ISLAM is False, Mulhammad is false

[planten]

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?

You have admitted the faulty attitude of the Roman Catholic mighty empire of stopping any preaching in their country in those days.

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

Muhammad loved the Jews and the christians. You are making false reports.

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)

That is what comes out of cruelty. Jesus had told the world that those who try to kill by the sword will be killed by the sword. So the catholic Kingdom should not have tried to annihilate the very small Muslim state by sword.

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)

False report.

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

.
That was the place where the christians had gathered to kill the muslim state. Muhammad went with his men, in extremem hot climate, to defend his state. But the christians thought it better to with draw back to their own territory.

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

That was a true report of 100,000 men of the christian empire who came to fight the muslims during the time of Abubakr, not during life time of prophet. They were repelled and killed.

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 great grand spiritual fathers had attacked the Muslims. Muslims had to defend. Even prophet King Soloman had forbidden the children of Israel not waken his beloved until she wants to wake up herself: see Songs ch.2:7.
7 O, Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you
by the gazelles and by the does of the field:
Do not arouse or awaken (tease) my love ( Muhammad)
until it so desires to wake up herself….

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.

Thanks for remembering the Spanish Inquisition and the Catholic Jihad (Crusade). That was your holy war, was it not?

 

[DeusVult09]

You have admitted the faulty attitude of the Roman Catholic mighty empire of stopping any preaching in their country in those days

haha like i said who the hell were muslims to tell the Romans what to do in their own country. what kind of arrogance is this? It is no concern of theirs what religions are followedin the roman empire. This is an absurd argument.

Muhammad loved the Jews and the christians. You are making false reports.

no that is a pure lie. You are the one making false reports not me.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Allah’s Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.’ "

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

That is what comes out of cruelty. Jesus had told the world that those who try to kill by the sword will be killed by the sword. So the catholic Kingdom should not have tried to annihilate the very small Muslim state by sword.

the catholic kingdom didn’t try to annihilate anyone the muslims started it not the Byzantine empire. who had been too busy fighting the sassanids. It was a muslim invasion

]

.

That was the place where the christians had gathered to kill the muslim state. Muhammad went with his men, in extremem hot climate, to defend his state. But the christians thought it better to with draw back to their own territory. That was a true report of 100,000 men of the christian empire who came to fight the muslims during the time of Abubakr, not during life time of prophet. They were repelled and killed.

most historians don’t think that ever happened due to its dubious sources.

great grand spiritual fathers had attacked the Muslims. Muslims had to defend. Even prophet King Soloman had forbidden the children of Israel not waken his beloved until she wants to wake up herself: see Songs ch.2:7.
7 O, Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you
by the gazelles and by the does of the field:
Do not arouse or awaken (tease) my love ( Muhammad)
until it so desires to wake up herself…

Your insolence sickens me. You are not one to complain about what my ancestors did or did not do to Islam especially since the great ottoman emperor and Muslim Suleiman the Magnificent instigated an unprovoked attack against my people murdering and raping thousands, enslaving thousands more children , kidnapping them from their parents and forcing them to be Muslim soldiers in the sultan’s Jannisaries. This went on for hundreds of years.But let me guess this was an act of self-defense too? When muslims do anything its automaticaly justified? you really sicken me. This is what islam did to my ancestors for no other reason that greed and expansionism. So don’t you dare tell me what my ancestors whether spiritual or otherwise did to Islam you hypocrite.

Thanks for remembering the Spanish Inquisition and the Catholic Jihad (Crusade). That was your holy war, was it not?

Planten your hypocrisy and ignorance sickens me. No credible historian thinks that the Byzantines attacked the Arabs first. Mohammad’s forces attacked a group of Arabs allied with the Byzantines and this is what caused the first conflicts between the two powers. You said Christians invaded a Muslim state and got defeated in a battle but you cant even tell me the name of the battle or where it was. Its obvious you are confusing this with a battle which happened in Byzantine controlled syria where the Muslims when outnumbered defeated a larger Byzantine force which was an invasion.

Abu Bakr initiated a un-provoked and major invasion against the Byzantines after he had succeeded in conquering iraq from the sassanids. But this is all ok according to you. Such hypocrisy! it sickens me.

