Historical and theological Islam

[Verisimilitude]

You mean sort of like Christians in America opposed to abortion due to their faith blowing up abortion clinics?

Some things can be proven untrue. Specifically the call to offensive violence in the Scriptures of the NT like it is true of allahs words in the Quran. People like Eric Rudolph are in no way celebrated like these women.

Islams holy words are irrational on their own for history and theology, and I think the explainations used to justify them defy logic. The Gospels are rational and largely explain themselves.

Do you think Mohamed surpassed Jesus in character and deed durng their lives, or do you admire another that has come after both?

 

[nonsumd]

So what if you have tacitly and/or explicitly stated that Christians are oppressed by muslim powers?

birdsong, you say “so what?” now, yet you originally felt portraying me as “tacitly” ackowledging Muslim oppression of Christians was important enough to bring up – even though that was a misrepresentation of my stance as you now admit.

Your whining about experiences with others only diverts the attention from the topic at hand. Very convenient tactic when folks jus run out of rational arguments.

I don’t consider it irrelevant at all.

What I am pointing to is people who enter debates with no intention of abandoning the prejudices they bring if confronted with evidence – such as anti-Catholic Protestants who can be told that the Catholic Church does not teach salvation by works and yet keep on insisting that it does… or anti-Muslims who refuse to ackowledge the existence of sincere, committed Muslims who do not read their scriptures in order to find reasons to wantonly massacre their neighbors.

PS: what about the research proposal I made to you? would you be willing to investigate whether early Christians also commited similar or comparable acts to those of muslims today? if so, did they justify them with Christ’s teachings?

First, define “early Christians.” Would that be before or after Constantine’s legalization of Christianity or Theodosius I’s making Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire?

Christians did not capture state power unttil more than three centuries after the death of Christ. When they did they acted hardly differently from Muslims who captured state power well before Muhammad was in the grave.

If you want to compare Christianity with Islam, you should not confine yourself to comparing Jesus and Muhammad but also compare Constantine and Muhammad. And you must admit that the Israelite prophets provided a model for using violence in God’s name to both Christianity and Islam.

Unless one insists on applying a double-standard, the history of Christian societies since 315 and that of Islamic societies since ca. 620 have hardly differed at all with respect to mistreating religious minorities and attacking unbelievers. Unfortunately, Muslims and Christians apply the double-standard to each other all the time: I have reasons to resort to violence, you do not; I have the right to kill, you do not; I embody reason itself, you incarnate irreason.

Meanwhile, the Lord in Heaven with tears in His eyes is preparing a plague on both houses.

 

[Montalban]

You mean sort of like Christians in America opposed to abortion due to their faith blowing up abortion clinics?

No. I mean like what they’re doing and what they say they believe in.

Here’s an example.

You are a guru. You preach peace. One of your followes listens to your lectures and goes and kills someone.

The police arrest you.

They blame you for ‘inciting hatred’

Are they correct?

No. There’s no connection between what you said and what he did - DESPITE his claims that you are his guru.

Okay, that’s a hyperthetical, let’s look at a real example. Muhammed encouraged his followers to murder his enemies.
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.” On that, Kab said, “By Allah, you will get tired of him!” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food.” (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, “Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me.” Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, “What do you want?” Ka’b replied, “Mortgage your women to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the 'Arabs?” Ka’b said, “Then mortgage your sons to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people’s saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you.” Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab’s foster brother, Abu Na’ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, “Where are you going at this time?” Kab replied, “None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na’ila have come.” His wife said, “I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka’b said. “They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed.” Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as 'Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, “When Ka’b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head.” Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. " have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka’b replied. “I have got the best 'Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume.” Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka’b “Will you allow me to smell your head?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka’b again, “Will you let me (smell your head)?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), “Get at him!” So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf.”
usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.369

His followers then went out and committed murder. There’s a causal link.

Try again:thumbsup:

 

[Abu_Ismail]

His followers then went out and committed murder. There’s a causal link.

Try again:thumbsup:

Umm… they were at war. You know what war is, right?

Secondly, show me a scholarly ruling that uses that hadith to allow the killing of innocent people.

As I said in another thread, using hadiths willy nilly to “prove” a point is unscholarly at best and morally corrupt at worst.

 

[Montalban]

Umm… they were at war. You know what war is, right?

You mean the people who were murdered were at war with Muhammed?

Secondly, show me a scholarly ruling that uses that hadith to allow the killing of innocent people.

That’s just the point of this thread! Anyone who ‘insults’ Islam is deemed to be at war!

What about the Banu Quaresh who were killed AFTER they surrendered?

As I said in another thread, using hadiths willy nilly to “prove” a point is unscholarly at best and morally corrupt at worst.

But here you admit it is pertinent - by accepting that they were murdered. All you want to quibble about is why!

It’s a causal link! Muhammed preached murder. People murdered.

 

[Abu_Ismail]

That’s just the point of this thread! Anyone who ‘insults’ Islam is deemed to be at war!

