ISLAM is False, Mulhammad is false

[jakasaki]

~ snip ~ …

but after that they lived in peace with Christians and Jews a like. It wasn’t until the Crusades that they saw us as enemy’s 4/500 years later,

~ snip ~ …

Credit posting to member SedonaMan for Dava’s review:

Originally Posted by sedonaman

~ snip~

463 years between the death of Mohammed and the calling of the first Crusade, among them,

609-22 AD – Mohammed preaches in Mecca
622 – Meccans kick Mohammed out, he and his followers move to Medina, raid caravans
624 – Battle of Badr
625 – Battle of Uhud
629 – Muhammad conquest of Mecca
632 – Mohammed dies
633 – Mesopotamia falls to Muslim invasion, followed by the entire Persian Empire
635 – Damascus falls
638 – Jerusalem capitulates
643 – Alexandria falls, ending 1,000 years of Hellenic civilization
648-49 – Cyprus falls
653 – Rhodes falls
673 – Constantinople attacked
698 – All of North Africa lost
711 – Spain invaded
717 – Muslims attack Constantinople again; repelled by Emperor Leo the Isaurian
721 – Saragossa falls, Muslims sights on southern France
720 – Narbonne falls.
732 – Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt down
732 – Charles Martel and his Frankish army defeat Muslims, turning back the Muslim tide
732 – Attacks on France continued
734 – Avignon captured by an Muslim force
743 – Lyons sacked
759 – Arabs driven out of Narbonne.
838 – Marseilles plundered
800 – Muslims incursions into Italy begin, Islands of Ponza and Ischia plundered
813 – Civitavecchia, the port of Rome sacked
826 – Crete falls to Muslim forces
827 – Muslim forces begin to attack Sicily.
837 – Naples repels a Muslim attack
838 – Marseilles taken
840 – Bari falls
842 – Messina captured and Strait of Messina controlled
846 – Muslims squadrons arrived at Ostia, at the Tiber’s mouth, sack Rome and St. Peter’s Basilica
846 – Taranto in Apulia conquered by Muslim forces
849 – Papal forces repel Muslim fleet at the mouth of the Tiber
853 – 871 – Italian coast from Bari down to Reggio Calabria controlled, Muslims terrorize Southern Italy.
859 – Muslims take control of all Messina
870 – Malta captured by the Muslims.
870 – Bari recaptured from the Muslims by Emperor Louis II
872 – Emperor Louis II defeats a Saracen fleet off Capua
872 – Muslim forces devastate Calabria
878 – Syracuse falls after a nine-month siege
879 – Pope John VIII forced to pay tribute of 25,000 mancuses (AUD$625,000) annually to the Muslims
880 – Byzantine Commanders gain victory over Saracen forces at Naples
881 – Muslims capture fortress near Anzio, plunder surrounding countryside with impunity for forty [40] years.
887 – Muslim armies take Hysela and Amasia, in Asia Minor.
889 – Toulon captured
902 – Muslim fleets sacked and destroyed Demetrias in Thessaly, Central Greece,
904 – Thessalonica falls to Muslim forces
915 – After three months of blockade, Christian forces victorious against Saracens holed-up in their fortresses north of Naples
921 – 921AD – English pilgrims to Rome crushed to death under rocks rolled down on them by Saracens in the passes of the Alps
934 – Genoa attacked by Muslim forces
935 – Genoa taken
972 – Saracens finally driven from Faxineto
976 – Caliphs of Egypt send fresh Muslim expeditions into southern Italy. Initially the German Emperor Otho II , who had set up his headquarters in Rome, successfully defeated these Saracen forces
977 – Sergius, Archbishop of Damascus, expelled from his See by Muslims
982 – Emperor Otho’s forces ambushed and his army defeated
1003 – Muslims from Spain sack Antibes
1003-09 – Marauding bands of Saracens plunder Italian coast from Pisa to Rome from bases on Sardinia
1005 – Muslims from Spain sack Pisa
1009 – Caliph of Egypt orders destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the Tomb of Jesus
1010 – Saracens seize Cosenza in southern Italy.
1015 – All Sardinia falls
1016 – Muslims from Spain again sack Pisa
1017 – Fleets of Pisa and Genoa sail for Sardinia, find Saracens crucifying Christians, drive Saracen leader out. Saracens try to re-take Sardinia until 1050
1020 – Muslims from Spain sack Narbonne
1095 – The First Crusade.