You cannot complain about the Spanish inquisition either because one Muslim warlord Tamerlane (founder of the timurids) massacred 17 million people including several hundred thousand Christians in northern Iraq but no Muslims ever mention that. But they always complain about Spanish inquisition which at its most killed 30,000. again with the double standards and hypocrisy. Why cant you just admit the truth for once rather than relying on pseudo-histories?

 

[DeusVult09]

I reiterate Muslims invaded the Byzantine Empire it was not the other way around. , Muslims weren’t the victims but the victimizers.

This is accepted history all this garbage about Byzantines invading Arabia is not historical and is just weak apologetics. You cant even tell me the name of this alleged battle. Your arguments are really pathetic , almost as pathetic as your arrogance in casting aspersions on my ancestors again. You have no right to say 1 single thing about my ancestors, HYPOCRITE!

Abu Bakr launched a huge premeditated attack against the Byzantine empire. It is not a false report that Mohammad forces attacked an Arab tribe allied with the Byzantines that again is history.

He who lives by the sword does die by it that is why Muslims cannot complain bout the crusades because of their own unprovoked holy wars undertaken by the Turks and Arabs against the Byzentines long before the Crusades. Further invasion such as the Moorish invasions of Spain, France , Sicily, southern Italy and the sacking of Rome attest to this Muslim aggression long before any crusade. Was the invasion of Persia also in self defense? This is so pathetic I don’t know where to begin.

Your moronic arguments remind me of a Muslim who said that abu bakr invaded Syria to protect the Aryans living there from Byzantine persecution. When I asked him why at the same time Muslim forces were ravaging Persian lands, the home of the Aryans if they cared so much about them he could give no reply

 

[DeusVult09]

And by the way song of songs has nothing to do with Mohammad , that’s the most absurd thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Most of the time muslims complain about song of songs because of its subject matter but now it has about mohamamd in it? hahah omg !The hypocrisy never ends with you guys. you really do not know anything about the bible nor the principles of exegesis. Is there anything in song of songs to indicate its about Mohammad? No! that is completely moronic. Pity Muslims never pay any attention to the literary context of these verses they claim are about Mohammad.

 

[Christos]

And by the way song of songs has nothing to do with Mohammad , that’s the most absurd thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Most of the time muslims complain about song of songs because of its subject matter but now it has about mohamamd in it? hahah omg !The hypocrisy never ends with you guys. you really do not know anything about the bible nor the principles of exegesis. Is there anything in song of songs to indicate its about Mohammad? No! that is completely moronic. Pity Muslims never pay any attention to the literary context of these verses they claim are about Mohammad.

First I would like to mention that not only is the Song of Solomon Chapter 5 speaking of Muhammad but it also mentions him by name.

However I would first like to go over the matter of the criteria for judging inspired scripture. It is writtin in Paul’s Second Epistle to Timothy:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16, KJV)

There need not be any controversy about the idea expressed above: Whatever is believed to have been revealed or inspired by God must serve one of the four purposes: Either (1) it must teach us doctrine; or (2) it must reprove us for our error; or (3) it offers us correction; or (4) it guides us into righteousness.

On examination, we can find the Song of Solomon failing to pass any of the above criteria. Because, from a religious point of view: (1) it does not teach any doctrine; nor does it mention even God; (2) it does not reprove us for any error on our part; (3) it does not offer us any sort of correction; and (4) it does not guide us into righteousness; rather it gives sensuous descriptions of physical intimacy in a frank language in a Book of God.

The Song is apparently sung by Solomon in admiration of one woman, and it depicts faithful love to that woman; but Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). This fact alone should be enough to cast doubts on the claim that Solomon wrote the Song in admiration of his sweetheart — i.e. a single person — glorifying fidelity and sincerity in love.

The only possible apology for the inclusion of the Song in the Bible can come from the view that it is an allegory, because it would be wrong to take the Song of Solomon literally. Chiefly, because a love story for the sake of a love story does not have any place in scripture.

This means that the Christians should be prepared to accept it as an allegory, where language is used symbolically. And then the love story suddenly takes on new meanings which it did not possess before.

And remember, a symbol is “something used for or regarded as representing something else” (Dictionary.com).

Now, let us take a closer look at the verse quoted:

“His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” (Song of Solomon 5:16)

The original Hebrew Bible has “Muhammadim” in the place of “altogether lovely”, but the translators rendered it “altogether lovely”. It should have been “the Praised One” — that is the correct meaning of “Muhammadim”. At the same time, “Muhammadim” happens to contain the name of the final prophet in Arabic too.

