Does Islam make sense?

[Timi_Celcer]

1. It seems that Muhammad’s coming was unnecessary, he introduced nothing new, he only confirmed the judeo-Christian ethics and some of their thinking, like the end of times,…
   2)He was never prophesized before. The messiah was heavily prophesized, every jew agreed there was to be a messiah, while muslims look desperately for only one verse in the Bible that mentions Muhammad. And he is called the greatest of all prophets, the one that was according to him prophesized in the Gospels and the Torah. Plus no jew or Christian ever thought there was to be someone like Muhammad like they did for the messiah.
   3)The first 40 years of his life were not special, he was born, he married, lived and ordinary life, unlike the earlier prophets who lived ‘specially’ from their birth to their death.
   4)He waged wars on other people and conquered people instead of spreading the faith with peace.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I don’t believe it makes any sense for the following reason:

#1: Muhammad routinely engaged in actions that God has forbidden since the OT (Adultery being one of he favorite past-times), while also claiming that God had given him permission to do so, and being completely unrepentant about it.

#2: Islam didn’t spread peacefully, but rather through conquest, making it stand in stark contrast to Christianity, which spread through evangelization.

#3: Muhammad denied the truths of Christ (his divinity in particular) while simultaneously telling his followers that the OT and NT were legitimates books of God, which shows that he either had no understanding or knowledge of what was contained within the scriptures, or he chose to pick and chose what he wanted to believe. Either way, it does not seem likely that a servant of God would be that out of touch with God’s scriptures.

(Note: these are just my favorite reasons, and do not encompass the full… well, let’s call it oddness of Islam)

 

[dronald]

Actually, Islam is so basic and worldly that it makes complete sense.

The idea that God would come to Earth as the greatest Prophet of all time and be “defeated” wouldn’t make sense to anyone. Any Jew would call you nuts if you told them the Messiah was going to die on a cross.

The idea that Jesus was saved from the cross, called himself a Muslim (as well as his Disciples), and is obviously not God, because God’s attributes are easily defined makes complete sense. That’s what everyone would expect. I’ll quote C.S. Lewis again:

“Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected, I should feel we were making it up. But, in fact, it is not the sort of thing anyone would have made up. It has just that queer twist about it that real things have. So let us leave behind all these boys’ philosophies–these over simple answers. The problem is not simple and the answer is not going to be simple either.”

 

[Tarquin]

1. It seems that Muhammad’s coming was unnecessary, he introduced nothing new, he only confirmed the judeo-Christian ethics and some of their thinking, like the end of times,…

But did all Old Testament prophets introduce something new? Didn’t some of them calling the nation to repentance, and warn of the consequences of sin?

2)He was never prophesized before. The messiah was heavily prophesized, every jew agreed there was to be a messiah, while muslims look desperately for only one verse in the Bible that mentions Muhammad. And he is called the greatest of all prophets, the one that was according to him prophesized in the Gospels and the Torah. Plus no jew or Christian ever thought there was to be someone like Muhammad like they did for the messiah.

Prophets are not normally prophesied of, are they? So that would not make Muhammad unnecessary. In fact, looking for such a prophecy would be unnecessary because we should not expect a prophecy of a prophet, based on the absence of such prophecies (in most cases) in the past. Jesus and John the Baptist are the obvious exceptions.

3)The first 40 years of his life were not special, he was born, he married, lived and ordinary life, unlike the earlier prophets who lived ‘specially’ from their birth to their death.

That part is unnecessary or irrelevant to the call of a prophet. But it is also before he was a prophet. I guess that part of his life would have to be compared/contrasted to David or Jeremiah or another prophet before they were called to be a prophet. John the Baptist may be an exception.

4)He waged wars on other people and conquered people instead of spreading the faith with peace.

Now which is the unnecessary part? Is it unnecessary for a prophet to conduct war? Is Joshua a prophet? Or is it unnecessary for a war to require a prophet? Or was Muhammad unnecessary - would the wars have occurred even without him? There were a number of other Arabs in that general time who received revelations in poetic form. A few seem to have had followings. These were eventually removed, brutally. But had there been no Muhammad, or had Muhammad not followed the call of prophethood, perhaps one of these others would have done the same thing. If that is the case, then Muhammad would not have been necessary.

