Catholic Considering Islam

  • Thread starter Thread starter IrishDude45
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Steven_John said:
To clarify the last question and follow the same terminology as you.

One does not need the Gospel to become Christian Pauls epistles are sufficient.

I would argue that the Gospel is the revelation in Jesus Christ of God’s mercy to sinners and indeed the Paul epistles are credited to have been that or he would not have started the Christians.
Click to expand...
No, Paul’s epistles are not sufficient. :confused: Sorry, but you’ve really confused me now. :o

St. Paul did not “start” the Christians. Jesus Christ did. And He started them through His first Apostles (i.e. Peter, James, John et al). St. Peter was the first head of the Church (Pope), chosen by Jesus, Himself.
 
Jay53 said:
No, Paul’s epistles are not sufficient. :confused: Sorry, but you’ve really confused me now. :o

St. Paul did not “start” the Christians. Jesus Christ did. And He started them through His first Apostles (i.e. Peter, James, John et al). St. Peter was the first head of the Church (Pope), chosen by Jesus, Himself.
Click to expand...
I dont read it like that i think the apostles were and discipled to Jews that got it.

Where as many people Paul preached to had none of the four Gospels and no Jewish heritage to draw on.

The term Christian was original given to Pauline converts not those following the apostles. (today the term Christian is another matter)

If you asked Jesus (pbwh) what religion are you and the apostles they would have said we are Jews.

Again the people at antioch for example would have come from wide background, helenists etc.
They had not the 4 documents you refer to as Gospels no Jewish upbringing just Pauls teachings.
We have today Pauls teachings in the Epistles as you call them.

There fore what i previously referred to as the Gospel according to Paul that i now know as the Epistle of Paul is sufficient to become Christian.
 
Steven_John said:
I dont read it like that i think the apostles were and discipled to Jews that got it.

The apostles were what? :confused:

Where as many people Paul preached to had none of the four Gospels and no Jewish heritage to draw on.

St. Paul was preaching Jesus’ teachings that are recorded in the 4 Gospels - i.e. Christ’s Death and Resurrection, the Eucharist, etc.

The term Christian was original given to Pauline converts not those following the apostles. (today the term Christian is another matter)

Why would you call them “Pauline converts”. St. Paul (and St. Barnabas who was also there) were converting people to the message of Jesus - that He is the Son of God - as recognized by all of Jesus’ Apostles.

If you asked Jesus (pbwh) what religion are you and the apostles they would have said we are Jews.

Perhaps. But had all of the Jews accepted Jesus and all of His teachings there would have been no need for a distinction. All Christians today would be “Jews”.

Again the people at antioch for example would have come from wide background, helenists etc.
They had not the 4 documents you refer to as Gospels no Jewish upbringing just Pauls teachings.
We have today Pauls teachings in the Epistles as you call them.

But Paul was not alone in His missionary work. He was accompanied by St. Barnabas in Antioch and also later by Silas, Timothy and Luke. They were all preaching the Gospel of Jesus - all of His teachings.

There fore what i previously referred to as the Gospel according to Paul that i now know as the Epistle of Paul is sufficient to become Christian.

No, again, that is not sufficient. A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and follows His teachings as revealed through the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Again, if you read the Early Church Fathers, all of the disciples, Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, Stephen (the first martyr), Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Matthias, et al (I’m sure I missed some :o) were all preaching the same Gospel - that of Jesus Christ, Son of God.
Click to expand...
 
Jay53 said:
I dont read it like that i think the apostles were and discipled to Jews that got it.

The apostles were what?

Jews with the good news

Where as many people Paul preached to had none of the four Gospels and no Jewish heritage to draw on.

St. Paul was preaching Jesus’ teachings that are recorded in the 4 Gospels - i.e. Christ’s Death and Resurrection, the Eucharist, etc.

Hmm you assert he had the 4 Gospels? i think he never directly refers to them in his Epistle as for the ie yes those epistles should stand alone

The term Christian was original given to Pauline converts not those following the apostles. (today the term Christian is another matter)

Why would you call them “Pauline converts”. St. Paul (and St. Barnabas who was also there) were converting people to the message of Jesus - that He is the Son of God - as recognized by all of Jesus’ Apostles.

Then yes Pauls teaching is sufficient to stand alone

If you asked Jesus (pbwh) what religion are you and the apostles they would have said we are Jews.