There were 463 years between Mohammed’s death in 632 and the calling of a Crusade to free lands that had been Christian for a thousand years before the Muslim invaders arrived.

 

[DeusVult09]

yeah your right! I agree!

but even as Muhammed, fought with a sword so did King David. Both faced Impossible odds and won. Muhammed killed the Ishmaelites who where pagans opposing God’s Will.

but after that they lived in peace with Christians and Jews a like. It wasn’t until the Crusades that they saw us as enemy’s 4/500 years later, when a English King went to conquer Jerusalem for Christians. killing a lot of Muslims in the process…but even after that they still tried to be peaceful: when they recaptured Jerusalem (I think?) they still kept the Orthodox Bishop in Charge of the main Church, other peoples would have burnt the place down or converted it in to another building.

can I ask which country you are from? I still say fight the good fight for Catholicism, “Go out on every rooftop” and declare Jesus!, just in the west it’s harder because of Gentiles, also Christian who speak harshly without knowing Islam is from Christianity.

they think its some other God, or something to do with Hinduism. many here pretend to be Christians but actually don’t care.
but if your swamped with Muslims, use words and The Word to fight the good fight, defend every believer strengthen your brothers and sisters in faith and love.

peace

David

ps “figures of the Church”…who? I’ve heard some rumours but I don’t believe them. We have the Holy Father, and The Lord is always sending saints to repeat the Message that He Loves us.

that is pure ahistorical garbage. The Muslims were engaged in a holy war against Christianity long before the crusades and they also perpetrated many atrocities. Some 400 years before the crusades Muslims invaded the Byzantine empire, 300 years before the crusades they invaded Spain and Southern France (though they were stopped at the battle of tours by Charles Martel in 732), 200 years before the crusades Muslims invaded southern Italy, Sicily and even sacked Rome so who is the real aggressor here? It wasn’t the catholics. As Muslims have a history of 400 years of aggression before any crusade. I see the crusades largely as a response to this aggression and also based in the desire to regain the holy land for Christianity.

The first crusade was unwittingly launched by the Byzantine Emperor Alexius who requested military aid from the Pope due to muslim invasions. The pope who saw it as an opportunity to reestablish catholic dominance in the region and get some revenge launched the 1st crusade in 1096 I think.

Richard the 1st, the king of England (well really he was a norman who barely ever spent any time there)was not involved in the 1st crusade but the 3rd crusade far later. You have obviously been taken in by various Muslim psuedo-histories which overlook these 400 years of Muslim aggression against Christianity.

The Muslims were not always peaceful and were not always the victims that is a pure lie. There are numerous 1st hand accounts of Muslim conquerors perpetrating massacres thought the vanquished Byzantine empire (especially in Armenia) long before the crusades. yes the crusaders committed atrocities but the Muslims were no better and were the 1st aggressors which is something which is always overlooked

. you are right in one respect islam is from christianity. I suggest you read my post on the subject. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=361136

 

[DeusVult09]

Islam is a religion of peace.

these guys killing people for what they believe, are just like things that have happened in our religion…

did you know that The Bride had fury against the Jews and persecuted them for over a hundred years? she had to learn to control her temper. Islam is there now, for us it was a thousand years ago, but for them it is just now, not to mention some factions during the last and previous centuries (extreme right wing Christians…KKK?)

The Magi are the three kings, that where the first to worship Jesus.

Your perfectly right, they shouldn’t kill anybody and most don’t.

The Gentiles invaded Iraq and killed a lot of there people…was that right?..but they (Muslims) think it’s Christians doing this…but it’s Gentiles looking for money and oil and wealth…death.

