Abusing muhammad?

[Jay53]

Condoning of murder? That’s pure silliness. Islam does not condone murder. Neither does Islam condone poor treatment of women. The standard for treatment of women is actually quite high in comparison to other religions/cultures, but in my opinion it is perfectly correct.

I’ve never heard of the intention to take over the world, except on a cartoon I used to watch as a kid called “Pinky and the Brain.”

Did you not even read your own responses to the thread about killing apostates? If not, here they are: (in case I don’t post this right it was post #20 in response to post #19 in the thread “How do “moderate” or “liberal” Muslims feel about Muslims leaving Islam”. I also responded to you after that, but I don’t know if you read my post either. I know you don’t care about my opinion, but with this post of yours I lost all measure of respect for you - especially when you didn’t even clarify or retract your statements.

Sister Amy: May Allah protect him and keep him safe, and reward him for all the work he does.

I didn’t say “no” and I didn’t say “yes,” but I said “Not necessarily.” **The answer from the sheikh (hafidhahullah) is a good answer–one I’ve referred to myself a couple times. **
What’s also important to understand is the role of apostasy in early Islam–that it isn’t just changing one’s faith or creed, but in actuality committing treason and going to war with the Muslims. In such a case, absolutely, the penalty is death.

But there are other scholars you can check with who also point out that sometimes leaving the religion of Islam is not that kind of apostasy, and especially without an Islamic state to commit treason against, the penalty of death doesn’t quite make sense.

I don’t disagree with what the sheikh wrote. But sometimes that ruling does not apply. (Note, for instance, that he is in Saudi Arabia, and not the USA, where circumstances are drastically different.)

(1) This is the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: **“Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” **(reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no. 3017).

(2) The one who has known the religion which Allaah revealed, entered it and practised it, then rejected it, despised it and left it, is a person who does not deserve to live on the earth of Allaah and eat from the provision of Allaah.

(3) By leaving Islaam, the apostate opens the way for everyone who wants to leave the faith, thus spreading apostasy and encouraging it.

(4) The apostate is not to be killed without warning. Even though his crime is so great, he is given a last chance, a respite of three days in which to repent. If he repents, he will be left alone; if he does not repent, then he will be killed.

(5) If the punishment for murder and espionage (also known as high treason) is death, then what should be the punishment for the one who disbelieves in the Lord of mankind and despises and rejects His religion? Is espionage or shedding blood worse than leaving the religion of the Lord of mankind and rejecting it?

(6) None of those who bleat about personal freedom and freedom of belief would put up with a neighbour’s child hitting their child or justify this as “personal freedom,” so how can they justify leaving the true religion and rejecting the sharee’ah which Allaah revealed to teach mankind about His unity and bring justice and fairness to all?

We ask Allaah for safety and health. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad .
islamqa.com/en/ref/811/apostasy

I’m sorry you didn’t appreciate the resources I suggested you read. Maybe just keep them in mind. What I was trying to point out with them is that throughout the centuries God has showed Himself to His people - or are you prepared to believe that all of the Saints throughout the centuries made their experiences up, people made up the Eucharistic miracles, Padre Pio didn’t really have the stigmata, Our Lady of Fatima didn’t really appear, Juan Diego made up Our Lady of Guadalupe and somehow created the image on his tunic etc. That’s an awful lot of people you are prepared to call liars vs. one man (Muhammad) who wrote the Quran.

I also have a question in light of your whole argument being you believe the Quran is from God: Why do you believe the Quran is from God? What makes the Quran from God and not the Bible?
Just curious.

The standard for treatment of women is actually quite high in comparison to other religions/cultures,

In what way is Islam’s treatment of women better than in Christianity?

 

[Jay53]

I’ve never heard of the intention to take over the world, except on a cartoon I used to watch as a kid called “Pinky and the Brain.”

:ehh: Where have you been living?