Perhaps. But had all of the Jews accepted Jesus and all of His teachings there would have been no need for a distinction. All Christians today would be “Jews”.
Yes the term Christian is very different today

Again the people at antioch for example would have come from wide background, helenists etc.
They had not the 4 documents you refer to as Gospels no Jewish upbringing just Pauls teachings.
We have today Pauls teachings in the Epistles as you call them.

But Paul was not alone in His missionary work. He was accompanied by St. Barnabas in Antioch and also later by Silas, Timothy and Luke. They were all preaching the Gospel of Jesus - all of His teachings.
Ok then attribute the teaching to many still it should stand on its own you never come and say it does not you just add

There fore what i previously referred to as the Gospel according to Paul that i now know as the Epistle of Paul is sufficient to become Christian.

No, again, that is not sufficient. **A Christian is **someone who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and follows His teachings as revealed through the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). no the people Paul etc taught did not have them, your own statement here supports what i suggestedAgain, if you read the Early Church Fathers, all of the disciples, Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, Stephen (the first martyr), Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Matthias, et al (I’m sure I missed some ) were all preaching the same Gospel - that of Jesus Christ, Son of God.Again i did not say the the contents of the message was different so much so i said it was THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PAUL you assert it is not the gospel and that there are only 4,
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Steven_John:
I’m sorry, Steven John, but I am not following your train of thought at all.

All of the Apostles were preaching the same teachings of Jesus and the Church that He founded with St. Peter as the head. It is the same message found in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. James, the Epistles of St. Paul in that there is no deviation/contradiction from Jesus’ teachings.

Perhaps I’m not understanding what you mean when you say St. Paul’s epistles should be sufficient. His epistles were written to various groups that he evangelized, but do not contain word for word the accounts found in the Gospels. The Gospels contain Jesus’ life and teachings from the Apostles. Your posts seem to insinuate that there is something different between the two that I am not seeing. I would say that the Gospels would be sufficient to be a Christian - St. Paul’s epistles just reaffirm the teachings of Jesus and all of the Apostles, as do the Epistles of St. Peter, St. James, the Acts of the Apostles etc.

I’m sorry if I have misunderstood your posts, perhaps you can reword it so I can understand it better. :o
 
Jay53 said:
I’m sorry, Steven John, but I am not following your train of thought at all.

All of the Apostles were preaching the same teachings of Jesus and the Church that He founded with St. Peter as the head. It is the same message found in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. James, the Epistles of St. Paul in that there is no deviation/contradiction from Jesus’ teachings.

Perhaps I’m not understanding what you mean when you say St. Paul’s epistles should be sufficient. His epistles were written to various groups that he evangelized, but do not contain word for word the accounts found in the Gospels. The Gospels contain Jesus’ life and teachings from the Apostles. Your posts seem to insinuate that there is something different between the two that I am not seeing. I would say that the Gospels would be sufficient to be a Christian - St. Paul’s epistles just reaffirm the teachings of Jesus and all of the Apostles, as do the Epistles of St. Peter, St. James, the Acts of the Apostles etc.

I’m sorry if I have misunderstood your posts, perhaps you can reword it so I can understand it better. :o
Click to expand...
I all kool Jay feel like we went around a few times saying the same things.

I insinuate the opposite, although they are different they are to open the same door.

The epistles of Paul should be sufficient to bring the good news. Paul and … and … etc did not have the other 4 gospels as we do today. At Antioch we see them being called Christians. It must be enough.

*For me personally they are not, i respect for others they are hence i even error and called them Gospel not Epistal, now i am corrected.

I say they are not enough for to me they speech Greek old religions things like gifts if the spirit is “self control” i have yet to find this in OT and 4 gospel dont say it is not there but i cant find same.

In my eye OT and 4 gospels sorry 4 narrations of the gospel are about submitting ones will to His will so the spirit make you new creation.
*
But back on track you and i have argued the same line.
 
bosnian_muslim said:
The difference is that all those misstakes were made by the ottomans,they are not islam,they only follow islam.On the other hand christians had the blessing from the pope himself,and as far as i know you guys believe he is divine,and can not make mistakes,so what christians did represents christianity…while the horror some muslims did can not represent islam

it is as simple as that 😉
Click to expand...
haha more hypocrisy from you its unbelievable some of the garbage you are coming out with. which pope commanded the Spanish to massacre and forcibly convert the Indians? show me a papal bull ordering such a thing? Please! You cannot condemn the actions of Catholics in the past and set a different standard for Muslims. That is utter hypocrisy. If the Turks can make a mistake doing those things why cannot the Spanish have also made a mistake? Why the double standard please? Why is there always 1 rule for Muslims and then one for everybody else?