Christians (with very few exceptions) do not study the context of the expression as found in the present Bible. The Christian contention is that the context does not warrant any one to claim that there is a clear reference here to the final prophet.

Now, after considering the whole of the Song of Solomon and the context of the verse, we can say that if we take the Song as an allegory, and the epithet, “Muhammadim” as a description of “the beloved”, it is possible that the beloved is someone for whom a nation — or the world — was waiting (for instance). And as has been argued above, there is a strong case for that.

I want to underscore this point again. The Christian claim about the Song of Solomon, that it just tells a good love story, seems to contradict their defense of the Song as divinely inspired as the rest of the Bible.

It follows logically that either the Song of Solomon is not divinely inspired, or there is a high possibility of “Muhammadim” being a reference to the Last Prophet Muhammad.

Thank you very much.

[Please I urge that you yourselves read the Hebrew or ask someone who could and see with your own eyes the words Muhammad where it has been wrongly translated “altogether lovely” because no one has the right to translate a name]

 

[Christos]

I reiterate Muslims invaded the Byzantine Empire it was not the other way around. , Muslims weren’t the victims but the victimizers.

This is accepted history all this garbage about Byzantines invading Arabia is not historical and is just weak apologetics. You cant even tell me the name of this alleged battle. Your arguments are really pathetic , almost as pathetic as your arrogance in casting aspersions on my ancestors again. You have no right to say 1 single thing about my ancestors, HYPOCRITE!

Abu Bakr launched a huge premeditated attack against the Byzantine empire. It is not a false report that Mohammad forces attacked an Arab tribe allied with the Byzantines that again is history.

He who lives by the sword does die by it that is why Muslims cannot complain bout the crusades because of their own unprovoked holy wars undertaken by the Turks and Arabs against the Byzentines long before the Crusades. Further invasion such as the Moorish invasions of Spain, France , Sicily, southern Italy and the sacking of Rome attest to this Muslim aggression long before any crusade. Was the invasion of Persia also in self defense? This is so pathetic I don’t know where to begin.

Your moronic arguments remind me of a Muslim who said that abu bakr invaded Syria to protect the Aryans living there from Byzantine persecution. When I asked him why at the same time Muslim forces were ravaging Persian lands, the home of the Aryans if they cared so much about them he could give no reply

The name of this battle is “Battle of Ajnadayn” please search it up, learn from it and then speack. Thank you.

 

[DeusVult09]

First I would like to mention that not only is the Song of Solomon Chapter 5 speaking of Muhammad but it also mentions him by name.

However I would first like to go over the matter of the criteria for judging inspired scripture. It is writtin in Paul’s Second Epistle to Timothy:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16, KJV)

There need not be any controversy about the idea expressed above: Whatever is believed to have been revealed or inspired by God must serve one of the four purposes: Either (1) it must teach us doctrine; or (2) it must reprove us for our error; or (3) it offers us correction; or (4) it guides us into righteousness.

On examination, we can find the Song of Solomon failing to pass any of the above criteria. Because, from a religious point of view: (1) it does not teach any doctrine; nor does it mention even God; (2) it does not reprove us for any error on our part; (3) it does not offer us any sort of correction; and (4) it does not guide us into righteousness; rather it gives sensuous descriptions of physical intimacy in a frank language in a Book of God.

The Song is apparently sung by Solomon in admiration of one woman, and it depicts faithful love to that woman; but Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). This fact alone should be enough to cast doubts on the claim that Solomon wrote the Song in admiration of his sweetheart — i.e. a single person — glorifying fidelity and sincerity in love.

The only possible apology for the inclusion of the Song in the Bible can come from the view that it is an allegory, because it would be wrong to take the Song of Solomon literally. Chiefly, because a love story for the sake of a love story does not have any place in scripture.

This means that the Christians should be prepared to accept it as an allegory, where language is used symbolically. And then the love story suddenly takes on new meanings which it did not possess before.

And remember, a symbol is “something used for or regarded as representing something else” (Dictionary.com).