I don’t think Violence is a solution …it should be the last answer to a grave question…but the Gentiles don’t really stop to ask questions.

peace

David

Edit: I don’t think the KKK are Catholic, BUT THEY believe their Christian just as these guys believe their Islamic.

also Gentiles are non believers Atheists or say they believe but cause war.

Lord Jesus is the Prince of Peace.

The KKK were originally an anti-catholic organization who opposed Catholics ( as well as blacks, Jews etc) but now however Catholics are allowed to join but it remains a largely protestant group.

 

[dava4444]

that is pure ahistorical garbage. The Muslims were engaged in a holy war against Christianity long before the crusades and they also perpetrated many atrocities. Some 400 years before the crusades Muslims invaded the Byzantine empire, 300 years before the crusades they invaded Spain and Southern France (though they were stopped at the battle of tours by Charles Martel in 732), 200 years before the crusades Muslims invaded southern Italy, Sicily and even sacked Rome so who is the real aggressor here? It wasn’t the catholics. As Muslims have a history of 400 years of aggression before any crusade. I see the crusades largely as a response to this aggression and also based in the desire to regain the holy land for Christianity.

The first crusade was unwittingly launched by the Byzantine Emperor Alexius who requested military aid from the Pope due to muslim invasions. The pope who saw it as an opportunity to reestablish catholic dominance in the region and get some revenge launched the 1st crusade in 1096 I think.

Richard the 1st, the king of England (well really he was a norman who barely ever spent any time there)was not involved in the 1st crusade but the 3rd crusade far later. You have obviously been taken in by various Muslim psuedo-histories which overlook these 400 years of Muslim aggression against Christianity.

The Muslims were not always peaceful and were not always the victims that is a pure lie. There are numerous 1st hand accounts of Muslim conquerors perpetrating massacres thought the vanquished Byzantine empire (especially in Armenia) long before the crusades. yes the crusaders committed atrocities but the Muslims were no better and were the 1st aggressors which is something which is always overlooked

. you are right in one respect islam is from christianity. I suggest you read my post on the subject. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=361136

Hi!

you seem to have more wit in this than I do, but isn’t it true all three have done this?

I love the Bride, She is the Blood in my veins, but there are many mis-conceptions, on perfection, I believe St.John Paul the Great taught her true peace. and she will continue to learn from each Holy Father and each Saint.

I knew about the invasion of Spain but I forgot, mind you when they didn’t conquer France
they retreated to Spain. when I saw this on a documentary I thought: “they did that because there were scared God wasn’t with them” but again you might have more wit in this than I do

peace

David

 

[DeusVult09]

Hi!

you seem to have more wit in this than I do, but isn’t it true all three have done this?

I love the Bride, She is the Blood in my veins, but there are many mis-conceptions, on perfection, I believe St.John Paul the Great taught her true peace. and she will continue to learn from each Holy Father and each Saint.

I knew about the invasion of Spain but I forgot, mind you when they didn’t conquer France
they retreated to Spain. when I saw this on a documentary I thought: “they did that because there were scared God wasn’t with them” but again you might have more wit in this than I do

peace

David

Yes all have don’t this, I wasn’t saying Catholics have a perfect history just that your view of Islam’s history is wrong and that Muslims were the aggressors long before any crusade. They even sacked Rome, for god’s sake yet we always get this picture from historians of barbarous Christians invading the peaceful Muslim lands which is absolutely false as Muslims were far from peaceful and everywhere the crusaders went had been Christian up to 400 years before.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

poor ME? did you just say…poor MEEE??

B-WOLF HOLD ME BACK! :knight1:

I’ve got the straps ready.

 

[dava4444]

Yes all have don’t this, I wasn’t saying Catholics have a perfect history just that your view of Islam’s history is wrong and that Muslims were the aggressors long before any crusade. They even sacked Rome, for god’s sake yet we always get this picture from historians of barbarous Christians invading the peaceful Muslim lands which is absolutely false as Muslims were far from peaceful and everywhere the crusaders went had been Christian up to 400 years before.

well, because of Her Fury, I believe God is challenging us with Gentile secularism in the west, and in a few hundred years He may do the same with them. Violence causes Division.

even up until recently, there was talk of a Sunni Shi’a split like we had with the protestants, because of hate. with us it was Henry wanting to contradict Jesus, then it was about money…guh!
(btw my history isn’t great, duh me! please be kind)

I don’t know what the cause is for them, but it was certainly violent on the news last year.

