Discussion on the Qu'ran and Hadith

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eucharisted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

Salaam/peace

some Catholics regularly address our respected Prophet as Mo. First I thought this is the teaching of the Catholic Church ; so Catholics are doing this. But one Catholic told me no , it’s his/her personal choice to do so.

What can I say ? I don’t want to hate Christians . So , I have decided not to read the posts of those Christians who write our Prophet’s name as Mo.
Sometimes people don’t like to type, or they shorten it for the number of lines/character’s sake. For a group of people who have no qualms about thinking that a looter, a mass murderer, a marauding gangster, a pedophile, an assasin, a lustful womanizer, a liar, an enslaver, and what not is to be honored; or riot and kill over cartoons - while doing nothing about all the other atrocities that muslims do worldwide - I guess your note makes sense.
 
To the Muslims on this thread, with charity and good-will:

First, thank you for all your posts.

Now, to address an issue: There is a difference between attacking Islam and revealing the beliefs of Islam. If I were to attack Islam, I would be making false claims about Islam, like the false claim that Muslims eat Jewish babies. But I don’t make such claims, because that is not the intention of this thread, and not only that, but bearing false witness against my neighbor breaks one of the commandments.

I am not criticsizing Islam, neither. I am not saying “Islam is evil” and “this belief is wrong because of this, this, and that”. I am only revealing the things which I have found in the Koran and in the Haidths. No I did not make them up - I took them from the Koran and from the Hadiths. If I wss making them up, I would be false witnessing. But I’m not. The beliefs are from Islam’s own texts.

Now, I admit I goofed up on a few of a beliefs, accidentally mixing them up with others, and I apologize for this. I have been corrected - graciously and patiently - and I am thankful for being corrected. However, there are some beliefs which I put on the list that I did not goof up. For example, when I said Muslims must face Jerusalem, than turn around and say Muslims must face Mecca, I’m taking that straight out of the Koran, when earlier in the book Mohammed says Muslims must face Jerusalem, than later in the book he changes his mind and says Muslims must face Jerusalem. I’m not going to critisize him about why he did this, though; I’m merely showing you what he said, what the beliefs of Islam are. As I said in the OP, you’re free to debate this.

I am saddened that some Muslims have taken the oppurtunity of this thread to attack Christianity and Jesus, instead of defending Islam and their Prophet. I am not so much saddened because some Muslims are attacking my faith and God - for I remember the paradox of the cross - but because they are hurting the reputation of other Muslims and are wasting their time on this thread. If you wish to bear false witness and bash Christ and His Church, please think again, and do not do it here, for this thread is not about bashing. If you are angered by my OP and the beliefs which I’ve brought into the light, or if you’re angered because I accidentally mistook some beliefs for others, or if you’re angered because I supposedly misread a text, than defend your religion and your Prophet, and I ask you to please do so with patience and charity as others have done.

Finally, if you seriously can’t distingush an attack from revelation, than it would be wise not to post here. I’m not saying you can not post here, but just advising you; not because I believe you don’t have intelligene or something true or good to say but because I’ve learned from a number of posts on CAF - my own included, at times - that those who mistake attack for revelation make fools of themselves and do not help the thread move along, but only bring off-topic nonsense and confuse, offend, and anger other users.
 
The beliefs are from Islam’s own texts.

I am saddened that some Muslims have taken the oppurtunity of this thread to attack Christianity and Jesus, instead of defending Islam and their Prophet. I am not so much saddened because some Muslims are attacking my faith and God - for I remember the paradox of the cross - but because they are hurting the reputation of other Muslims and are wasting their time on this thread. If you wish to bear false witness and bash Christ and His Church, please think again, and do not do it here, for this thread is not about bashing. If you are angered by my OP and the beliefs which I’ve brought into the light, or if you’re angered because I accidentally mistook some beliefs for others, or if you’re angered because I supposedly misread a text, than defend your religion and your Prophet, and I ask you to please do so with patience and charity as others have done.