“It is he (Allah) who has sent his Messenger (saw) with guidance and the religion of truth, in order for it to be dominant over all other religions, even though the Mushrikoon (disbelievers) hate it.” (EMQ at-Tawbah, 9: 33)
duaat.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/how-islam-will-dominate-the-world/

Hundreds of activists strutted screaming Islamist epithets, including “Islam is the only truth” and “Islam shall rule all.”
wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53574

Therefore there are three main ways in which a state or country can become Daar ul-Islam (the domain of Islam):

1.   <!--[endif]-->The majority of its citizens embrace Islam and implement the Sharee’ah on their own accord

1.   <!--[endif]-->A group of Muslims rise, overthrow the government and implement the Sharee’ah by force (coup)

1.   <!--[endif]-->The Islamic state carries out Jihaad as its foreign policy and removes the government

If the Muslims are unable to convince their people (e.g. through peaceful da’wah) to embrace Islam and implement the Sharee’ah, it then becomes an obligation upon them to make hijrah and unite (build their own community and execute the Sharee’ah over themselves) and then rise against the government by force at a later date, regardless of whether they are the majority or the minority. duaat.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/how-islam-will-dominate-the-world/

atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/02/islam_will_domi.html Note the placard that says “Islam Will Dominate” showing the Islamic flag flying over the White House.

These are just a few I could find quickly. I can look for more if you like.

And if this situation weren’t so serious I would think it’s like Saturday morning cartoons - only it’s “Superfriends vs. The Legion of Doom”.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

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

Salaam/ Peace

…
In what way is Islam’s treatment of women better than in Christianity?

Women in Islam Versus Women in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition

The Myth and The Reality

By: Sherif Abdel Azim, Ph.D.- Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/

 

[sedonaman]

(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.)

It gets back to what Humpty Dumpty said [see below].

 

[R_not]

I guess if you keep telling yourself it is better then in ‘lala’ land it must be.

No muslim nation has any safe houses where abused women can go if they are in harm’s way.

sharia laws do nothing to the man if they get carried away in their abuse and even take it to the level of ‘honor killings’.

And it has been shown to you the reality verses what is going on in ‘lala’ land time and again.

It is too bad that you didn’t do any research into islam and have shown this type of behavior to them when they started shoveling the B.S about islam to you. How you can follow a guy like mohammed is another one for ‘lala’ land residents.

 

[sedonaman]

Muhammad spoke only what he was commanded to by God.

And all you have is his word on what Allah said.

BTW, every time you say “God” instead of “Allah” you are blaspheming.

 

[sedonaman]

the science of hadith.

What “science”?

 

[dolphinlove]

:console:

:shamrock2:

thank you sam, hugs to you also BIG time!!! look forward to your bodily person becomes Catholic too

 

[sedonaman]

Here by divine favors is meant heavenly knowledge by way of revelation and visions that are bestowed directly upon man.

Then what makes you so sure God doesn’t bend down and whisper those “un-Islamic” thoughts into the ears of a kafir?

 

[Sister_Amy]

This is a bad example, as western nations have progressed beyond that. While those attitudes are alive and well in Muslim nations. Women in the Muslim world (unless westernized) are always under the authority of a man. Beginning with their fathers, brothers and brother in laws, and eventually their husbands.

Actually it’s a perfect example–Christianity did nothing to help the status of those women, and their modern rights (as you say western nations have “progressed”) are only the benefit of more secular societies. Christianity didn’t elevate women–the societies had to leave Christianity for women to get their rights.

On the other hand, women in Islam are never “under the authority of a man” any more than men are under the authority of other men (i.e., the law.)

That is quite obviously not true. Women in practically ALL nations in the past were property. The difference is that in the Christian world that eventually changed, whereas in the Muslim world it is much the same as it was in the middle ages.

Actually, women in Islam are NEVER considered to be property.

Unless of course the Muslims in question are westernized.

Corrupted, you mean. In which case the women do lose their rights.

Further, these repression is enforced by the religious authorities. You don’t find it odd, that secular Muslim nations, and Western nations have much better human rights records for women than religious Muslim nations? Even atheist nations have a better records and that is sad.

I can’t imagine where you’re getting your information–this is totally bogus. Secular “Muslim” nations oppress women horribly–it’s because they choose secularism and man-made laws over the laws of God. One Western nation in particular (the USA) has historically had a good human rights record not because it was secular but because it was committed to justice, a fundamental principle of Islamic law.

I remember a sad event in Pakistan where that its secular government tried to reform its laws so that a woman did not have to have male witnesses in order to file a rape charge. The religious leaders called for massive protests in order stop even that slight gain in human dignity.

There is nothing in Islam which says that women require any witnesses to claim rape. Her own testimony is quite enough. It is secular corruption, and departure from Islamic principles, that would force a woman to require witnesses in the first place. Because according to Islam, her testimony is sufficient.

Do not attempt to say that Islam respects women when it actively seeks to slow down, or in the case of Sharia in Afghanistan reverse the progress of women.