There has been a proposal that Islam was allowed to appear in order to chastise Christianity - as other nations had been called by God to chastise Israel. If that view is correct, someone like Muhammad may have been necessary to fulfill God’s purpose.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Makes as much sense as any other religion. All religions look crazy from the outside - from the inside, they make sense.

 

[VanSensei]

It would make sense in the idea that it believes in one God and that God communicates with the primary character of that faith’s parables and stories - most religions have this core principle.

That’s it, however.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

But did all Old Testament prophets introduce something new? Didn’t some of them calling the nation to repentance, and warn of the consequences of sin?Prophets are not normally prophesied of, are they? So that would not make Muhammad unnecessary. In fact, looking for such a prophecy would be unnecessary because we should not expect a prophecy of a prophet, based on the absence of such prophecies (in most cases) in the past. Jesus and John the Baptist are the obvious exceptions.That part is unnecessary or irrelevant to the call of a prophet. But it is also before he was a prophet. I guess that part of his life would have to be compared/contrasted to David or Jeremiah or another prophet before they were called to be a prophet. John the Baptist may be an exception. Now which is the unnecessary part? Is it unnecessary for a prophet to conduct war? Is Joshua a prophet? Or is it unnecessary for a war to require a prophet? Or was Muhammad unnecessary - would the wars have occurred even without him? There were a number of other Arabs in that general time who received revelations in poetic form. A few seem to have had followings. These were eventually removed, brutally. But had there been no Muhammad, or had Muhammad not followed the call of prophethood, perhaps one of these others would have done the same thing. If that is the case, then Muhammad would not have been necessary.

There has been a proposal that Islam was allowed to appear in order to chastise Christianity - as other nations had been called by God to chastise Israel. If that view is correct, someone like Muhammad may have been necessary to fulfill God’s purpose.

Its a mish mash of Jewish and Catholic teaching and a bit of there own, Mohammed proclaimed nothing , did no miracles, caused problems all around him by attacking innocent people to believe what he wanted them to believe , die or else, how many wives, and mistresses, and other husband’s wives did he also take he was a sexacholic and unfortunately got away with his carry on and no regret, not exactly godly, then he expected women to go around with there head covered, he used women and then hated them, look at all the violence directed towards women from this religion, even elderly men marrying 8 year old girls, who sometimes die when they get pregnant, there little bodies are not able, one told me that women were for babies and men were for S–. As Mohammed was so violent they don’t believe in the N/T or O/t or 10 Commandments, so they are only following there leader in there violence which was handed down by leader Mohammed.

 

[tonyfish58]

Its a mish mash of Jewish and Catholic teaching and a bit of there own, Mohammed proclaimed nothing , did no miracles, caused problems all around him by attacking innocent people to believe what he wanted them to believe , die or else, how many wives, and mistresses, and other husband’s wives did he also take he was a sexacholic and unfortunately got away with his carry on and no regret, not exactly godly, then he expected women to go around with there head covered, he used women and then hated them, look at all the violence directed towards women from this religion, even elderly men marrying 8 year old girls, who sometimes die when they get pregnant, there little bodies are not able, one told me that women were for babies and men were for S–. As Mohammed was so violent they don’t believe in the N/T or O/t or 10 Commandments, so they are only following there leader in there violence which was handed down by leader Mohammed.

That was a statement founded on no research into actual facts

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[Augustine3]

1. It seems that Muhammad’s coming was unnecessary, he introduced nothing new, he only confirmed the judeo-Christian ethics and some of their thinking, like the end of times,…
   2)He was never prophesized before. The messiah was heavily prophesized, every jew agreed there was to be a messiah, while muslims look desperately for only one verse in the Bible that mentions Muhammad. And he is called the greatest of all prophets, the one that was according to him prophesized in the Gospels and the Torah. Plus no jew or Christian ever thought there was to be someone like Muhammad like they did for the messiah.
   3)The first 40 years of his life were not special, he was born, he married, lived and ordinary life, unlike the earlier prophets who lived ‘specially’ from their birth to their death.
   4)He waged wars on other people and conquered people instead of spreading the faith with peace.