Finally, if you seriously can’t distingush an attack from revelation, than it would be wise not to post here. I’m not saying you can not post here, but just advising you; not because I believe you don’t have intelligene or something true or good to say but because I’ve learned from a number of posts on CAF - my own included, at times - that those who mistake attack for revelation make fools of themselves and do not help the thread move along, but only bring off-topic nonsense and confuse, offend, and anger other users.
I think you should get used to attacks. How can they defend such a guy? And not only do you need to get used to being attacked by muslims - but also being attacked by others who either are ignorant of islam either by choice or by only being a novice to it. The ones to worry about are the ones that are ignorant by choice.

Ex-muslims are attacked by muslims all the time - they get death threats, called names (that is the least of their problems), and sued, etc. Even muslims, such as Dr. Zuhdi Jasser - the man who put out the DVD ‘The Third Jihad’ who tried to gather together muslims to disavow the attacks muslims are doing around this globe (he got very few to attend), is now an outcast and muslims ridicule him and draw cartoons about him being a dog, etc.

This is what islam is all about. Currently there is even a strong lobby in the UN to censor anyone who discusses islam - basically telling anyone about mohammed and what he really was - while it has been found even in their mosques and schools texts that bash others all the time. I guess they would have to ban the koran since that has so many passages that do not tell of only the history of early islam/mohammed - but direct the followers to carry on the same jihad against non-muslims to this very day.

I guess what I am saying is that one needs to grow thicker skin when discussing islam - unless you want to only discuss the surahs that are abrogated (replaced).

This is from a shiite muslims, but this is in the koran of ALL muslims - that non-muslims are less than urine, and dogs and pigs:

**There are eleven things which are impure: urine, excrement, sperm, bones, blood, dogs, pigs, non-Muslim men and women, wine, beer, and the sweat of the excrement-eating camel.

-Ayatollah Khomeini’s little green book**

And keep in mind that mohammed himself encouraged his followers to lie in order to finally win in the end. Any tactic goes just to win - ‘war is deception’, per mohammed. They often deny it and say it is something the other sect of muslims practice, but if one digs into islam a little more the only reason why the shiites practiced it was because they were a minority among the sunni. And that is why muslims practice it when they are a minority in non-muslim lands.

**How important is the Koran? It contains about 153,000 words. The Sira (by Ibn Ishaq) contains about 292,000 words, and the Hadith has 646,000 words (using the Bukhari text). So Allah is about 14% of the total of the Trilogy and the Sunna (Mohammed’s words and deeds) is 86% of the total. These are only a quantitative measure, but still, it points out how important Mohammed is compared to Allah, based upon the amount of text.

The Hadith of Bukhari gives all of the tactical details of jihad. A simple counting method shows that 3% of the hadiths are about the inner struggle, whereas, 97% of the hadiths are about jihad as war. So is jihad the inner struggle? Yes, 3%. Is jihad the war against kafirs? Yes, 97%.

To measure the Koranic fixation on kafirs, let us measure the fixation by counting the amount of text devoted to them. In Mecca an astounding 67% of the text is devoted to the kafir. In Medina 51% was about kafirs. The amount of text in the entire Koran devoted to kafirs is 61%.

~Bill Warner**
 
Eucharisted, wow I found your story of conversion VERY moving. Everyone should read it!:gopray:
 
Will this post of R_Not be considered as an abuse please? It is defintely highly abusive post and needs to be checked / condemned. It is surely not from any Catholic.
You call Jesus a sinner, actually you have called Jesus other things. These are blasphemous. You do not know what you do.
You are calling God these names when you call Jesus them.
So if i was you, i would rethink about who is being abusive around here.
 
I think these threads are much better if they stick to the points of why people do or don’t believe in Islam. This is what is relevant . The insults are counterproductive on all sides.