So if what the Turks did had nothing to do with the teachings of islam how does what the Spanish did have anything to do with the teachings of Christianity. It doesn’t.

The pope is not divine he is human. He is however god’s representative on earth that does not make him divine you seriously have misunderstood the concept of papal infallibility . please read this and learn about papal infallibility catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Since you ignored my post on the subject ill repost it again lets see how well the moors treated the Jews

“The Muslims in Spain massacred many Jews what your stating is common ahistorical propaganda propagated by Islamic apologists. Here’s proof in 1011, 400 Jews were killed by Muslim mobs in Granada, in 1033 the moors massacred 6 thousand Jews in fez Morocco, 1066 the moors massacred 4 thousand Jews in Cordoba, in 1465 Muslim mobs rioted again in fez morocco murdering thousands of Jews and leaving only 11 alive. So please don’t complain to me about the Spanish inquisition or tell me how well the moors treated the Jews because the Muslims were just as bad . What you were saying is a pure lie. Hell! 1 Muslim dynasty the Almohad’s even said that all Jews had to convert or be expelled just like during the Spanish inquisition so as far as I am concerned you cannot complain about it.”

now the moors brought civilization to Europe? I don’t think so ! that is a popular Muslim myth there were civilization in Europe thousands of years before Islam existed whilst the Arabs were nomads. The earliest was the Minoans then the Etruscans, Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians (Phoenicians settled in Spain and parts of Italy) etc etc.

. So did the moors give civilization to Europe? I don’t think so!

Europe was in a dark age caused by the break up of the Western Roman Empire which caused feudal little kingdoms which warred with each other constantly. But the highly cultured and civilized Byzantine empire still existed in Europe lingering on for centuries at one point they even reconquered parts of Italy. Not to mention the holy roman empire who under Charlemagne unified many kingdoms and became a centre of learning and culture. So it is not like civilization did not exist in Europe during the dark ages or before the Islamic invasion of Visigoth Spain.

Furthermore most of all these great Islamic advances in science in culture were largely recycled knowledge taken by the Muslims from the Vanquished Byzantines and Persians in the east. This is why so many of the great Islamic scientists were Persians. You talk of architecture even the domed roofs that is so common in Muslim architecture today especially in mosques was invented by the Sassanid Persians (well some others say king herod). So please don’t overstate Islam giving civilization to Europe as that is Muslim propaganda not historical fact. Even scholars have admitted most of the knowledge accumulated by the Arabs during their golden age came from the Persians Greeks and Romans and it is this which reentered Europe with the conquest of Spain but by no means was civilization and learning completely eliminated from Europe. So please get your facts straight.
 
consider the different behavior of the leaders.

Mohamet took glory, riches and property by violence.

Jesus hated those things, and loved sovereignly only his Father’s pleasure and took up a cross.

Jesus is the only one ever preannounced by prophets as THE ONE who is to come from God.
 
planten said:
DeusVult09;5664777:
**Paul never killed any one? Are you in your senses? Before or after is no matter. He had many poor christians killed and he was on the way to damascus to kill a few more.

I do not believe in conversion of Paul because it was the most important good news which was not given by Jesus in his life time. Jesus did not give that news of conversion even after the pseudo-conversion of Paul. That was a clever move by paul to ruin the whole work of Jesus.

He was a Jew. Why he did not get married??**
Click to expand...
Paul was not a martyr. He was a fale prophet. That is why he was killed. He tried hard to save himself. But he could not do that because of his very sinful life. he was killed according to the prophesy of Moses in Deut 18:20. It says that false prophet will be killed.

I do not care what Paul said. He himself was a false messenger. Most of your bibleNT is full of Paul and less of Jesus.

.

** Paul not only did away with the good law of Moses a.s. but he abused that law and said that law was a curse. That was very bad of him to call a law given by God as a curse. Who the hell was paul to call the mosaic law as curse? Jesus never said that law was a curse. Why did Paul?/ He did it because he was a cursed person himself.

