do, don’t believe that he died on the cross for your sins. And don’t believe that he rose from the dead. In fact, the worst possible sin you can commit is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God."

Notice that Islam rejects Christianity’s essential requirements for salvation while accepting certain other doctrines. For instance, Muslims are commanded to believe in God, but even Satan and his demons believe in God.

Muslims are commanded to do good deeds, but all religions teach this. Muslims are allowed to believe certain things about Jesus (such as his prophet status and virgin birth), but these beliefs do not save a person. Yet when we come to beliefs that are essential for salvation – the deity of Christ, his death on the cross, and his resurrection from the dead – we find that Islam is violently opposed to these crucial doctrines. Islam, then, looks exactly like the religion we predicted that Satan would form, for it denies what is necessary for people to come to God.

Muslim Woman or Sister Amy (Geez, I forgot which one) claimed that you can still goes to heaven without doing good deeds, as long as you do the first, second, third, and fifth pillars of Islam, but not the fourth.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

** In the name of Allah , the Most Gracious , Ever Merciful **

Salaam/ Peace

… you can still goes to heaven without doing good deeds, .

let me clear one thing . Muslims believe , the most major sin is blasphemy /shirk/ take diety besides God.

If one is the best person in the earth but take deities , then s/he will get rewards in this world only. To get reward from God in hereafter , u must worship God without partner.

Prophet Muhammed (p) taught us to respect both Mother Mary & Jesus (pbut) but also taught not to take any human as equal to God. Before his death , he warned followers not to overpraise him as Christians made the mistake about Jesus (p).

 

[Sister_Amy]

I repeat. You completely missed the point.

Rather, I think you have missed the point. You said what more or less means that the major fallacy of the Qur’an was in claiming that Jesus wasn’t crucified. And you used for proof of crucifixion the writings of Josephus. Meaning that Josephus is more authoritative than God (i.e., Qur’an.) Historians can’t really report the truth if it isn’t available or widely known. Whereas God witnesses all things, and can report the truth that is otherwise unknown. The Qur’an is from God–far more authoritative than anything else you can produce.

The bible is a collection of writings spread by thousands of years, but they all have one thing in common.** All are testimonies of eyewitnesses.** For 600 years, hundreds of men, both saints and sinners, wrote about, chronicled, and commented on the trial of Jesus of Nazareth. You would have us believe that everyone was lying. Everyone was telling a fable. They didn’t really see what they thought they saw. You are ignoring historical fact.

I forget sometimes people still believe this nonsense. You’re convinced that there were 600 years worth of eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. I wonder when sense will strike you, and how you will respond. More to the point, the “trial” of Jesus is pretty much irrelevant, since I haven’t taken one side or the other as to the historical accuracy of it. It is only the death and crucifixion part to which I object. And quite frankly, I’m much more willing to believe God’s word preserved for 1400 years than I am anything you could produce.

As you so adequately put, you could forget about the resurrection forever. That is where the lying began. People throughout history have claimed that he didn’t rise from the dead. But, no one… NO ONE… ever claimed that he wasn’t put to death.

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it, why would the Qur’an claim such a strange thing then, if it weren’t true?

It wasn’t until Mohammad wrote the Koran…

Muhammad didn’t write the Qur’an. Haven’t I made that clear yet? Should I put it in my signature?

that Jesus’ death was questioned.

Do you really believe this to be the case? Have not some of your brethren claimed that Muhammad was only repeating a “gnostic heresy?” Implying therefore that such a claim, regarding Jesus’s death, had in fact been questioned before the Qur’an. Food for thought. Either way–I trust God’s words on the matter over those of men.

Your point about Josephus was misplaced. He was not commenting on theology and never claimed to have.

I never said otherwise. I have read some of Josephus, by the way–and I have also read some scholars of his work who consider the passages regarding the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ to be forgeries… ouch! But that’s neither here nor there. Let’s take the writings at their word, for now.

He was a Roman historian whose writings exist to this day on many topics, including the trial and execution of Jesus. If Mohammad had commented on Jesus the way he did on the other prophets, this problem would never exist.

Again, you assume I don’t know who Josephus was. I guess I can say you’re missing the point. Who knows better what really happened–God, or Josephus? Simple question, I would think. The very fact that the Qur’anic account differs from Christian theology is reason to take notice, and quite frankly given your poor evidence, a reason to believe the Qur’an instead.

His recognition of those before him was benevolent, until he unknowingly decided to rewrite history.

Rewrite history? The truth was covered, hidden. The Qur’an actually revealed the truth.

All Mohammad had to do was say that the resurrection was actually just an apparition, as many Christian critics have.

Why do you think he didn’t, then? Why would he say that Jesus didn’t die at all, and was just raised up to heaven? Unless it were true!

Instead, people, like you, turn their eyes when confronted with facts they cannot dispute. Mohammad said it, therefore it’s true. Sorry, but at least John has a legitimate claim since he was actually there at the time.

Rather, God said it. Are you claiming that God does not know what happened? I’ve never seen any indisputable proof that (a) John witnessed the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, or that (b) John actually recorded it in the Gospel you refer to as John.

Note one thing: I did not call Mohammad a liar. He was simply mistaken, and that’s being generous.

It’s easy to pretend that others are wrong. But in this case, it’s you who were mistaken. Muhammad wouldn’t have said a word on the subject except that God revealed the truth. It’s time for you to listen to it.

But you just called John and all the other gospel writers, early church fathers, and historians… lairs. You cannot say that it didn’t happen without calling everything recorded and saved to this day a lie.

I called them liars, did I? Don’t be silly.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Madam, I do not show concern for persecution that is self-inflicted, while at the same time those same people inflict persecution on innocents. I have values based on natural law and natural justice evolved from the teachings of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, madam, you have values based on pre-historic, survival of the fittest savagery where natural law and natural justice play no part.

I’m sorry, I can’t keep myself from laughing out loud at such an outrageous statement. I remain unimpressed, not the least by your refusal to acknowledge the reality of the suffering of people around the world because you wish to take sides with the aggressor. It’s very typical, unsurprising, and well… lame. It really does not elevate your opinion, as much as you might wish to seem on top. My values are based on teachings from God, directly. And I will take God’s laws over man’s any day of the week.

Madam, I have no need to try and impress you, and nothing could have been further from my mind. However, you answer shows how seething you are that the actual texts of your ideology are now so freely available, together with so many arabic speaking islamic experts who are exposing those texts that have not been translated.

Again with the puffiness. I am seething that my texts are freely available? What did I say before? That being in a library does not make a person well-read. Indeed. The fact that texts are available means they can be read, not that you understand them (as quite clearly, you do not.) I’m not angry about that, though I imagine you can be quite embarassed–having access to so much knowledge yet unable to grasp it. Too high on the shelf perhaps?

Madam, you are showing how truly desperate you are, attacking the person, not addressing the argument. You lost the debate, madam, right there.

Madam, again. I’m merely making fun of you, not even attempting a debate. Because you have no legitimate argument against me.

:knight1:
The 21st Century Crusade : arm yourself with knowledge, fire with words

As what I said before–you are armed only with lies. Seek the truth.

 

[R_not]

Muslim Woman or Sister Amy (Geez, I forgot which one) claimed that you can still goes to heaven without doing good deeds, as long as you do the first, second, third, and fifth pillars of Islam, but not the fourth.

And you guys both forgot that predestination means that they were already predestined to heaven or hell and no one has said if any of it overrides that - good deeds, dying for allah while killing others, practicing whatever pillars they are supposd to practice, OR worshiping that black rock so it will speak for them at Judgement Day.

So, mohammed even left an incomplete message.