Muslims believe the mission of Jesus was to save Israel (only) by preaching to them the truth about Allah. It was Muhammad’s mission to save the world by revealing the Quran, first to the Arabians (Ishmael’s descendants) then the entire world.

 

[drac16]

No religion is going to make sense to you if you assess them based on straw man arguments.

 

[Augustine3]

No religion is going to make sense to you if you assess them based on straw man arguments.

I’m curious, which straw man arguments are you referring to?

 

[drac16]

I’m curious, which straw man arguments are you referring to?

…really?

Every single one that was posted in the original post. There’s no point in casting pearls before swine, though.

 

[Augustine3]

…really?

Every single one that was posted in the original post. There’s no point in casting pearls before swine, though.

Stick to your own metaphors from your “glorious” Quran.

 

[drac16]

Stick to your own metaphors from your “glorious” Quran.

Where it comes from is not important-- the principle is universal. I will say this, though, for a people that claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, I don’t see much love going around. Threads like this are commonplace, I reported an offensive post wherein I and others muslims were accused of decieving people concering what we believe about Jesus, but that gets ignored by the moderators. Muslim men were accused of wanting to kidnap children or to use polygamy as an excuse to get back at a current wife (I even responded to it, but, strangely enough, nothing was done about it).

And don’t think this is just the problem of moderating/moderators; people here will, more or less, accuse my prophet of being a warlord, a womanizer and all manner of things, and, with very few exceptions, the catholics here don’t bother to rebuke said person for it (much less report it for bearing a false witness). Is there anything Christlike about you people?

If there is, I’d like to see it. I’d like to, if only for a week, not be stereotyped or lied about.

 

[dronald]

Where it comes from is not important-- the principle is universal. I will say this, though, for a people that claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, I don’t see much love going around. Threads like this are commonplace, I reported an offensive post wherein I and others muslims were accused of decieving people concering what we believe about Jesus, but that gets ignored by the moderators. Muslim men were accused of wanting to kidnap children or to use polygamy as an excuse to get back at a current wife (I even responded to it, but, strangely enough, nothing was done about it).

I don’t know which thread you are referring to, but polygamy is huge in some parts of the Middle East. I doubt you need a lecture on what goes on in predominately Muslim countries. My dad just got back from Saudi Arabia and it isn’t pretty.

Also, being that Muhammad is the “greatest example” and did in fact marry a seven year old is kind of a big deal… Especially considering he had sex with her at nine. Now, you could say “different time different place” but that doesn’t change how easy it is to interpret that it makes the act okay. And that’s what certain countries are doing. Young girls do get exploited in the name of Islam, and they justify it using their Religious texts.

And don’t think this is just the problem of moderating/moderators; people here will, more or less, accuse my prophet of being a warlord, a womanizer and all manner of things, and, with very few exceptions, the catholics here don’t bother to rebuke said person for it (much less report it for bearing a false witness). Is there anything Christlike about you people?

Christ certainly is the greatest example of all time and we should strive to be like Him. But I don’t see how calling Muhammad a warlord, womanizer, etc is necessarily bad. I see how it can bother you, and I can see why you would object to it but it’s certainly a point one can argue.

Muhammad no doubt had many wives and sex slaves. He certainly was no Jesus Christ. “Whoever your right hand possesses” in the Qur’an referred to women captured in battle who are now slaves for sexual relief. Two points there for “warlord” and “womanizer.” Now, you can certainly get upset and defend what I said then we can all talk about it, but there’s nothing wrong with having a moral judgement of a prophet we don’t believe in. To me, Surah 9:29 is discrimination and subjugation; it’s a call to hate and war for many Islamic Imam’s. So I call it out.

If there is, I’d like to see it. I’d like to, if only for a week, not be stereotyped or lied about.