I for one don’t know very much about the Doctrines of Islam. I do know one thing, though. Jesus Christ can not be only a prophet. He was very specific in his ministry, saying the he was the son of God, many times, both implicitly and explicitly. So with Jesus, you really have two choices. You can decide that he was a liar and a Charlatan because he really wasn’t the Son of God as he claimed. Such a person could never be a Prophet of God. Or you can decide that Jesus was telling the truth and was divine as he claimed. I personally believe the latter on the basis of the witness of his Apostles and others who witnessed his death and resurrection. The fact that they willingly gave up their lives for this witnessing gives them complete credibility.

So, if for no other reason than this, I can’t believe that Islam is the one true religion.
 
I think these threads are much better if they stick to the points of why people do or don’t believe in Islam. This is what is relevant . The insults are counterproductive on all sides.

I for one don’t know very much about the Doctrines of Islam. I do know one thing, though. Jesus Christ can not be only a prophet. He was very specific in his ministry, saying the he was the son of God, many times, both implicitly and explicitly. So with Jesus, you really have two choices. You can decide that he was a liar and a Charlatan because he really wasn’t the Son of God as he claimed. Such a person could never be a Prophet of God. Or you can decide that Jesus was telling the truth and was divine as he claimed. I personally believe the latter on the basis of the witness of his Apostles and others who witnessed his death and resurrection. The fact that they willingly gave up their lives for this witnessing gives them complete credibility.

So, if for no other reason than this, I can’t believe that Islam is the one true religion.
Bro, what you say makes sense but nevertheless you base that argument on the Bible. Muslims disagree with you, not because you are wrong but because the Bible that you based your idea upon IS wrong - meaning, it is altered in some parts and jts message distorted. This is what Muslims will tell you.

So would you agree then that the Bible that you would like to quote when in defence of your argument has been distorted? Islam essentially stands on the premises that it has been distorted (corrupted) and thus the needs for Mohammad, the last (seal) prophet of God to correct all past mistakes and understandings.
 
Continue:

When someone tells you that the Bible is corrupted you would like to know: Who and what said so? Having known who and what say so, then we would like to scrutinize their credibility. Someone, something having the gut to say the Bible is corrupted need to be scrutinized to ascertain how reliable they are.

I think in a spiritual discussion, insult is relative. Most of us are shocked beyond our senses when someone tells us that Jesus is not God or the Bible is corrupted. Our human instinct would call for war on hearing this, but fortunately we are governed by Christian values and it prevents us from doing so. But it sure does not stop us from getting angry. Jesus also was angry at certain stage in his life. We just get on with life even as we have to endure the blasphemy against our God and our Holy Scripture. It is definitely the same with Muslims when frank comments from our hearts are vocalized about their Prophet and their Holy Scripture. This is the nature of this forum.

Some frank truth can be seen as insult. But ultimately, I think we just have to trust our conscience and guided by the values that have been sown in us. Things like love and charity and forgiveness. We are also called to be as meek as the dove and as shrewd as a serpent too. Ultimately, we have to make an account of ourselves as Christians – what kind of Christians we are.

God bless.
 
40.png
Gloria_Patri:
One element of Islam that I have the hardest time with is that Muslims believe that God actually quibbles over things like which foot is used to enter a bathroom and which way one is seated on the toilet. Do Muslims also believe that if you step on a crack you break your Mamma’s back?
There is a difference between hadiths and the Qu’ran itself, though. Certain hadiths are indeed required of all Muslims, but, according to my limited understanding, others are as optional as, say, asking for the intercession of St. Anthony when you lose something.

Also, some of it can have a beneficial effect by calling God to mind. It reminds of a friend of mine whose Lenten sacrifice was turning left. Every time wanted to make a left turn, he spun 3/4 of the way around to his left.

God doesn’t care which way he turns, right? But every time he wanted to make a left turn, he remembered it was Lent, and thought of God. I imagine many of these hadiths are the same way.
 
Although many Muslims named Muhammad have Mo as their nickname and people call them Mo, yet i don’t think they’ll use this nickname while calling Muhammad.
 