Afghanistan is an interesting case, actually. Shari’ah is not fully implemented, but Shari’ah is something I would welcome whereever I am, provided it is accurately and authentically applied. Too often, that is not the case. But Shari’ah does not reverse the progress of women–it promotes the education of women, actually.

Muslims in general would find themselves more readily listened to, if they would be honest in their introspection. Almost every other religion realizes that it has things to answer for, or that it shouldn’t be proud of. Only Islam seems to feel that it is above reproach no matter what its practitioners do. For a religion that names itself on submission, Islam often shows a surprising lack of a good, healthy fear of God.

I don’t think Muslims need to impress anyone–they’re nothing but honest about their history. The problem lately is that nobody else is being honest about their own history, and are completely deluded about the case of islam.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

No Muslim had ever and can answer the question what previous Christians answered. How come History tells us Jesus died and got ressurected? But the Koran contradicts history. Why? Its because its a lie. God didn`t write the Koran, the followers of Mohammed did, and claimed its Gods word. You Muslims really need to start submitting yourselves to Allah instead to the words of Mohammed.

 

[Reuben_J]

Sometimes it’s worthwhile to explain a point, and sometimes it’s not. The posts in this thread are kind of like those of kindergardeners, as regards their sophistication. There’s not really anything to respond to, and any attempt on my part to do so would surely go right over everyone’s heads. (Except for a couple of posters with whom I am more familiar, and for whom I do make an effort to explain things properly.)
The posts here aren’t even worth opening my mind to develop an articulate response–much less to make me inclined to, as you put it “learn the truth.” I have the truth, you see, and I spend considerable effort trying to understand and act on it. Enough truth to see, for instance, what is a sophisticated question, and what is a sophomoric attempt at debate.

Intellectual pride will not serve your cause here, Sister Amy, no matter how high you think of yourself. If an idea cannot be understood in the simplest and the most direct language then I would suspect whether that idea is worth considering at all. It’s surprising why it is so difficult for you to tell us what you want to, Islam having prided itself of making things simple and easy. Otherwise it would look merely as a way of simply brushing aside issues brought up by other posters.

Muhammad spoke only what he was commanded to by God. What matters to me is God’s words, in the Qur’an. The validity of the Bible doesn’t even matter in comparison to the greatness of the Qur’an. I mean, as a Catholic you can concern yourself with whether the Bible is corrupt or not, whereas for me, I’ll spend my time understanding the Qur’an, which is far more important in my daily life.

OK I can understand the self affirmation …

Sorry, it doesn’t prove anything to me. I’m not sure if you knew this or not, but many people had been crucified at that time–it’s not something that the people couldn’t imagine or describe. My only assertion is that Jesus was not killed, and that he wasn’t crucified. There are limitless explanations as to the events, even if they are honestly reported (and I’m not convinced even that they are!) So like I said, it doesn’t prove anything to me, not about Jesus.

You state your opinion and that’s the end of the story. Then it makes no sense for you to be in this Forum.

Of course I didn’t fully study Christianity–why would I have needed to? Do all Christians need to fully study Christianity to be Christians?

The invitation to understand is so that you will not misunderstand what being said by the Christians. Unfortunately you as being ex-Christians are very unimpressing in its knowledge it’s little wonder you left it. I would be happy to ignore that factor and assume that you are only a full fledge Muslim who has no understanding of Christianity. The tragedy here is that the posters thought you have some background on Christianity considering that you had been there. But you are more like planten, paarsurrey and Muslim Woman.

Muhammad, incidentally enough, was called Al-Amin by his tribe, before he preached Islam. It means the trustworthy. He was called the trustworthy person, Al-Amin, and you consider who again to be more authoritative? Interesting.

Who called him that? I would be more convinced if that was substantiated by his actions.

It’s quite simple really, the elegance here. The most important evidence to me is the testimony of the Almighty, the Creator, the All-Knowing. That is of absolute importance. It doesn’t matter what anyone else saw, or thought they saw, or said they saw, or said they thought they saw, or said they heard that someone saw… get my drift? And I have the testimony of God–how could I accept anything else over that?

Sure. But I think that is the contention here regardless of what you think. Was it really the testimony of the Creator? You need to start from there in order to impress the kindergarteners here.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Josephus is significant because he is a contemporary outside source. Its always good when outside sources agree with a point of view. When this is taken along with Sacred Scripture it makes for a good argument. Since the only significant opposition didn’t occur until Mohammed had his book written centuries later. It makes the case that much stronger.