I think it’s fascinating that you would say this considering the nature of human beings regardless of Religion, only because we admit we’re sinners and do not deserve Heaven. I don’t know what your beliefs are on those you’ve judged already, but we know we’re not good and need a Savior.

 

[Matthew_Light]

Also, being that Muhammad is the “greatest example” and did in fact marry a seven year old is kind of a big deal… Especially considering he had sex with her at nine. Now, you could say “different time different place” but that doesn’t change how easy it is to interpret that it makes the act okay. And that’s what certain countries are doing. Young girls do get exploited in the name of Islam, and they justify it using their Religious texts.

Aisha was probably around 19 when the marriage was consummated. Compare to Mary, pregnant by the Immaculate Conception at around 14-15.

The Hadiths placing her age as 9 at marriage are incompatible with the known facts of her life. It seems, like many other women, she wanted to seem younger than her actual age. Cf.

muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

In addition, all accounts are that Aisha was physically mature at the time of marriage consummation. That makes the age of 9 very unlikely.

 

[dronald]

Aisha was probably around 19 when the marriage was consummated. Compare to Mary, pregnant by the Immaculate Conception at around 14-15.

The Hadiths placing her age as 9 at marriage are incompatible with the known facts of her life. It seems, like many other women, she wanted to seem younger than her actual age. Cf.

muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

In addition, all accounts are that Aisha was physically mature at the time of marriage consummation. That makes the age of 9 very unlikely.

This discussion is about Islam and your interpretation is not common in the Islamic world. Even assuming your interpretation of history and the Hadith are correct then you still missed my point entirely. The fact is, it can now be used as an excuse based on the earliest sources of Muhammad’s life.

However, I read that website and it’s some guy with a theory based on Aisha’s intelligence. I’m sorry, but I want early sources of Muhammad and Aisha’s life if you’re going to convince me. You’ll have to destroy centuries of data that claims contrary to you.

Again, I get you’re baha’i and defend from that POV, but good luck convincing an Imam:

Sahih al-Bukhari 3896—Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Al-Madina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he wrote the marriage (wedding) contract with Aishah when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5158—Narrated Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Sahih Muslim 3310—Aisha reported: Allah’s Apostle married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Muslim 3311—Aisha reported that Allah’s Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

Sunan Abu Dawud 2116—Aishah said: The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old. (The narrator Sulaiman said: Or six years.) He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old.

Sahih al-Bukhari 3894—Narrated Aishah: My marriage (wedding) contract with the Prophet was written when I was a girl of six (years). We came to Al-Madina and we dismounted at the place of Bani Al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on, my hair grew (again) and my mother, Umm Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became normal, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

 

[jakasaki]

Aisha was probably around 19 when the marriage was consummated. Compare to Mary, pregnant by the Immaculate Conception at around 14-15.

The Hadiths placing her age as 9 at marriage are incompatible with the known facts of her life. It seems, like many other women, she wanted to seem younger than her actual age. Cf.

muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

In addition, all accounts are that Aisha was physically mature at the time of marriage consummation. That makes the age of 9 very unlikely.

Why are you giving us an Ahmadi web site for Aisha’s age…??

Sunni Bukhari hadiths state that Aisha was 6 when the prophet of Islam married her and she was 9 when the marriage was consummated.

 

[Ontheway]

That was a statement founded on no research into actual facts

God Bless and Regards Tony

Maybe you should just read something? The life of the prophet, maybe?

When you have no counter arguments, you just make a blanket statement?

Nice try.

 

[tonyfish58]

I think Islam makes perfect sense. To me it is the clarification and unfolding of the Words of Christ, the next necessary step in the Spiritual Evolution of Man in His quest for the Love of God.

Christ had cemented for all time a Personal relationship with God and showed us all how it is so. Muhammad showed us all how we can use this personal Relationship and build it into a Nation of Unity.

The natural Progression was How to move from Nation Building to be World Citizens. This as promised in the Bible was delivered by the Message of Baha’u’llah. All the Foundations for Faiths and Nations to become united have been given.

It is now up to us to implement this action, it is some task, please God may Ye achieve it.

God bless all and Regards - Tony