I didn’t know they sacked Rome .but they did preserve the Churches in Jerusalem for Christians.

peace

 

[ZAKI]

I’ve got the straps ready.

a bit late…but thanks

wasalam

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

a bit late…but thanks

wasalam

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Maybe some Muslims could now address what I wrote on the first page. I’ll start posting them again.

Here was my first post:

I think we should present some meaningful explanations to our Muslim members of why we do not believe it to be the true religion of God.

First, let us review one important fact of Islam: it was begun when Mohammad was visited by a supposed angel

Narrated 'Aisha:
He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family…The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, “I do not know how to read.”

The Prophet added, “The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, ‘I do not know how to read.’ Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, ‘I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?’ Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, 'Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists) has created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous.” Then Allah’s Apostle returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, “Cover me! Cover me!” They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, “I fear that something may happen to me.” [Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3]

An angel physically attacks Mohammad, barks orders, terrifies him (all of which no angel has ever done), and gives him a revelation that, over time, becomes the Koran. What does this revelation teach?

• Christ is not divine (S. 5:116)
• Christ was not crucified, let alone died on the cross or was resurrected (S. 4:157)
• The Trinity is a lie (S. 5:73)

All of these contradict the Gospels specifically and the New Testament in general. This presents several problems

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. [John 1:1-3, 14]

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. [Galatians 1:6-8]

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. [2 Corinthians 11:13-14]

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. [2 John 1:7]

So Islam is begun by a message that presents a new gospel that does not come from the Church, and one that preaches against what is taught in the New Testament. To Christians this is a major sign that the Koran is not of God. Yes, it came from a supposed angel, but as Paul warns, even demons can appear as “angels of light” to deceive mankind. If you read about early monastics, there are many recorded examples of this.

I will perhaps add to this later, but this is, God willing, a starting point.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

And my second post:

Some additional thoughts.

One notable trait of the New Testament is that it continually quotes the Old Testament. For example, in Acts 2 alone you find Joel 2:28-32, Psalm 16:8-11, and Psalm 110:1 quoted. Move on to Acts 3 and you’ll find Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19 quoted along with Genesis 22:18 and 26:4. Moving away from Acts, Romans 9 has twelve Old Testament citations from five different books. It goes on and on from here. Find a copy of the UBS Greek New Testament, which has Old Testament citations in bold print, and you’ll find every other page lit up.

The point is, the early apostles, right or wrong, knew their Old Testament scripture. Furthermore, they used that scripture to confirm the teachings of Christ. They did not argue that the Jews had corrupted their scripture, hid scripture, or tarnished it in any way. Rather, they argued with the scripture and kept it intact. The Old Testament confirmed the New Testament, rather than the New Testament confirming the Old Testament.

Now I recognize that it is common for Muslims on this forum and in Islamic apologetics in general to immediately jump to the argument that the Bible was tarnished. Nevertheless, the Koran itself states that the Torat and Injil were the books sent down to God’s people.

It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). [S. 3:3]

And yet we find something very different in the Koran than we do in the New Testament: no direct citations or quotes. Instead, what we have are name-dropping of prophets and vague references to certain events like the flood. Nowhere in the Koran is the Old Testament or the New Testament directly cited. The question is…if Allah did indeed send down the Torat and Injil, why couldn’t He quote it at least once? If Mohammad really is foretold in the Old and New Testaments as the Koran claims (S. 7:157), why couldn’t the Koran cite relevant passages like the apostles did in the New Testament to confirm the coming of Christ?