Really arguing with such ignorance is a waste of time. When you are ready to have a proper discussion on the matter at an intellectual level then let me know.

There are 300,000 Muslims here in Australia, and I don’t know any who are “at war” with non-Muslims, despite the insults we often receive. I myself have been called by bypassers a terrorist, murderer, etc, based on nothing other than my dress. I’m not at war with these people, in fact I feel sorry for them and their shallowness, and pray for there guidance.

 

[Montalban]

All of these must have been at war with Muhammed!

Kab bin al-Ashraf Sallam Ibn Abu'l-Huqayq (Abu Rafi) Al-Nadr bin al-Harith Uqba bin Abi Muayt Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul al-Aufi Umaiya bin Khalaf Abi Safwan Amr b. Jihash
An anonymous man
Ibn Sunayna
Abd Allah Ibn Sad Ibn Abi Sarh Abu Afak
`Asma’ Bint Marwan

 

[Montalban]

Really arguing with such ignorance is a waste of time. When you are ready to have a proper discussion on the matter at an intellectual level then let me know.

LOL!
When one accepts your truth, they’re no longer ignorant, and of course, they’d not argue against it - great Islamic circular reasoning coming to the fore again!

There are 300,000 Muslims here in Australia, and I don’t know any who are “at war” with non-Muslims, despite the insults we often receive.

You’re not really in a position of power. Another Islamic trick is to wait and bide one’s time.

I myself have been called by bypassers a terrorist, murderer, etc, based on nothing other than my dress. I’m not at war with these people, in fact I feel sorry for them and their shallowness, and pray for there guidance.

If you want to ‘guide’ them, trying an approach to discussion using logic, rather than simply berrating people who don’t agree with you as being ignorant!

 

[Abu_Ismail]

Ignorance is as ignorance does.

Good day and may God guide us all.

 

[Montalban]

Ignorance is as ignorance does.

Good day and may God guide us all.

Well with that stunning riposte, you’ve won me over!

All you’re doing is advertising Moslems inability to deal with any argument.

In an Islamic nation, you’d be after my head simply for questioning Islam.

Here, you’re making appeals of incredulity and insults.

And that’s Islam for you!

try, for starters (and this is just a suggestion) showing how the Banu Quaresh WHO AFTER THEY HAD SURRENDERED deserved to be massacred!

How does this show Islam in an intelligent and compassionate light?

 

[birdsong]

nonsumd;2697773]birdsong, you say “so what?” now, yet you originally felt portraying me as “tacitly” ackowledging Muslim oppression of Christians was important enough to bring up – even though that was a misrepresentation of my stance as you now admit.

I don’t consider it irrelevant at all.

What I am pointing to is people who enter debates with no intention of abandoning the prejudices they bring if confronted with evidence – such as anti-Catholic Protestants who can be told that the Catholic Church does not teach salvation by works and yet keep on insisting that it does… or anti-Muslims who refuse to ackowledge the existence of sincere, committed Muslims who do not read their scriptures in order to find reasons to wantonly massacre their neighbors.

blah blah blah … wake me up when you are finished discussing the price of tea in China buddy.

First, define “early Christians.” Would that be before or after Constantine’s legalization of Christianity or Theodosius I’s making Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire?

Christians did not capture state power unttil more than three centuries after the death of Christ. When they did they acted hardly differently from Muslims who captured state power well before Muhammad was in the grave.

You lack of rational thought is immense Nonsumd. My challenge, in case you did not notice, was to set up a scenario in which Christians were and/or are as oppressed as you claim muhhamedans have been and/or are. Now, it follows from that premise that such a scenario would not include the period when the Christians became mainstream and powerful, BECAUSE, sound logic would tell us, it would mean they’d no longer be “oppressed”, or as “oppressed” as they were before, correct?

Man, you certainly need to attend “logical argumentation” 101.

Wait a minute, could it be that you are not that illogical? could it be that perhaps, you are knowingly trying to build a straw-man … what could it be? … mmmm, BINGO!!!, … probably something … like … the following?

If you want to compare Christianity with Islam, you should not confine yourself to comparing Jesus and Muhammad but also compare Constantine and Muhammad. And you must admit that the Israelite prophets provided a model for using violence in God’s name to both Christianity and Islam.

Unless one insists on applying a double-standard, the history of Christian societies since 315 and that of Islamic societies since ca. 620 have hardly differed at all with respect to mistreating religious minorities and attacking unbelievers. Unfortunately, Muslims and Christians apply the double-standard to each other all the time: I have reasons to resort to violence, you do not; I have the right to kill, you do not; I embody reason itself, you incarnate irreason.

This is it. When a guy is so incredibly dishonest and/or dumb to say something like the bolded words above, I have nothing more to add. Speaking of Judaism, it is interesting to note that with all the alleged references to violence that the OT contains, no single jewish suicide bomber has blown himself up in Germany.

Amazing, ain’t it?