Now, let us take a closer look at the verse quoted:

“His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” (Song of Solomon 5:16)

The original Hebrew Bible has “Muhammadim” in the place of “altogether lovely”, but the translators rendered it “altogether lovely”. It should have been “the Praised One” — that is the correct meaning of “Muhammadim”. At the same time, “Muhammadim” happens to contain the name of the final prophet in Arabic too.

Christians (with very few exceptions) do not study the context of the expression as found in the present Bible. The Christian contention is that the context does not warrant any one to claim that there is a clear reference here to the final prophet.

Now, after considering the whole of the Song of Solomon and the context of the verse, we can say that if we take the Song as an allegory, and the epithet, “Muhammadim” as a description of “the beloved”, it is possible that the beloved is someone for whom a nation — or the world — was waiting (for instance). And as has been argued above, there is a strong case for that.

I want to underscore this point again. The Christian claim about the Song of Solomon, that it just tells a good love story, seems to contradict their defense of the Song as divinely inspired as the rest of the Bible.

It follows logically that either the Song of Solomon is not divinely inspired, or there is a high possibility of “Muhammadim” being a reference to the Last Prophet Muhammad.

Thank you very much.

[Please I urge that you yourselves read the Hebrew or ask someone who could and see with your own eyes the words Muhammad where it has been wrongly translated “altogether lovely” because no one has the right to translate a name]

What absolute nonsense, this is more of dedat’s rubbish. This verse has nothing to do with Mohammad. Mohammad wasn’t even his name wasn’t even his name, rather it was a title he adopted when he “became a prophet” which is why he was also called ahmad which has the same meaning, the praised one. Even Muslim scholars have admitted before Mohammad’s prophethood his name was qythm or something to that extent.

Furthermore the word mahamaddim, means “delights,” "delightfulnesses” but this is not referring to the name of a person because it is in the plural form indicated by it’s “im” ending. Just because a word is formed by the same semetic root does not make this a prophecy of Mohammad in any way shape or form and suggesting as such is ludicrous as the overall context of the song of Solomon has nothing to do with Mohammad. As I said it is just a love poem. Furthermore in Ezekiel 24:16 the word is applied to a woman meaning delights of the eyes. In Ezekiel 25 it is used to apply to idolatrous Jews. In Ezekiel 18 it is used to talk about the delights of his wife. Are these all predictions of Mohammad?

I suggest you do some research into the Hebrew before making such absurd claims. There are no prophecies of Mohammad in the bible and if this is a prophecy of Mohammad then Muslims should stop complaining about this book for its erotic language. lol hahah im suprised you havent brought up the parakletos nonsense yet.

The Battle of Ajnadayn took place after the Muslim invasion of the Byzantine empire and I think took place in the Byzantine province of Syria. How is this a Byzentine invasion of Arabia? Please get your facts right mate! This was no Byzantine invasion of Arabia in any way shape or form as they Byzantines were the defenders.

 

[DeusVult09]

The name of this battle is “Battle of Ajnadayn” please search it up, learn from it and then speack. Thank you.

why dont you “search it up and then speak” this battle took place in byzentine syria

 

[planten]

why dont you “search it up and then speak” this battle took place in byzentine syria

**Deus, you are beaten in these posts. The word Muhammad is there in the song of songs, Rather Muhammadaim is there which seems in plural form. No harm. That plural form is for respect in the languages. We Muslims are sure that King Solomon was a prophet of God and he would not utter vain things. If his songs were so useless then they would not make their way into the bible. The songs definitely had the important meanings i.e. message.

The verses I quoted also had a message to the daughters of Jerusalem by an oath that they should not wake up or disturb the love of Soloman. They should leave her alone until she wanted to wake up herself. That was a very good message.

The prophets never become attentive to any peaceful people. Muhammad would never had engaged the children of Israel (Jews and christians, I would say mostly christians. Because the Jews were no where in control of any power palce.) That message of Soloman was directed to the christians who were holding the city of Jerusalem in their control, that they should not try to pick up a fight with the Love of Soloman.

In that case, that Love of Soloman would also not try to harm the daughters of Jerusalem. Well and good. Deus please see that the songs are sung in love of some one, who is rather blackish ( not so fair as the people in the Northern part of Seria. Read the songs od Soloman 5:lines 10 to 16.