Although many Muslims named Muhammad have Mo as their nickname and people call them Mo, yet i don’t think they’ll use this nickname while calling Muhammad.
The only reason that I did it was because I get tired of typing out the long names.

Although, since I know it can aggrivate, Imay do it more often.
 
Continue:

When someone tells you that the Bible is corrupted you would like to know: Who and what said so? Having known who and what say so, then we would like to scrutinize their credibility. Someone, something having the gut to say the Bible is corrupted need to be scrutinized to ascertain how reliable they are.

I think in a spiritual discussion, insult is relative. Most of us are shocked beyond our senses when someone tells us that Jesus is not God or the Bible is corrupted. Our human instinct would call for war on hearing this, but fortunately we are governed by Christian values and it prevents us from doing so. But it sure does not stop us from getting angry. Jesus also was angry at certain stage in his life. We just get on with life even as we have to endure the blasphemy against our God and our Holy Scripture. It is definitely the same with Muslims when frank comments from our hearts are vocalized about their Prophet and their Holy Scripture. This is the nature of this forum.

Some frank truth can be seen as insult. But ultimately, I think we just have to trust our conscience and guided by the values that have been sown in us. Things like love and charity and forgiveness. We are also called to be as meek as the dove and as shrewd as a serpent too. Ultimately, we have to make an account of ourselves as Christians – what kind of Christians we are.

God bless.
Well, this is very much the same discussion you have with Mormons. In both cases, their founders had to deny certain aspects of the Bible to sell their own religions. In the Islamic case, Mohammad had to deny the divinity of Christ so he had to in effect call the Apostle’s liars. In the Mormon case, Joseph Smith had to descredit the Catholic Church but not the bible, so he simply said there as a general Apostacy during the Apostolic Age.

So I agree that like the Mormons, the Muslims need to demonstrate that their view of the bible is correct. this includes the credibility of Mohammad. So why isn’t this discussion focused on that, which is the crux of the issue, rather than on tangential issues?
 
The entire credibility of Mohammed lies on his fulfillment of the prophecy of the “un-lettered prophet” and the “paraclyte”. If one disproves him being those two, then one has destroyed the basis of Mohammedanism.
 
Well, this is very much the same discussion you have with Mormons. In both cases, their founders had to deny certain aspects of the Bible to sell their own religions. In the Islamic case, Mohammad had to deny the divinity of Christ so he had to in effect call the Apostle’s liars. In the Mormon case, Joseph Smith had to descredit the Catholic Church but not the bible, so he simply said there as a general Apostacy during the Apostolic Age.

So I agree that like the Mormons, the Muslims need to demonstrate that their view of the bible is correct. this includes the credibility of Mohammad. So why isn’t this discussion focused on that, which is the crux of the issue, rather than on tangential issues?
One issue when you address the credibility of Muhammed comes from the cult of Muhammed that resides in Islam. Muhammed never committed any sins, according to Muslims. As a prophet, anything that he did was acceptable to God. That is why when we raise any issues about any of his actions being problematic, we are ignored or dismissed.

Another issue that comes up is the concept of what is and is not authentically from God. Muslims can no more prove anything in the Qur’an as being from God than the man in the moon. However, since everything was said by Muhammid to someone else (which raises another set of issues), then it must be authentic. They deny the Bible because Jesus did not write it or have someone write it as he said it. Christians understand that God inspired Scriptures and protects them. Muslims cannot comprehend either fact. The Qur’an is supposed to the free from error because the scribes had swords pointed at them. In other words, only man could prevent man from changing the book, God is too week to do so.

A third issue is one that you see from Mormons at times. IF you question things, they take a stance of being attacked. Muslims tend ot change the topic, jump from one thing to another, and act like a hyperactive flea with ADD as they bounce around. Then, they will take up the old stand bys of “We love Jesus” and “No compulsion in Religion” and “You guys are worse.”
 
Well, this is very much the same discussion you have with Mormons. In both cases, their founders had to deny certain aspects of the Bible to sell their own religions. In the Islamic case, Mohammad had to deny the divinity of Christ so he had to in effect call the Apostle’s liars. In the Mormon case, Joseph Smith had to descredit the Catholic Church but not the bible, so he simply said there as a general Apostacy during the Apostolic Age.