If you open your eyes you will see that Paul was an enemy of Jesus all his life. Paul could not kill and finish the teachings of Jesus in the presence of Jesus. So he did it when Jesus went away. That is the real side of things. We Muslims have all the disciples of Jesus with us. We love them all more than you do. But paul is no where in the books**.

Paul invented many things. The list is long and will be presented to you sometime. In any case your bibleNT is no more reliable now. Much manipulation has been done in it. So it is not fit for any serious discussion.

Paul did not kill people well there is no record of it. he arrested Christians but I do not think he personally killed them. Like when St Stephen was killed he watched the cloaks of those who were doing it. Mohammad killed more people than Paul so you have no argument there.

You make all these wild claims but you never bring any proof to back up your claims. Where is your proof that Paul’s conversion w as false. Please quote me 1 verse from his epistles indicating that. If you have read them it is obvious that he was sincere.

Mohammad was the false prophet and Paul even predicted him and how he would relieve his “revelations” from an angel of light which would tell him something different from the gospel. Pity ahmed dedat never mentions this in his garbage about Mohammad predicted in the bible. lol

Where is your evidence that pula led a sinful life? He was a devout Jew even a a member of the ultra-religious group the Pharisees which if he led an ungodly life he would not be a member of. Please Where is your evidence he led an immoral life?

It is Mohammad who had big orgies with his wives, had sex with a 9 year old girl which was also considered incest be cause Abu Bakr was his foster brother Mohammad
raped slave girls, had sex with his son’s wife after he felt that Mohammad was attracted to her and gave her up to the prophet, Mohammad massacred 900 Jews, personally cut the hands and feet off people, participated in camel raids and wars, took slaves etc etc. so you tell me who led the immoral life and who w as the anti-christ? It wasn’t paul.

.Paul chose to be celibate and focused on godly things Mohammad was very lustful by comparison so this argument will get you nowhere.

Hahh you don’t care what Paul said because you cant prove any of your allegations against him with his own words or anything written about him whilst the ahadith record everything I have mentioned so far I can quote it for you right now if you think im making this stuff up?

Paul said that the law was part of a covenant that god made with the people of Israel which Jews can follow but gentiles do not have to because they are under the grace of Jesus and not subject to this covenant.

What is the curse of the law? Was paul calling the law a curse? No! the curse of the law was attempting to gain salvation by following the Torah on your own without faith, and inevitably failing at some point, is the “curse of the Law.”

Paul was no enemy of Jesus he called himself a slave of Jesus as Mohammad called himself a slave of Allah. Paul spent his life preaching about Jesus after his conversion which you cant rove was fake only to lose his life for it. does that sound like a man who was an enemy of Jesus? I dont think so. why go to such lengths to start up a religion that you knew was false?

You are the one who is blind Paul was a greater man that Mohammad ever was and died a Christian martyr. Mohammad was far more immoral than paul he was a rapist, pedophile, slave-owner, murderer, invader etc. All this early Islamic writings confirm. Paul led a more godly life than Mohammad and even predicted Mohammad.

According to Mohammad everyone has devils inside them which circulate like blood including himself. Mohammad admits that he has a devil inside him now that pretty chocking almost as shocking as when he admits his inspiration is satanic by saying it is revealed in the ringing of a bell then say in another hadith that the bell is an instrument of Satan. Was Mohammad guided by god? I don’t think so did Mohammad lead a godly life? nope

Where is your proof that Paul invented these tings again more wild statements. If Paul invented Christianity and invented the crucifixion and resurrection then please bring some proof. All you have is weak supposition which will not convince me andyou cant quote 1 single thing to back yup your arguments.

Muslims do not love Jesus more than the Christians that is absurd they deny his true status and posses views about Jesus based in early Christian heresies namely Gnosticism, arianism and nestorianism of which Islam appropriates doctrines.
Click to expand...
 
SimonArizona said:
consider the different behavior of the leaders.

Mohamet took glory, riches and property by violence.

Jesus hated those things, and loved sovereignly only his Father’s pleasure and took up a cross.

Jesus is the only one ever preannounced by prophets as THE ONE who is to come from God.
Click to expand...
Simon, Muhammad did what Jesus did. Please note that when Muhammad was in complete control over a vast area, one day one of closest friends came to visit him. Muhammad was lying without any shirt on the floor on a mat made out of datepalm leaves.

