Discussion on the Qu'ran and Hadith

[paarsurrey]

well, I haven’t found too many good teachings of mohammed

Hi

May be you have not read Quran from cover to cover yourself and you are just relying on others opinion.

Kindly read Quran yourself; that is the only remedy that comes into my mind.

Thanks

 

[R_not]

Hi

I will just rephrase admirers/followers in the above post.

The followers of a person named A; if they the followers of A with omission or commission, being sinful human beings as they are, make mistakes without any express authority from A; to how much extent A would be responsible for the wrongs of his followers? A had died/passed away centuries ago.

If A is a Catholic
If A is a non-Catholic

This is just a simple question to frame a principle.

My answer is: A is absolutely not responsible for the sins of the followers. A could be a Catholic, a Protestant, a JW, a Hindu, a Wicca, a Buddhist or a Muslim and followers could be of any faith.

One may insert instead of the Catholic in the suppositions the world Muslim, yet the answer won’t change.

What is your reply?

Thanks

I find it ironic that muslims always say this, that they are not responsible for the sins of others. Well, we are not talking sin - we are talking murdering, enslaving, raping, thugs in most cases. Most being pushed into doing such things by islam’s own clerics.

Example of clerics pushing their own to kill non-muslims

Do a search in jihadwatch.org on ‘mosques terror’, or ‘mosques hate’ and you will find a lot of hits where most of this stuff is coming from. here is the problem - the koran itself. And sharia laws have nothing in them to stop such behavior/actions against non-muslims. And that is what the stated goals of muslims are in our Western countries - to establish sharia laws.

I find it ironic the muslims seem to be able to get out their voices when it comes to cartoons, or a parade, or in the streets with flags of anti-semitism and anti-Western slogans on them. But they are soooooo quiet and unable to do so for what their own clerics are doing - pushing the violent jihad in many mosques. In Virgina, Florida, Michigan, L.A., etc there have been hate literature coming out of those mosques.

Here are a few voices stating these goals - and when a REAL moderate muslim spoke up - he became an outcast and now muslims draw cartoons of him as a dog (Dr. Zuhdi Jasser).

Yousef Khattab, supporter
-‘islam will dominate, this is what it will be.’
-‘We want to see sharia here and it will be. The flag of , “there is no god other than allah, muhammed is the messenger of god”, will be (god willing) on the White House, if thats where we choose it to be. It just takes time, the American people are waking up now.’
-‘There is no compulsion in islam, that means, we cannot force it on you, but we will force islamic (sharia), god willing.’

Abu Mujahid, spokesperson islamic Thinkers Society (ITS)
‘allah does say that the whole world will eventually be under his rule. The rule will come down to where everyone obeys the laws of god (sharia), as simple as that.’

(these guys have the same goals as Al Qaeda - only they want to do it by what many are calling a stealth jihad. And jihad is commanded by mohammed for ALL muslims to do with 97% of the jihad mentioned in the koran being the violent kind and the rest, including the ‘inner struggle’, being 3% of jihad.

Abu Jahya al-Libi, Al Qaeda leader
‘According to our belief, the whole world must be under the rule of islam without exception, even a single grain of soil.’

 

[Nicolas]

Hi R_not

Do you know a scholar of Islam who has converted to Christianity.

Thanks

 

[R_not]

Hi R_not

Do you know a scholar of Islam who has converted to Christianity.

Thanks

Ali Sina. He had relatives that were Ayatollahs (in Iran) and is now a Doctor who grew up thinking all the stuff good muslims are taught to believe. But, he is one of the few who did his own research and found out islam is not what he was taught and has since left islam.

He has written several books, one of which I state often on these threads - ‘Understanding muhammad, A Psychobiography’. And another one called, ‘Leaving islam’. He might have some more out there I do not know.

There are some others that I am not so sure about their backgrounds - Nonie Darwish (Egyptian ex-muslim whose father was a shahid), Walid Shoebat (a Palestinian ex-muslim). I have these people’s books and listened to some of their videos on youtube. Nonie’s book, ‘Now They Call Me Infidel’ has a very insightful view into what polygamy is all about and how unhealthy it is for all concerned - the women, children (both boys AND girls), and the men.

According to Ali Sina there are quite a number of disgruntled muslims who were ignorant of their own religion. He writes articles on faithfreedom.org. There is also a forum on that site also - go to the home page and peek around. It is a very, interesting site with a tremendous amount of articles.