What we have here, then, is not only a revelation that contradicts what came before it, but seems to completely ignore it. It cites the Jewish and Christian scripture as books sent from God, but refuses to quote it. It cites that the Jewish and Christian scriptures confirm Islam and Mohammad, but can’t even quote one passage to prove their point. The question that Christians therefore have is: why did God change His method of revelation? Why must we suddenly abandon what we knew and believed in simply because a man 600 years later claims prophethood without engaging in meaningful exegesis?

It is very ironic that the devil, when tempting Christ, quoted scripture more often than the Koran did.

 

[dava4444]

If Mohammad really is foretold in the Old and New Testaments as the Koran claims (S. 7:157), why couldn’t the Koran cite relevant passages like the apostles did in the New Testament to confirm the coming of Christ?

Actually, there are references:

Galatians 4:21-31
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.
23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.
25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.
26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
27 For it is written:
“Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29 At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now.
30 But what does the Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”
31 Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

and

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

but ~peacefully suggested~ The Lord says:

“And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 17:20)”

and Jesus says:

14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

the last one is unsure but if you look at the amount of Muslims that listen to Him.

okay, okay, I know the first two are harsh (sorry) but the Lord promised them Sinai not Jerusalem. they are under the Law not the Grace, and value submission more than love.

Paul says that we should not accept another Gospel than he preached, “the Gospel of Salvation” “the Gospel of Peace”

I don’t think The Qur’an is fully the word of God, but his Promise to them was a “Great Nation” so I believe partially formed (Spirit without substance…??), He is there. like do not borrow or lend, this was Jesus who said this: there whole economy is based on this. can we say this? or is it easier to put up with gentile practices? money is the root of all evil, doesn’t the devil get a look in? …no? then have a think…

Muhammad’s mysticism is very much like the prophets of old , but Muhammed wasn’t sent to me he was sent to the Muslims to fullfill God’s promise to the Sons of Ishmael and Abraham.

peace

David

WOW this is getting a hot debate, to think St.John Paul The Great kissed the Qur’an for peace and understanding and enlightenment!

 

[planten]

Originally Posted by DeusVult09
Yes all have don’t this, I wasn’t saying Catholics have a perfect history just that your view of Islam’s history is wrong and that Muslims were the aggressors long before any crusade. They even sacked Rome, for god’s sake yet we always get this picture from historians of barbarous Christians invading the peaceful Muslim lands which is absolutely false as Muslims were far from peaceful and everywhere the crusaders went had been Christian up to 400 years before.

**Deus, you need to be corrected. Muslims never attacked the Big Roman Empire. Please keep it in mind. The Muslims were very weak new born nation in between two great world powers, i.e. the Romans Cathoilcs and the Persians. The Romans had the upper hand over the Persians.

It so happened that the weak flagelling Muslim state of Madinah had to engage and repel the attack of Major world power, that was Romans. That happened because:

1. The Romans had killed peaceful Muslim preachers in their territory.
2. The Romans did not like the free spread of knowledge about religons.
3. The Roman christians did not like that any one preach any other religion in their country.
4. That was a major crime, as far as Islam was concerned.

On top of that, the nearby Roman Christian forces of King Caesor assembled at the borders of the Muslim state, ready to attack. that happened in the life time of the prophet Muhammad. The prophet came with his men to repel the attack. But the christians withdrew back into their own territory and war was avoided.

But after the prophet died, the Roman christian forces attacked the Muslim state. It was a very hard battle for the Muslims, like the odds of 10,000 against 100,000 armed men. But by the Grace of God, the Muslims were victorious and the christians were defeated.

Then after that it was free for all because there was no truce. The Romans were always on the run. So why do you blame the Muslims for anything???**

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t think The Qur’an is fully the word of God, but his Promise to them was a “Great Nation” so I believe partially formed (Spirit without substance…??)

The Qur’an is not the Bible, so it isn’t ANY of the word of God. There are still nice verses in it, of course, but don’t mistake it as in any way sacred scripture as we know it as Christians. It’s not.

Muhammad’s mysticism is very much like the prophets of old , but Muhammed wasn’t sent to me he was sent to the Muslims to fullfill God’s promise to the Sons of Ishmael and Abraham.