Muhammad sat up when friend came. On the back of the prophet Muhammad were marks of the mat. The friend was sorry and said “Sir, the Kings and princes live in a very good ways on very good beds. Why not we arrange some good living for you also.”

The prophet replied, “No. No. My condition is a like a traveller who rests under the shade of tree for a while. Then gets up and starts his journey as before.”

Another one: In the house of the prophet, there never used to be any food except a few dates and some water. Many days, there never used to be any fire in the house to cook anything. Muhammad never had any money (coin) in his house at night, over night.

I feel that you are much un-informed about the life of our prophet. While we know all about Jesus, you know little about Muhammad.

WE know, once Jesus was hungry and went to a fig tree to eat some figs. But there were no figs on the tree because it was not the season. He was disappointed. It is written that Jesus cursed the fig tree. (?)

Jesus said that the birds and the animals have resting places and nests. But the son of man has no place where he could rest. (You see the similarity with Muhammad?)

Jesus said that a prophet is never welcome (respected) in his own locality. Does it not prove that Jesus was simply a man, a son of man, a prophet??? So was Muhammad.
 
SimonArizona said:
consider the different behavior of the leaders.

Mohamet took glory, riches and property by violence.

Jesus hated those things, and loved sovereignly only his Father’s pleasure and took up a cross.

Jesus is the only one ever preannounced by prophets as THE ONE who is to come from God.
Click to expand...
** I have already written few things about Muhammad and Jesus. But because your post had few angles, I may denounce those please, if you permit me.

Muhammad was completely non-political. He was an orphan. He was persecuted and oppressed for 13 years in Makkah, his home town. He had to flee for life. He came to Madinah. He was attacked there too with swords by his enemies. He took up the sword after he got permission to defend himself by sword.

Remember the words of Jesus “Those who kill by sword will be killed by the sword.”

Then there were wars and more wars. Even the nearby kingdoms (Roman and Persians) tried to attack. There were wars imposed on the Muslims. There were spoils of war.

What do you intend that Muhamamd should do with those spoils of war?? Throw them away?? Can you please understand anything.

You are discussing the Cross. We do not like the cross. Because it was instrument with which the man of God Jesus was punished. Cross is not good for us. It was imposed upon Jesus. You say " and loved sovereignly only his Father’s pleasure and took up a cross. "

Did Jesus ask some one to bring the cross?? Not at all. I see Deus makingfalse statements against our prophet Muhammad. Why not Deus remain in own field and show something good about Jesus?? and somethign good about Catholics / christians. That would be more useful.

If Deus will remain on that bad line of spreading false information about our prophet then we will soon come out and tell all the truth about Jesus, about the status of Jesus amongst the Jewish prophets…**
 
planten said:
** I have already written few things about Muhammad and Jesus. But because your post had few angles, I may denounce those please, if you permit me.

Muhammad was completely non-political. He was an orphan. He was persecuted and oppressed for 13 years in Makkah, his home town. He had to flee for life. He came to Madinah. He was attacked there too with swords by his enemies. He took up the sword after he got permission to defend himself by sword.

Remember the words of Jesus “Those who kill by sword will be killed by the sword.”

Then there were wars and more wars. Even the nearby kingdoms (Roman and Persians) tried to attack. There were wars imposed on the Muslims. There were spoils of war.

What do you intend that Muhamamd should do with those spoils of war?? Throw them away?? Can you please understand anything.

You are discussing the Cross. We do not like the cross. Because it was instrument with which the man of God Jesus was punished. Cross is not good for us. It was imposed upon Jesus. You say " and loved sovereignly only his Father’s pleasure and took up a cross. "

Did Jesus ask some one to bring the cross?? Not at all. I see Deus makingfalse statements against our prophet Muhammad. Why not Deus remain in own field and show something good about Jesus?? and somethign good about Catholics / christians. That would be more useful.

If Deus will remain on that bad line of spreading false information about our prophet then we will soon come out and tell all the truth about Jesus, about the status of Jesus amongst the Jewish prophets…**
Click to expand...
Planteen I have asked you at least 5 times for proof to back up your accusations against Paul. But you can do nothing what so ever. You have failed again to provide any sort of proof .

I am not the one making false statements that is you as you cannot provide any evidence for 1 single thing you say. Its really pathetic Whilst I can provide a hadith right now if you want to back up every single accusation I have made against Mohammad. That’s the difference. Show me 1 false statement I have made right now.