 

[paarsurrey]

islam’s own clerics.’

Hi

Quran/Islam/Muhammad had provided no sanctity for any clergy.

Kinldy **quote from Quran a verse **about any sanctity for any clergy.Islam is open for individuals does not bind them to any of that sort of hierarchy.

We don’t believe in any clergy.

My above post was for a simple straightforward question to arrive at a principle. Sorry, I could not see your answer in your response . You may answer it now.

Thanks

 

[swariffin]

Hi dear swariffin

Kindly quote such verse from Quran with five preceding and five following verses for the context.

I don’t think there is any such verse Quran. Muhammad only dictated Quran. He never dictated Hadith.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks

Perhaps you have a good interpretation of what Muhammad said or did either/both in Quran or in Hadiths. My question is why don’t you discussed that. Things i read is one-claim. You know for sure that claim must be backed by proves. The verses have been presented in many other threads about Islam. You can perhaps start with the Taqiyaa, or the Jihadist or whatever you believe the strongest case. I am just giving an example. R_not has done a tough job searching many. Why don’t you just present your analysis of each of the verses presented by Planten.

 

[swariffin]

No, I was called a kafir by planten - just showing them the texts of islam that they don’t want us to know or to let others know, will get you the label of kafir from planten.

And now I am, according to planten, eligible to be killed by muslims.

Sorry to hear that, brother. Perhaps you can start searching the apartment of Salman Rusdi. Who knows that he would take you in. From now on, don’t forget to bring a mirror for you when you are walking outside home, so you can check your back. Open your car from a distance, and consider to install a remote engine starter, so you can start your engine from distance. Just kidding, brother… I believe Planten won’t do that.

 

[swariffin]

Hi

I will just rephrase admirers/followers in the above post.

I just put a simple question to my friends here.

The followers of a person named A; if they the followers of A with omission or commission, being sinful human beings as they are, make mistakes without any express authority from A; to how much extent A would be responsible for the wrongs of his followers? A had died/passed away centuries ago.

If A is a Catholic
If A is a non-Catholic

This is just a simple question to frame a principle.

My answer is: A is absolutely not responsible for the sins of the followers. A could be a Catholic, a Protestant, a JW, a Hindu, a Wicca, a Buddhist or a Muslim and followers could be of any faith.

One may insert instead of the Catholic in the suppositions the world Muslim, yet the answer won’t change.

What is your reply?

Thanks

If A has issued a written order to do certain things without specific target, and with multi interpretation wording as defined by A him/herself, then A is liable. In your example only, brother.

 

[swariffin]

Hi R_not

Do you know a scholar of Islam who has converted to Christianity.

Thanks

An Indonesian muslim scholar from Palembang, named Kemas Abubakar Mohammad Yusuf Roni. He became a Methodist priest now. Kemas means that he has the Palembang royal blood.

An Indonesian Uztad (Islamic teacher) named Achmal Tani. He also became a protestant priest. I forget the denomination.

Two Catholic priests I know and have met myself. They are Fr. Deshi Ramadhani SJ (expert in bible, and lecturer in one of our graduate school of theology), and Fr. Ibnu Fajar Muhammad, now serving in Santa parish, in south Jakarta. They both retain their “muslim” names.

 

[swariffin]

Hi

Quran/Islam/Muhammad had provided no sanctity for any clergy.

Kinldy **quote from Quran a verse **about any sanctity for any clergy.Islam is open for individuals does not bind them to any of that sort of hierarchy.

We don’t believe in any clergy.

My above post was for a simple straightforward question to arrive at a principle. Sorry, I could not see your answer in your response . You may answer it now.

Thanks

Please tell our dear friend Planten, that he is associating Muhammad with God. He did said that the name Muhammad is permanently attached to the name of Allah. By definition, Muhammad is a Muslim clergy.

 

[paarsurrey]

Perhaps you have a good interpretation of what Muhammad said or did either/both in Quran or in Hadiths. My question is why don’t you discussed that. Things i read is one-claim. You know for sure that claim must be backed by proves. The verses have been presented in many other threads about Islam. You can perhaps start with the Taqiyaa, or the Jihadist or whatever you believe the strongest case. I am just giving an example. R_not has done a tough job searching many. Why don’t you just present your analysis of each of the verses presented by Planten.