How could this be? How can Muhammad be sent to a religious community that did not exist prior to his founding of it? This is like saying that Jesus was sent to Christians, even though there were no Christians until after the incarnation. It doesn’t make sense. Your views are ahistorical. Please respect the linear flow of history.

WOW this is getting a hot debate, to think St.John Paul The Great kissed the Qur’an for peace and understanding and enlightenment!

Or a poorly thought out photo op…

 

[dava4444]

The Qur’an is not the Bible, so it isn’t ANY of the word of God. There are still nice verses in it, of course, but don’t mistake it as in any way sacred scripture as we know it as Christians. It’s not.

How could this be? How can Muhammad be sent to a religious community that did not exist prior to his founding of it? This is like saying that Jesus was sent to Christians, even though there were no Christians until after the incarnation. It doesn’t make sense. Your views are ahistorical. Please respect the linear flow of history.

Or a poorly thought out photo op…

1. The Jews were influenced by the Zoroastrians (during exile), even the Magi were Zoroastrians.
2. the Ishmaelites DID exist, but they had turned to paganism, like my fathers the Celts, until Christ in the form of His Word and the Substance of His Spirit.
3. do you oppose his canonization then? that he was a patsy to the media, or do you believe he was from God.

Did he compromise Divine truth for peace, or did he believe that the Lord had promised someone other than ourselves something different i.e a nation devoted to submission to The Lord.

I’ll say it again, I believe Christ does not live in the Qur’an but the Nobility of His Law is there. and perhaps thought the Lord’s Promise, the Spirit strengthens them in this Law.
Because The Spirit will Fulfil what The Father says.

peace

David

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Actually, there are references…

You seem to have completely not gotten my point in the section you quoted. There are no direct citations or quotes in the Koran. Quoting supposed passages in the New Testament that talk of the advent of Islam is completely irrelevant to that point.

Your passages, furthermore, are taken out of context, with a mindset that, I’m sorry to say, reeks of postmodernism (which I am saddened to see so common on CAF). The passage regarding Galatians, in fact, was quoted in my original post as evidence the Koran was not the word of God.

The passage you quote regarding Ishmael leading up to a great nation leaves out an important passage right after:

But God said, “No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year.” [Genesis 17:19-21; emphasis mine]

God’s love for Ishmael was out of pity and compassion, since he was not responsible for the feud between Sarah and Hagar - however, the true connection between God and mankind would be through Isaac and his future descendant Jesus Christ.

the last one is unsure but if you look at the amount of Muslims that listen to Him.

The last one is not unsure about anything. It is Christ speaking of the entire world, which will have the possibility of coming into His covenant after the crucifixion.

Furthermore, Muslims do not listen to Jesus - they listen to Mohammad and what Mohammad taught of Jesus, just as Mormons only listen to what Joseph Smith told them about Jesus, and Jehovah’s Witnesses only listen to what Charles T. Russell told them about Jesus. This is a false Christ which Christ Himself warned us against.

I don’t think The Qur’an is fully the word of God, but his Promise to them was a “Great Nation” so I believe partially formed (Spirit without substance…??)

Have you even read my entire post? Did you read what the “angel” did to Mohammad? Did you read what the Koran teaches? What Mohammad taught the Arabic people from this supposed angel? God had no hand in this - if Mohammad entered into communion with spirits, it was not the Holy Spirit. God would never blaspheme Himself.

As Paul said (which you ironically quoted) any gospel that contradicts what was given to Christians is not from God, and anyone who preaches such a gospel should be accursed. Now many Christians seem to think so long as one or two good things are in a false gospel, it should be OK. Again, this is post-modernism at its worst.

Muhammad’s mysticism is very much like the prophets of old , but Muhammed wasn’t sent to me he was sent to the Muslims to fullfill God’s promise to the Sons of Ishmael and Abraham.