You Muslims are the one who started criticizing the apostle paul in this post yet now you don’t like it when anybody criticizes Mohammad. Always the double standards.

You do not like the cross because islam is a Gnostic abomination that is why Muslims do not like the cross. This very denial of Jesus’ crucifixion comes straight from Gnostic docetism. Now your quoting the words of Jesus from the gospels when you just said that the NT is the words of Paul and not Jesus. Hahah you shot yourself in the foot there again.

The Muslims invaded the Byzantine empire under Abu Bakr it was no war imposed on the Muslims that is more garbage from you. The Muslims after there civil war started it and all this garbage about the Byzantines invading Arabia is such nonsense as you cannot even tell me the name of the battle the Byzantines fought when they invaded Arabia and cannot get around the fact that most historian think that the Byzantines never even amassed 10,000 soldiers on the border.

Wars imposed on Muslims what about Mohammad’s unprovoked camel raids? Were they imposed on Muslims too? Hahah come on.

If you compare Mohammad’s life to that of Paul you can see who was more godly and who was not. It’s a no contest.

Mohammad was nothing like Jesus he was the antithesis of Jesus. And he was not that poor either his 1st wife khadijah was a relatively affluent merchant and so was Mohammad. Jesus on the other hand was a poor carpenter. did they lead the same lives ? I dont think so!

Does the fact that jesus is called the son of man prove jesus isnt divine? nope son of man is a messianic title.

you can read this abt it

gotquestions.org/Jesus-Son-of-Man.html
christiananswers.net/q-eden/son-of-man.html

Please provide proof for your accusations against Paul and proof I have made false statements against your prophet as your own texts support all that I said.You go on a bout me spreading lies when I haven’t heard 1 thing come out of your mouth that hasn’t been idiotic or misinformed
 
bosnian_muslim said:
(who forced people to convert in every part of the world where they had power,just look at latin America ;))😉
Click to expand...
Mr Bosnian muslim,

Take some time off and READ the history about the Indian subcontinent.It has the largest population of muslim becuase hindus were raped, murdered and forced to accept Islam by the moghuls…

A common practise by the mughals after captured a terriotry was : murder the men, force the kids into islam and rape the women, a vast majority of the muslim populance in the indian subcontinent are descendents of mughals who raped hindu/buddhist women and bore muslims kids.

Dont get me started on forcible conversion.There are documented facts to prove this.

Thank god for the british and the portuguese to have invaded and ruled the indian subcontinent and stopped the mughals from converting the whole population.
The islamic invaders ruled the indian subcontinent for over 700 hrs and managed to convert over half the population to islam.

With over half a billion muslims in the subcontinent, we are living in hell.Imagine what would have happened if the mughals continued to rule the Indian subcontinent.

Hindustan(under the islamic rule), by the time the british invaded indian consisted of present day India,pakistan,bangladesh,nepal, burma, afghanistan,parts of the former soviet union and parts of iran.All these countries were forcibly turned muslim. They could convert the whole of India because the population was too hugh for them(also there were some brave and secular hindu rulers like Shivaji,the rajputs and the Sikhs that kept them busy else we were all doomed)

So think before you speak…
bosnian_muslim said:
so sorry,we do not do such things…it is considered to be wrong because it can lead to idol worshiping…just look at you guys,it all happened because of all the pilgrimage places,saints and stuff.It made a monotheist people become idol worshipers;)
Click to expand...
You dont do such things? Really??

The indian subcontinent has thousand of “holy shrines” of muslim saints(peers). The dargah at Ajmer, India is one such example where millions of faithful muslims from around the world come over to pray and worship at.

People who live in glass houses should throw stones at others 😃
 
planten said:
I feel that you are much un-informed about the life of our prophet. While we know all about Jesus, you know little about Muhammad.
.
Click to expand...
We DO NOT need to know about Mohammed coz he simply doesnt exist for us in the bible. For us there is nobody after christ.
 
Hello IrishDude45,
as-Salaamu Alaykum,
I’m an Arab Muslim who has lived in Ireland for some time. I’m here at the moment actually. It is great to hear that you are interested in Islam, and I sincerely hope that God guides you to that which is best and most pleasing for you.