So I agree that like the Mormons, the Muslims need to demonstrate that their view of the bible is correct. this includes the credibility of Mohammad. So why isn’t this discussion focused on that, which is the crux of the issue, rather than on tangential issues?
Bro, this is just a discussion. You can steer it to that if you want to and I am sure much of that have been covered somewhere else.

If I can see how ridiculous is Mohammad’s teachings I am quite certain I will not take his word if he discredited the Bible.

You can appraoch this in many angles and I am not denying your point. I just think that the OP should be allowed to progress and there is always something to learn from it. Like I said, in spiritual discussion, an insult is relative. I feel those who say Jesus is not God and the Bible is corrupted are insulting, though they may not intend it to be that way. They are merely expressing their belief or their opinion. Like my personal opinion that if you have to redo your prayer just because you happen to fart is ridculous which is purely human courtesy which should not be made into religous law. Muslims think differently and they may have good reason for it. We never know had we didn’t bring this issue up.

God bless.
 
One issue when you address the credibility of Muhammed comes from the cult of Muhammed that resides in Islam. Muhammed never committed any sins, according to Muslims. As a prophet, anything that he did was acceptable to God. That is why when we raise any issues about any of his actions being problematic, we are ignored or dismissed.
That isn’t even true. I’m not good enough to cite whether it is from the Qu’Ran or a first order Hadith, but I do know that one of the most important concepts in Islam is that while Muhammad was a great man, he was still no more than a man.
Another issue that comes up is the concept of what is and is not authentically from God. Muslims can no more prove anything in the Qur’an as being from God than the man in the moon. However, since everything was said by Muhammid to someone else (which raises another set of issues), then it must be authentic. They deny the Bible because Jesus did not write it or have someone write it as he said it. Christians understand that God inspired Scriptures and protects them. Muslims cannot comprehend either fact. The Qur’an is supposed to the free from error because the scribes had swords pointed at them. In other words, only man could prevent man from changing the book, God is too week to do so.
A third issue is one that you see from Mormons at times. IF you question things, they take a stance of being attacked. Muslims tend ot change the topic, jump from one thing to another, and act like a hyperactive flea with ADD as they bounce around. Then, they will take up the old stand bys of “We love Jesus” and “No compulsion in Religion” and “You guys are worse.”
Is it right to stereotype an entire religion like this?
 
The entire credibility of Mohammed lies on his fulfillment of the prophecy of the “un-lettered prophet” and the “paraclyte”. If one disproves him being those two, then one has destroyed the basis of Mohammedanism.
And how would go about proving something like that? It isn’t any more possible than proving that Christ didn’t rise from the dead.
 
And how would go about proving something like that? It isn’t any more possible than proving that Christ didn’t rise from the dead.
Actually no.

Moses promised an unlettered prophet to his people (not the Arabs), plus if Mohammed was literate, then he was not unlettered was he?

Second, Jesus promised the Paraclyte to his disciples- not the pagan Arabs. If Mohammed was the Paraclyte, then he would have had to been sent to the Apostles and the Fathers, not pagan Arabia.
 
Actually no.

Moses promised an unlettered prophet to his people (not the Arabs), plus if Mohammed was literate, then he was not unlettered was he?
And how would you prove he was literate?
Second, Jesus promised the Paraclyte to his disciples- not the pagan Arabs. If Mohammed was the Paraclyte, then he would have had to been sent to the Apostles and the Fathers, not pagan Arabia.
And would you go about proving this? A Muslim is not going to agree with you on that; it won’t convince anyone.
 
And how would you prove he was literate?

And would you go about proving this? A Muslim is not going to agree with you on that; it won’t convince anyone.
Go look in the Mohammed literacy thread.

Did I ever say that I would prove anything to a Mohammedan? Surely there are better apologists then I.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top