It doesn’t really prove anything, except that whoever Josephus talked to, in order to learn the history, accepted that opinion. It doesn’t make it true (assuming still that the relevant sections are not actually forgeries in the first place.)

And again I’ll remind you that many Catholics on this forum claim Muhammad to have been following a “gnostic heresy”, suggesting that such claims you find in Islam regarding the crucifixion are not new–that they were known early in church history, simply rejected. Hm!!

No there wasn’t 600 years of eyewitnesses.** However the gospels were written by eyewitnesses**. They are collaborated by secular eye witnesses. And really no one significant seems to have had a different story until a raider from the Arabian peninsula centuries later, who most certainly wasn’t an eye witness, said otherwise. Exactly why should Mohammed be taken seriously at all?

Muhammad should be taken seriously because God sent him as a messenger, and reinforced him with miracles. I’m going to come back to the statement in bold.

The Quran makes many strange claims, then again its author, was a strange man.

If the author were a human, the Qur’an would not be the miracle that it is.

Well, if that’s true it would go a long way to improving his reputation.

Of course it is, it’s the only reason I stand here to argue with you.

Well more accurately many (including some Muslims interestingly) believe that when Muhammed wrote the Quran he based it on a blending of Christian, Jewish and Gnostic beliefs. I don’t believe there was a Gnostic belief about Jesus being smuggled off the Cross, but they did hold to ideas that Jesus was not truly physical and such.

Actually, there are no Muslims who believe that Muhammad wrote the Qur’an. A person cannot claim to actually be a Muslim if he believes Muhammad wrote the Qur’an.

God certainly. Which is why it is interesting that outside sources agree with God’s inspired word in the Bible.

Now things are getting tricky for you.

We would believe that why?

Because it’s miraculous, of course.

Madness? Desire for personal gain? There are many reasons that are much more believable than eye witnesses and outside sources, combined with centuries of a never changing story, suddenly being pronounced wrong by someone with no connection to the events.

It must be tough facing the fact that your entire religion is based on something that never even happened.

Yes God said through through the Gospels that Christ died and rose from the dead. So John the beloved of Christ lied, but some desert raider centuries later was right? Again why would anyone believe this?

Now you have a little problem. Who wrote the Gospels? Eyewitnesses, or God? You must make up your mind, mustn’t you? Did eyewitnesses really see it and record it? Or did God inspire those men to describe such events? I wonder how you’ll answer. I of course, think that neither happened, but I’m curious what you’ll say.

You’re right God has revealed the Truth, and that Truth is the Christ died on the Cross and rose from the dead. As foretold. Muhammed tried to obfuscate this and unfortunately led many of his people astray. Yet the truth remains untarnished to this day.

Indeed not. The truth has exposed for over 1400 years. Perhaps you can ask God to guide you to it.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Madam, you are still attacking the person, not engaging in the points raised in the debate. If you are not here to debate, but rather ridicule, then please leave the forum.

Again, you have lost the debate. You have declared that you have no answers to legitimate criticisms raised other than ridicule and insults to the person. As far as I am concerned, you are no longer a participant on this forum.

:yyeess: One down to the armour of knowledge.

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

I haven’t even started to debate with you. Your posts are too filled with puffiness and not enough substance with which to debate in the first place, even if I had any interest in doing so (which I don’t.) Mostly I am just poking fun of you to see if you keep on addressing me as “Madam” and declaring yourself the victor of a debate which never took place. It kind of makes me laugh.

 

[MarcellusW]

And all you have is his word on what Allah said.

BTW, every time you say “God” instead of “Allah” you are blaspheming.

So God can only speak Arabic?

 

[Reuben_J]

Actually it’s a perfect example–Christianity did nothing to help the status of those women, and their modern rights (as you say western nations have “progressed”) are only the benefit of more secular societies. Christianity didn’t elevate women–the societies had to leave Christianity for women to get their rights.

This is truly nonsensical. Please give reference to this statement.

On the other hand, women in Islam are never “under the authority of a man” any more than men are under the authority of other men (i.e., the law.)

Actually, women in Islam are NEVER considered to be property.

How so? It’s from your own hadith.