Hi

I think, the purpose of this thread is to bring into light that the “concepts of Islam” which is being presented by the terrorists as a cover of their wrong activities has no sense or is nonsense.

I agree with that; and I say it is a "Mullah Islam”; these concepts ushered in or were misreported only after Muhammad died. So, Muhammad/Quran/Islam neither supports “Mullah Islam” nor they are responsible for their wrong activities.

The Catholic Evangelists as I see are on the wrong track and they in their zeal see it as an easy target to put the blame on Islam/Quran/Muhammad to get easy converts,perhaps.

My contention is that it is not a Catholic charitable way to put blame on an innocent person like Jesus; and becoming virtual Jews to put him on Cross with the intention of killing him. It is another story that they could not succeed in their attempts and Jesus went to India.

Islam/Quran/Muhammad is not responsible for the activities of the terrorists; nor was Jesus of the activities of the Jews, though he was a Messenger of God unto them.

I won’t mind if one can prove it from Quran; I mean mention a verse with the context (which is more often obvious in five preceding and five following verses).

If R_not is doing a good job; I cannot say unless he/she comes forward and presents such a verse.

May be he has never read Quran personally from cover to cover intently and is just relaxing with copy/pasting from internet; that might be a guess which he could prove wrong.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks

 

[swariffin]

I won’t mind if one can prove it from Quran; I mean mention a verse with the context (which is more often obvious in five preceding and five following verses).

If R_not is doing a good job; I cannot say unless he/she comes forward and presents such a verse.

May be he has never read Quran personally from cover to cover intently and is just relaxing with copy/pasting from internet; that might be a guess which he could prove wrong.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks

Let’s put aside Jesus for a while, that is another story unrelated to topic of this thread, except if you bring a case that Jesus did sin.

Why don’t we take one of R_not verse out of his research, and you present your analysis why R_not interpret such verse incorrectly according to you.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why don’t we take one of R_not verse out of his research, and you present your analysis why R_not interpret such verse incorrectly according to you.

Hi

I think I had mentioned earlier that I don’t like debate; that only increases the bitterness, you know. I like group discussions, like I do. Sorry, please.

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

Originally posted by ** Paarsurrey **
My contention is that it is not a Catholic charitable way to put blame on an innocent person like Jesus; and becoming virtual Jews to put him on Cross with the intention of killing him. It is another story that they could not succeed in their attempts and Jesus went to India.

Islam/Quran/Muhammad is not responsible for the activities of the terrorists; nor was Jesus of the activities of the Jews, though he was a Messenger of God unto them.

swariffin; 4500629:

Let’s put aside Jesus for a while, that is another story unrelated to topic of this thread.

Hi my dear swariffin!

In my opinion that the issue “Jesus did not die a cursed death on Cross” is in the centre of the subject **adding sense to Islam and/or Catholicism **.

Jews of the time were waiting for a “Jehadi” Messiah who could return to them the lost good times of David. When they the “Jehadi” Jews saw that the proclaimed Messiah or Jesus is just a peaceful person; that annoyed them and they became violent.

The same tendency has grown in the brains of these Traditional Muslims; and its cure lies very much in the peaceful advent of Second Coming 1835-1908. He, as predicted by Muhammad, had refuted any conversion with force or killing any human being with this purpose in mind.

I see here some catholic crusaders like our friend bpbasilphx; their cure is also the same.

Islam needs no conversion with force or with kiliing any human being for conversion;adding sense to Islam .

Thanks

 

[Reuben_J]

In my opinion that the issue “Jesus did not die a cursed death on Cross” is in the centre of the subject

From Christians’ perspective, this utterance can only be from the mouth of the Devil.

Only the Devil is afraid of the death on the cross because it signifies his defeat. The Devil brings sins; the cross defeats sins. If anyone who has any interest in denying the cross, it is the Devil.

I don’t say you are the Devil, no. But you can be his mouthpiece by furthering what’s in his interest.

Jesus said, “Get behind me, Satan”, when Peter suggested that he should not be given to the Sanheddrin to die on the cross.

 

[paarsurrey]

From Christians’ perspective, this utterance can only be from the mouth of the Devil.

Only the Devil is afraid of the death on the cross because it signifies his defeat. The Devil brings sins; the cross defeats sins. If anyone who has any interest in denying the cross, it is the Devil.