Meanwhile, the Lord in Heaven with tears in His eyes is preparing a plague on both houses.

True to form, you continued introducing irrelevancies to the discussion right until the very end.

It is good to see that you tacitly have admitted defeat every time you brought up red-herrings and avoided rational and sound questions, you know, like standards of fairness between muslims and non-muslims. Likewise, your failure to clearly define what a “moderate” muslim is also speaks louder than all the red-herrings you introduced time after time after time.

Don’t expect another answer from me buddy. Your fallacious ways and use of straw-man and red-herrings tell me all I need to know about your intellectual dishonesty, something I detest and that is not appreciated.

Nice talking to you.

 

[paarsurrey]

All of these must have been at war with Muhammed!

Kab bin al-Ashraf Sallam Ibn Abu'l-Huqayq (Abu Rafi) Al-Nadr bin al-Harith Uqba bin Abi Muayt Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul al-Aufi Umaiya bin Khalaf Abi Safwan Amr b. Jihash
An anonymous man
Ibn Sunayna
Abd Allah Ibn Sad Ibn Abi Sarh Abu Afak
`Asma’ Bint Marwan

Hi

Is there anyone among them a Catholic/Orthodox?

Thanks

 

[Abu_Ismail]

All you’re doing is advertising Moslems inability to deal with any argument.

And that’s Islam for you!

So my so-called inability to deal with an argument is somehow related to the validity of Islam. That is logically known as a fallacy.

But you are correct, I did lose my temper and I apologise for it. I will try to stick to the discussion from now on and deal with your arguments.

 

[Abu_Ismail]

It’s a causal link! Muhammed preached murder. People murdered.

Muhammad did not preach murder. Killing during war is not murder, if it is, then the American public through their support for the various wars America has waged are no less culpable.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Muhammad did not preach murder. Killing during war is not murder, if it is, then the American public through their support for the various wars America has waged are no less culpable.

Mohamed practiced murder- he didn’t have to preach it…but he did that too. Do you deny he had some assassinated becasue they insulted him?

 

[Abu_Ismail]

Mohamed practiced murder- he didn’t have to preach it…but he did that too. Do you deny he had some assassinated becasue they insulted him?

Yes I deny it. Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf was killed because he went to another tribe and incited them to take arms against the Muslims, and thus he was at war with the Muslims.

It’s not murder, and if it is, then please answer my previous question, is any killing during war considered murder? Because if it is, then we all have a lot of blood on our hands.

I don’t deny that Islam allows fighting to remove oppression or in defense. But if we’re going to call this murder, then lets be fair and start calling America murderers, UK murderers, etc, etc.

 

[Montalban]

So my so-called inability to deal with an argument is somehow related to the validity of Islam. That is logically known as a fallacy.

Not at all. Your inability to structure a logical argument in defence of Islam - as so many other Moslems are equally incapable of doing so is evidence of the illogical nature of Islam.

 

[Montalban]

Yes I deny it. Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf was killed because he went to another tribe and incited them to take arms against the Muslims, and thus he was at war with the Muslims.

It’s not murder, and if it is, then please answer my previous question, is any killing during war considered murder? Because if it is, then we all have a lot of blood on our hands.

So when a poetess wrote witty verse making fun of Muhammed that was a legitiate ‘war casulty’.

I don’t deny that Islam allows fighting to remove oppression or in defense. But if we’re going to call this murder, then lets be fair and start calling America murderers, UK murderers, etc, etc.

What about the Banu Quaresh killed after they had surrendered? This is the third time I’ve raised it now - still waiting a response.

 

[pro_universal]

Montalban,

All that I see in this thread is you refusing to acknowledge that any Muslim who says Islam is peaceful could even in theory be right. You display every classic marker of confirmation bias: Only “facts” that support your claims are true, and you reject any facts that undermine them as irrelevant or untrue.

I’ve come to the conclusion that “discussion” with you on this is simply fruitless-your judgment is far too impaired for you to be capable of rational discussion on this issue.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,

All that I see in this thread is you refusing to acknowledge that any Muslim who says Islam is peaceful could even in theory be right. You display every classic marker of confirmation bias: Only “facts” that support your claims are true, and you reject any facts that undermine them as irrelevant or untrue.

When you make every effort to distort my argument through reduction, or that of others, you don’t do Islam any credit- even your co-religionist does exactly the same thing - in this case pretending that I’ve simply made a few singular examples from Hadith.

You even continue to do so here - because you don’t offer any facts. As noted, you simply can’t help it.

I’ve come to the conclusion that “discussion” with you on this is simply fruitless-your judgment is far too impaired for you to be capable of rational discussion on this issue.

Good for you. I expect then not to hear from you again
[SIGN]Bye![/SIGN]

If you’re willing to show evidence, by all means come on back.

I even invite you to discuss the issue of the Banu Quaresh who were slaughtered after they had surrendered. I’ve always been open to discussion, but you’re intent on spending several days posting nothing but indignation