Also read ch. 1 verses 5-6. and Ch. 3:5 and ch. 8:4. All is there about Muhammad.**

 

[DeusVult09]

**Deus, you are beaten in these posts. The word Muhammad is there in the song of songs, Rather Muhammadaim is there which seems in plural form. No harm. That plural form is for respect in the languages. We Muslims are sure that King Solomon was a prophet of God and he would not utter vain things. If his songs were so useless then they would not make their way into the bible. The songs definitely had the important meanings i.e. message.

The verses I quoted also had a message to the daughters of Jerusalem by an oath that they should not wake up or disturb the love of Soloman. They should leave her alone until she wanted to wake up herself. That was a very good message.

The prophets never become attentive to any peaceful people. Muhammad would never had engaged the children of Israel (Jews and christians, I would say mostly christians. Because the Jews were no where in control of any power palce.) That message of Soloman was directed to the christians who were holding the city of Jerusalem in their control, that they should not try to pick up a fight with the Love of Soloman.

In that case, that Love of Soloman would also not try to harm the daughters of Jerusalem. Well and good. Deus please see that the songs are sung in love of some one, who is rather blackish ( not so fair as the people in the Northern part of Seria. Read the songs od Soloman 5:lines 10 to 16.

Also read ch. 1 verses 5-6. and Ch. 3:5 and ch. 8:4. All is there about Muhammad.**

Where is this great Byzantine invasion of Arabia what is the battle called? I have asked you 3 times and still no answer, why? Because you don’t know, its just more taqiyyah.

You haven’t beaten anything rather i have exposed your hypocrisy and ignorance time and time again. My god ! If its in the plural form it cant be talking about a Person called Mohammad. It does not mean praised one but delightful from the Hebrew word chamad meaning “to delight in – beauty, greatly beloved, covet, delectable thing, (great) delight, desire, goodly, lust, (be) pleasant (thing), precious (thing).”

. If Solomon didn’t write this how can u say it is a prophecy by him? You do not understand even the smallest thing about biblical exegesis do you ? You cannot ignore that this is in the plural and then ay its talking about the prophet mohammad. As I have shown it is used many times in the Tanak even to talk about women are they prophecies of Mohammad too? It just keeps on getting more and more absurd with you!

What you fail to realize is that 1 Mohammad wasn’t your prophet’s name rather his title and b the similarities are caused by both languages being Semitic. It does not say the prophet Mohammad it does not even say the name Mohammad because its in the plural form. That’s a huge problem for your claims and you cant get around that. All the song of Solomon is, is a love poem you have still failed to prove this has anything to do with Mohammad. Any biblical scholar would laugh at you if you said this to them because it is so absurd and so wrong but still moronic Islamic scholars like Ahmed Dedat (even though he’s dead his org does) Continue to propagate such lies and Muslims believe them wholeheartedly without examining them critically. I have already exposed Dedat’s lies about John 20:28 in this post
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=363167

QUOTE=planten;5542880]I would say mostly christians. Because the Jews were no where in control of any power palce.) That message of Soloman was directed to the christians who were holding the city of Jerusalem in their control, that they should not try to pick up a fight with the Love of Soloman.

hahah are you insane? Christianity didn’t exist during the time of Solomon . This is utterly insane!, you really mutilate the text out of a lack of understanding of what the song of Solomon is. The song of Solomon has nothing to do either with Christianity of Mohammad can you get that into you thick skull? It is an ancient Jewish love poem and nothing more. It contains no prophecies about Islam or Christianity. Pick a fight with the love of Solomon? That has to be the stupidest interpretation I have ever heard. Please get a dictionary and look up what exegesis means. Your prophecies are more insane than those of Fundamentalist evangelicals who claim that Apache attack helicopters and communist china are in the book of revelation. and that’s saying something because those interpretations are pretty absurd. I think you should really take a couple of classes in systematic theology before you even try to talk about the bible because you are way off !

your vain attempts to mutilate the text and make it say something it doesn’t say are completely reprehensible. The more I chat to you the more I realized you are seriously deluded and that Islam is a farce (not that I had any doubts about that). Please let me know when you get some solid evidence because I will not waste my time on such nonsense any longer.

 

[sedonaman]

Thanks for remembering the Spanish Inquisition and the Catholic Jihad (Crusade). That was your holy war, was it not?