What follows is my brief account of the Isra and Miraj, Muhammad’s (PBUH) journey to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and subsequent ascent to Heaven, and the reaction from his people, and that of his close friend Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (meaning Abu Bakr the witness of truth). I think the story is relevant to you and your encounters with trying to decide how you feel about Islam, as it was 1400 years ago to Abu Bakr who was also reacting to the mission of Muhammad (PBUH).

When Muhammad (PBUH) described his journey to Jerusalem to his people, many mocked him. Others decided that he may be telling the truth, when they acknowledged a miracle in Muhammad’s (PBUH) ability to predict when the different caravans he saw on the way back to Mecca would arrive, and the description of them. My favourite reaction however is of Abu Bakr.
A group of men went to Abu Bakr and said:
“What thinkest thou now of thy friend? He telleth us he went last night to Jerusalem and prayed there and returned to Mecca.” Abu Bakr accused them of lying, but they assured him that Muhammad was in the Mosque at that moment, speaking about this journey. “If so he saith,” said Abu Bakr, “then it is true. And where is the wonder of it? He telleth me that tidings come to him from Heaven to earth in one hour of the day or night, and I know him to be speaking the truth. And that is beyond what ye cavil at.”
(from Martin Ling’s biography of Muhammad, pp.101-104)
Click to expand...
Abu Bakr was an honest man, and he believed whole heartedly in the message of Muhammad (PBUH). He neither denied the event (like some of Muhammad’s tribe - the Quraysh), nor did he wait for the miracle of the arriving caravans (like others did). He simply proclaimed that truth only comes from the truthful, and is beyond cavilling (criticising for petty reasons).

I believe you should try out the following references, just to get a clearer picture of Islam:
-Muhammad: his life based on the earliest sources by Martin Lings (amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=muhammad+his+life+based+on+the+earliest+sources)
And if you need anything from me, then I’m right here in the North West of Ireland for the next few months at least, before I return to my home in North Africa.
I pray for your good health (in this, the blessed month of Ramadhan), and your guidance and joy.
Kindest Regards.
As-Salaamu Alaykum.

I leave you with this Quranic prayer (youtube.com/watch?v=y8vTn2cuIt4&feature=related), read by a great Moroccan Qari on Moroccan National Television.
In it he is reading from the Chapter of the Isra (The above mentioned Night Journey to Jerusalem), (17:9-19), the translation of which is here: (harunyahya.com/Quran_translation/Quran_translation17.php)
 
The OP hasn’t posted since May. Let’s keep him in our prayers :gopray:.
 
planten said:
Simon, Muhammad did what Jesus did. Please note that when Muhammad was in complete control over a vast area, one day one of closest friends came to visit him. Muhammad was lying without any shirt on the floor on a mat made out of datepalm leaves.

Muhammad sat up when friend came. On the back of the prophet Muhammad were marks of the mat. The friend was sorry and said “Sir, the Kings and princes live in a very good ways on very good beds. Why not we arrange some good living for you also.”

The prophet replied, “No. No. My condition is a like a traveller who rests under the shade of tree for a while. Then gets up and starts his journey as before.”

Another one: In the house of the prophet, there never used to be any food except a few dates and some water. Many days, there never used to be any fire in the house to cook anything. Muhammad never had any money (coin) in his house at night, over night.

I feel that you are much un-informed about the life of our prophet. While we know all about Jesus, you know little about Muhammad.

WE know, once Jesus was hungry and went to a fig tree to eat some figs. But there were no figs on the tree because it was not the season. He was disappointed. It is written that Jesus cursed the fig tree. (?)

Jesus said that the birds and the animals have resting places and nests. But the son of man has no place where he could rest. (You see the similarity with Muhammad?)

Jesus said that a prophet is never welcome (respected) in his own locality. Does it not prove that Jesus was simply a man, a son of man, a prophet??? So was Muhammad.
Click to expand...
Planten, the logical structure of your argument is flawed. SimonArizona pointed out Muhammed’s sins; since all evil men have some virtues and all holy men have some vices, it proves nothing to point out Muhammed’s asceticism. The incredibly evil Baron Ungern von Sternberg was also a great ascetic. You need rather to show how Muhammed’s lust and cruelty is either a false historical claim, or why it was justified. Frankly either path seems difficult to me - his lust is a well-known part of the historical story, and his hypocrisy in limiting his disciples to four wives (which is already unthinkably decadent for Christian standards) while taking many more - from rich widows to 9-year-old girls - is pretty indefensible as far as I can tell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top