That is Muslim argumentation which I have shown before is faulty - after Ishmael and Hagar head into the desert you rarely hear of them ever again. Only when the Koran is revealed (piece by piece) do you suddenly hear the name Ishmael used so commonly used, and put in the contact with Isaac and Jacob, both of whom were in the covenant with Abraham. However, the covenant was with Isaac and Isaac alone.

Mohammad, in addition to teaching against Christianity, also persecuted Jews and Christians throughout Arabia, and his companions did likewise. His followers, the Muslims, would go on to take four of the five holy sees of Christendom, each city coming under persecution with many martyrs spilling their blood instead of denying Christ. If this is our God, then I pity God’s faithful!

But as I stated before, you seem to have ignored my argumentation, and your response, I’m sorry to say, reads like you read bits and pieces and simply responded with what you believe.

 

[sedonaman]

…but after that they lived in peace with Christians and Jews a like. It wasn’t until the Crusades that they saw us as enemy’s 4/500 years later, when a English King went to conquer Jerusalem for Christians. killing a lot of Muslims in the process…but even after that they still tried to be peaceful: when they recaptured Jerusalem (I think?) they still kept the Orthodox Bishop in Charge of the main Church, other peoples would have burnt the place down or converted it in to another building.

You need to read up on the Crusades, and not some rubbish written by a mea-culpa Christian nor a self-righteous Muslim.

 

[sedonaman]

**Deus, you need to be corrected. Muslims never attacked the Big Roman Empire. Please keep it in mind. The Muslims were very weak new born nation in between two great world powers, i.e. the Romans Cathoilcs and the Persians. The Romans had the upper hand over the Persians.

It so happened that the weak flagelling Muslim state of Madinah had to engage and repel the attack of Major world power, that was Romans. That happened because:

1. The Romans had killed peaceful Muslim preachers in their territory.
2. The Romans did not like the free spread of knowledge about religons.
3. The Roman christians did not like that any one preach any other religion in their country.
4. That was a major crime, as far as Islam was concerned.

On top of that, the nearby Roman Christian forces of King Caesor assembled at the borders of the Muslim state, ready to attack. that happened in the life time of the prophet Muhammad. The prophet came with his men to repel the attack. But the christians withdrew back into their own territory and war was avoided.

But after the prophet died, the Roman christian forces attacked the Muslim state. It was a very hard battle for the Muslims, like the odds of 10,000 against 100,000 armed men. But by the Grace of God, the Muslims were victorious and the christians were defeated.

Then after that it was free for all because there was no truce. The Romans were always on the run. So why do you blame the Muslims for anything???**

You have posted this fairy tale dozens of times but have NEVER cited any sources that we can check out. Until then, and with the exception about blaming Muslims, it will remain just a fairy story that Muslim mothers tell their children at bedtime. So, you might as well stop wasting your time re-cycling it.

Why do we blame Muslims? If you had a concept of the Golden Rule, you might understand that Islam demands from everyone else that which it is unwilling to accord to others. Banning the preaching of other religions is a prime example. You say Christians banned the preaching of other religions, yet Islam does not allow Christianity to be heard in lands ruled by Islam. Islam must be heard, but not other religions. That’s why Islam is self-righteous: it determines what everyone must believe.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

You have posted this fairy tale dozens of times but have NEVER cited any sources that we can check out. Until then, and with the exception about blaming Muslims, it will remain just a fairy story that Muslim mothers tell their children at bedtime. So, you might as well stop wasting your time re-cycling it.

If he starts citing sources, most likely hadiths, he’ll be called out on his argument not to trust hadiths.

 

[DeusVult09]

**Deus, you need to be corrected. Muslims never attacked the Big Roman Empire. Please keep it in mind. The Muslims were very weak new born nation in between two great world powers, i.e. the Romans Cathoilcs and the Persians. The Romans had the upper hand over the Persians.

It so happened that the weak flagelling Muslim state of Madinah had to engage and repel the attack of Major world power, that was Romans. That happened because:

1. The Romans had killed peaceful Muslim preachers in their territory.
2. The Romans did not like the free spread of knowledge about religons.
3. The Roman christians did not like that any one preach any other religion in their country.
4. That was a major crime, as far as Islam was concerned.