There is nothing in Islam which says that women require any witnesses to claim rape. Her own testimony is quite enough. It is secular corruption, and departure from Islamic principles, that would force a woman to require witnesses in the first place. Because according to Islam, her testimony is sufficient.

This has been discussed a while back in previous thread in which you were a participant. This contention had been rebuffed and proven wrong.

Afghanistan is an interesting case, actually. Shari’ah is not fully implemented, but Shari’ah is something I would welcome whereever I am, provided it is accurately and authentically applied. Too often, that is not the case. But Shari’ah does not reverse the progress of women–it promotes the education of women, actually.

You may be right here. However one thing it rpoves is that Shariah is not practical if it’s so difficult to implement.

I don’t think Muslims need to impress anyone–they’re nothing but honest about their history. The problem lately is that nobody else is being honest about their own history, and are completely deluded about the case of islam.

I think you had used the word impress earlier on, Sister Amy. If it’s being used here it only means that Islam has nothning to show that it’s truly a God given religion that bears good fruit. If you don’t agree with this statement, by all means repudiate it and convince us that it’s not so.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Did you not even read your own responses to the thread about killing apostates? If not, here they are: (in case I don’t post this right it was post #20 in response to post #19 in the thread “How do “moderate” or “liberal” Muslims feel about Muslims leaving Islam”. I also responded to you after that, but I don’t know if you read my post either. I know you don’t care about my opinion, but with this post of yours I lost all measure of respect for you - especially when you didn’t even clarify or retract your statements.

The death penalty for treason is not murder. Murder is forbidden, but the death penalty is a matter of the law, and it is not murder, not according to anyone’s definition. Murder is killing outside of the law, which of course is not condoned in Islam. Or do you really not know the difference?

I’m sorry you didn’t appreciate the resources I suggested you read. Maybe just keep them in mind. What I was trying to point out with them is that throughout the centuries God has showed Himself to His people - or are you prepared to believe that all of the Saints throughout the centuries made their experiences up, people made up the Eucharistic miracles, Padre Pio didn’t really have the stigmata, Our Lady of Fatima didn’t really appear, Juan Diego made up Our Lady of Guadalupe and somehow created the image on his tunic etc. That’s an awful lot of people you are prepared to call liars vs. one man (Muhammad) who wrote the Quran.

Made it up, or were duped, or that people made things up about them. Why should I believe all these people in the first place? It’s much easier to believe one man’s experiences, especially if there is proof, than to believe many people’s experiences, without proof.

I also have a question in light of your whole argument being you believe the Quran is from God: Why do you believe the Quran is from God? What makes the Quran from God and not the Bible?

The proof is the Qur’an itself. That’s a nice little circular argument, isn’t it? The Qur’an proves that it is from God in its miraculous nature, the miraculous language of it, and the miraculous signs contained within it. For me, the guidance to the Qur’an came from reading it. The more I read and prayed about it, the more powerful it became to me. And since reading it I haven’t once been able to believe anything other than that it was revealed by God.

The Bible, on the other hand, doesn’t even claim to really be all from God. There is no proof in it, nothing that in reading it convinces me that it is entirely of divine origin. (Although there are certain parts, of course, which stand out.)

In what way is Islam’s treatment of women better than in Christianity?

In every way.

 

[Sister_Amy]

:ehh: Where have you been living

These are just a few I could find quickly. I can look for more if you like.

And if this situation weren’t so serious I would think it’s like Saturday morning cartoons - only it’s “Superfriends vs. The Legion of Doom”.

ROFL!!!

Good one… a couple of wackos on blogs are very authoritative in islam, you think?

Heh. You have a different idea of “taking over the world” and “world domination” than I have, and than Islam means. That’s all.

It’s always good to check back over some key verses in the Qur’an, like 2:256.

 

[Sister_Amy]

And all you have is his word on what Allah said.

BTW, every time you say “God” instead of “Allah” you are blaspheming.

I really don’t think you have any claim to say what is blasphemy and what is not.

I type “God” because I’m trying to speak your language, and use terms you understand. And you accuse me of blasphemy? How little you understand.

 

[Sister_Amy]

What “science”?

Don’t you wish you knew?

A “hadith” is something that the Prophet Muhammad said, did, or was done in is presence that he approved of, which was reported by someone who witnessed it, who then narrated it to others.

The science of hadith is the study of authenticating those ahadith (plural), by checking their content and their chain of narration, to ensure that reports by liars or forgetful people are not transmitted the same as those reports by honest people.