I don’t say you are the Devil, no. But you can be his mouthpiece by furthering what’s in his interest.

Jesus said, “Get behind me, Satan”, when Peter suggested that he should not be given to the Sanheddrin to die on the cross.

Hi

May be you are not right. You shall have to make research anew. There is no harm in giving eyes of research to your faith; maybe it is only a blind faith.

God Allah bless you!

Thanks

 

[planten]

From Reuben:

It is true, extra marital sex is sin in Chrisianity. So if a Christian indulges in it, he is committing sin.

Similarly we Muslims also say that those muslims / jihadists who are killing people in the name of religion are committing sin. They have no right to kill any one.

But you are always presenting and accusing the Muslims and forgetting your own sinful (sexual) persons. I had said that Kafir is an enemy. Since I felt enmity in R-Not, I had to say that R_Not could be one example of a Kafir. an example only.

Kafir is the enemy of any faith. If a Kafir picks a fight then he/she is liable to be similarly dealt with.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi

May be you are not right. You shall have to make research anew. There is no harm in giving eyes of research to your faith; maybe it is only a blind faith.

God Allah bless you!

Thanks

Thanks for the suggestion. From what I found so far, it is only Islam that says Jesus did not die on the cross. And yes, I did go into Islam to try to gauge out what it is. But the more I delved in into Islam the more I meet Mohammad in your scriptures and what I see about him I don’t like.

Ultimately, it would be to whom I want to listen to: Mohammad or Jesus? My idea of religous rigtheousness is Jesus and not Mohammad. Therefore, it is impossible for me to forsake Jesus to listen to Mohammad.

 

[Eucharisted]

Thanks for the suggestion. From what I found so far, it is only Islam that says Jesus did not die on the cross. And yes, I did go into Islam to try to gauge out what it is. But the more I delved in into Islam the more I meet Mohammad in your scriptures and what I see about him I don’t like.

Ultimately, it would be to whom I want to listen to: Mohammad or Jesus? My idea of religous rigtheousness is Jesus and not Mohammad. Therefore, it is impossible for me to forsake Jesus to listen to Mohammad.

I can relate to this on a certain level, and it is why I started this thread: to show people the nonsense of Islam, the nonsence which I discovered, starting in college.

In college I found the Koran and decided to read it. I wanted to get to know Muslims better so I could understand them. As I read, I was comforted by the presence of familiar figures - angels, prophets, etc. - and the words and verses of the Koran had the same tone, style, and even message as the Bible. So it seemed. Than I got into the later chapters of the Koran and that’s when I began to see the nonscence. The claims that Jesus never died, that Christians will be saved yet Christians are evil, that Jews are cursed by Allah and his followers must against them, etc. I had to put the book down at that point; it was just too painful to read, to see so much vile lies and utter hatred in one book which claimed to be from God. I wondered, though, why no one else saw it - or how anyone could rationalize it. But a smart can rationalize anything, and a weak or desperate mind can accept anything…

 

[Reuben_J]

Similarly we Muslims also say that those muslims / jihadists who are killing people in the name of religion are committing sin. They have no right to kill any one.

But you are always presenting and accusing the Muslims and forgetting your own sinful (sexual) persons. I had said that Kafir is an enemy. Since I felt enmity in R-Not, I had to say that R_Not could be one example of a Kafir. an example only.

Kafir is the enemy of any faith. If a Kafir picks a fight then he/she is liable to be similarly dealt with.

You seem to omit the part where I mentioned about Ben Laden who models himself after Mohammad. Any particular reason why?

Even though you say the Jihadists have no right to kill people in the name of religion, the command of your Quran which they quoted is very explicit. It says to kill and to implement Syariah laws. Besides they do what Mohammad did.

When Christians have extra marital sex, they don’t say that they do it because Jesus did it or asked them to do it. In fact Jesus commanded them not to do it. And Jesus lived by example of the teachings he preached.

So, it is two different things to compare Christians who sin and Muslims who kill. The former do it despite Jesus’ teaching not to; the latter do it because the commands are to be found in the Quran and also Mohammad did it as well.

The way we see Muslims’ ruthless cruelty today, it made me shudder when you pronounce R_not kafir. I am starting to wonder whether the peaceful Muslims that you are promoting here is for real or merely to put us off balance to embrace your teaching.