On top of that, the nearby Roman Christian forces of King Caesor assembled at the borders of the Muslim state, ready to attack. that happened in the life time of the prophet Muhammad. The prophet came with his men to repel the attack. But the christians withdrew back into their own territory and war was avoided.

But after the prophet died, the Roman christian forces attacked the Muslim state. It was a very hard battle for the Muslims, like the odds of 10,000 against 100,000 armed men. But by the Grace of God, the Muslims were victorious and the christians were defeated.

Then after that it was free for all because there was no truce. The Romans were always on the run. So why do you blame the Muslims for anything???**

No that is the biggest load of garbage I have ever heard you are the one who needs to be corrected. Muslims did attack the Byzantine empire that is a fact! Both the Sassanids and Byzentines were exhausted after centuries of warfare which is principally how islam was able to overrun them both. I do blame the Muslims because they under Abu Bakr instituted a premeditated attack against the Christians.

1st of all who did the Muslims think they are telling people what to do in their own country? If the Romans didn’t like Islam that’s up to them. If another country doesn’t like your religion that’s an excuse for invasion is that what you a re telling me?

Well Mohammed didn’t like Jews saying all must be killed before the day of judgment will come and massacred 900 of them so that would be justification for Jews to invade Arabia? Is that what you are telling me? hahaha

Your Muslim histories are very wrong. Both The Byzantines and Persians were exhausted after hundreds of years of war (whish is how Islam got control of the middle-east) But you are wrong the sassanids were not doing as bad as you say as they captured Damascus, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch (but lost them later)

The 1st attack was committed by the Mohammad when he led an attack against Tabuk a Town part of the Byzantine empire (though historians are unsure as to whether this 1st Muslim expedition resulted in conflict due to the lack of early accounts)

Then Mohammad invaded Arab tribes under the protection of the Byzantine empire at the battle of Mutah. The leader of the Ghassanids , a Byzantine protectorate sent away to the Byzantine emperor for help due to the approaching Muslim army and with the combined forces they were able to repel the invaders.

Reports of 100,000 men gathering in Syria during the time of Mohammad are considered completely untrue or to be an extreme exaggeration by scholars due to their dubious sources and the weakend state of the Byzentine Empire

In 633 after the Muslim civil war had ended and abu bakr had consolidated his power, then he invaded Sassanid held Iraq. Then in 636 he turned his attention to Byzantine held Syria. Abu Bakr sent out 4 armies sent out with the aim of taking 4 different objectives within the Byzantine empire. They had the objectives of Palestine, Damascus, Emensa and Jordan. This was a carefully organized and premeditated
invasion based entirely in Muslim expansionist desires. The Muslim forces in Syria engaged the Byzantines in The battle of Yarmouk and overcame them despite larger Byzantine numbers, this is the battle you are referring to? This was a Muslim invasion of the Byzantine empire not the other way around. If this isnt the battle you are reffering to tell me which one you are?

Your Muslim histories are highly dubious on the subject even scholars have said so. It is clear that Muslims were the aggressors not the Christians as they were greedy for land and power and this is what caused the crusades. But let me guess it was all self-defense? Hahah the Muslims invaded Persia too in self-defense? Never mind the Muslims issued a decree to the Sassanids saying convert or else, its still self defense? Your pseudo Muslim histories are very dubious and reek of taqiyyah.

This is a pure fiction, I have heard such lies before. It sickens me I just wish Muslims could be honest about their history just for once instead of demonizing Christian history for the crusades, the Spanish inquisition and slavery. Whilst they overlook that Muslims have just as bad a history so to me it reeks of hypocrisy. Muslims were involvedin a jihad against Christians, pagans and Zoroastrians long before any Christian holy war or crusade against Islam. Muslims were involved in the slave trade (in many cases Christians bought the slaves off Muslims) etc it seems there is always one rule for the Muslims and one for everyone else. Then you try to hide history behind lies which sickens me. Im not saying Christians have a perfect history I just want some honesty and for Muslims to lose the double standards they have.