Sure. They were defensive wars to reclaim lands from the Muslims, lands that had been Christian for 1,000 years before Muslims came in with their swords and conquered the defenseless Christians. No different from what Mohammed did, except Mohammed taught warfare; Jesus didn’t. Mohammed lived by the sword, and he died by the sword, just like Jesus said he would.

 

[trdchubi]

This reminds me of the islamic paracletos in opposition to John 16:13.

**“When the spirit of false comes, he will guide you into all sort of lies; for he will speak on his own, he will speak whatever he hears in reference to his desires, and he will declare to you the things that are to come with regards to his delusions and fantasies” **

 

[Christos]

Sure. They were defensive wars to reclaim lands from the Muslims, lands that had been Christian for 1,000 years before Muslims came in with their swords and conquered the defenseless Christians. No different from what Mohammed did, except Mohammed taught warfare; Jesus didn’t. Mohammed lived by the sword, and he died by the sword, just like Jesus said he would.

If you study and learn about life in the Holy Land while the Muslims were ruling you will see that ALL THREE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS lived in peace and were allowed to practise their own religions in peace. It was the Christians and their HOLY WAR the Crusades Authorized by the POPE who went into The Holy Land and SLAUGHTERED Men, WOMAN, AND CHILDREN both JEWS and MUSLIMS.

Then study that when Muhammad went from Madina to conquer Makkah how did he go.

The book of Jude speaks of him.

1:14 About these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying,
"Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones,

1:15 to execute judgment on all,
and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness
which they have done in an ungodly way,
and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Also, it says in Deutronomy

“And he said, The LORD came from Si’-nai, and rose up from Se’-ir unto them; he shined forth from mount Pa’-ran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. (From the King James Version Bible, Deuteronomy 33:2)”

You may ask where this paran is. We all know that Ishmael and Hagar dwelt in the wilderness of Arabia. We all agree to this so please do not say that no they did not. As we all agree to this fact I will show you the name of this wilderness written in the bible

And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.
Genesis 21:21

Now that we see that this Paran was indeed in Arabia, we can indeed say that this verse refers to Muhammad. Now the question is did Muhammad conquer Makkah with 10 000 followers/faithful companions/saints? If you do a little research and learn about the Conquest of Makkah you will learn that Indeed Muhammad did conquer Makkah with 10 000 faithful.

If you still deny that these prophesies which appear in both the Old and New Testament refers to Muhammad, then go on, please enlighten me on who they refer to.

In the Quran it states “There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing” (2:256).

If Muslims had spread by the sword, then tell me, which Muslim Army went to Malaysia? Which Muslim Army went to Indonesia? There wasn’t any. Muslims ruled Spain for EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS. If Islam was spread by the sword then why was it that the Muslims were eventually removed from Spain. The Muslims ruled India for ONE THOUSAND YEARS, then why is it that when the nations split the Muslims get one quarter and the Hindus get three. This is because we in most cases never subjugated others, we never put them to the sword. Yet, I do not deny, even amongts the Muslims we’ve had wolves in sheeps clothing which has given Islam a bad name.

 

[DeusVult09]

If you study and learn about life in the Holy Land while the Muslims were ruling you will see that ALL THREE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS lived in peace and were allowed to practise their own religions in peace. It was the Christians and their HOLY WAR the Crusades Authorized by the POPE who went into The Holy Land and SLAUGHTERED Men, WOMAN, AND CHILDREN both JEWS and MUSLIMS.

Then study that when Muhammad went from Madina to conquer Makkah how did he go.

The book of Jude speaks of him.

1:14 About these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying,
"Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones,

1:15 to execute judgment on all,
and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness
which they have done in an ungodly way,
and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Also, it says in Deutronomy

“And he said, The LORD came from Si’-nai, and rose up from Se’-ir unto them; he shined forth from mount Pa’-ran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. (From the King James Version Bible, Deuteronomy 33:2)”

You may ask where this paran is. We all know that Ishmael and Hagar dwelt in the wilderness of Arabia. We all agree to this so please do not say that no they did not. As we all agree to this fact I will show you the name of this wilderness written in the bible

And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.
Genesis 21:21

Now that we see that this Paran was indeed in Arabia, we can indeed say that this verse refers to Muhammad. Now the question is did Muhammad conquer Makkah with 10 000 followers/faithful companions/saints? If you do a little research and learn about the Conquest of Makkah you will learn that Indeed Muhammad did conquer Makkah with 10 000 faithful.

If you still deny that these prophesies which appear in both the Old and New Testament refers to Muhammad, then go on, please enlighten me on who they refer to.

In the Quran it states “There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing” (2:256).

If Muslims had spread by the sword, then tell me, which Muslim Army went to Malaysia? Which Muslim Army went to Indonesia? There wasn’t any. Muslims ruled Spain for EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS. If Islam was spread by the sword then why was it that the Muslims were eventually removed from Spain. The Muslims ruled India for ONE THOUSAND YEARS, then why is it that when the nations split the Muslims get one quarter and the Hindus get three. This is because we in most cases never subjugated others, we never put them to the sword. Yet, I do not deny, even amongts the Muslims we’ve had wolves in sheeps clothing which has given Islam a bad name.

It was the Muslims who in their holy war invaded the Byzantine empire, Perisa, Spain , Southern France, Sicily, Italy and sacked rome so you are not one to talk. All this before any crusade and the battle you named was a Muslim invasion of the Byzantine province of Syria . it was not a Byzantine invasion of Arabia as Planteen argued.

The Muslims were the aggressors not the Byzantines who were weakened from centuries of constant war with the sassanids and wars with the Huns, buglers and vandals before that. The Muslim jihadists when they invaded the Byzantine empire killed thousands of men and women (there are eyewitness accounts of them doing such) so you are not one to complain about the crusades. That is pure hypocrisy. Muslim actions provoked the crusades.

The book of Jude has nothing to do with Mohammad. If so show me one instance where it says “the prophet Mohammad” in the text? wow because mohamamd had an army of 10,000 when he conqured mecca it must be aprophercy of him? hahah what utter nonsense agian you have no proof

There is nothing to indicate its talking about Mohammad. Mount Paran is in Israel not Saudi Arabia. This is more of Dedat’s rubbish and completely moronic.

Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years and perpetrated many massacres against Jews just as bad as the Spanish inquisition yet muslims always complain about the Spanish inquisition, like your friend planteen.

. How did Muslims get into Spain in the 1st place? They invaded because Visigoth count invited them there so he could use them to grab power off the royal family
but it backfired and they ended up conquering all of Spain and then ventured into southern France where they were stopped by Europe’s savior Charles Martel at the battle of toursi n 732.

Muslims never ruled India for a thousand years that’s utter nonsense the Mughals only invaded in the 1500’s.

As far as I am concerned Muslims cant complain about the Spanish inquisition or the crusades as Muslims were aggressors against Christians with their own holy war long before any crusade and Muslims perpetrated numerous massacres of Jews in Spain and northern morocco just as bad as the Spanish inquisition. This includes the 1011 granada massacre where muslim mobs massacred 400 jews, the 1066 cordoba massacre where muslim mobs killed 4000 jews and the fez massacre of 6000 Jews by Muslims in 1035. Yet Muslims always hypocritically go on about how they were persecuted by Christians under the Spanish inquisition. This is pure hypocrisy as one Muslim warlord, Tamerlane (founder of the Timurid dynasty) massacred at least 100,000 Christians in northern iraq probably more. Tamerlane is also responsible for the deaths of 17 million people in total but no Muslims never complain about that. The most the Spanish inquisition killed was up to 30,000.

 

[dzheremi]

If you study and learn about life in the Holy Land while the Muslims were ruling you will see that ALL THREE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS lived in peace and were allowed to practise their own religions in peace. It was the Christians and their HOLY WAR the Crusades Authorized by the POPE who went into The Holy Land and SLAUGHTERED Men, WOMAN, AND CHILDREN both JEWS and MUSLIMS.

Wah, wah, wah. Somebody call this guy a waaaahmbulance to take him to the waaaahspital, please. I don’t see you crying so much over the Christian lands that Muslims stole in the first place. The thievery of these lands and subsequent brutality towards Christians by the Seljuk Turks led to the first Crusade in the first place. Muslims have no one but themselves and their own inherently evil and unequal system of laws to blame for their calamity. No Christian should ever have to apologize to a Muslim for the Crusades, especially not while our brothers and sisters are being beaten, oppressed, and murdered TODAY in occupied Assyria, Coptic Egypt, and everywhere else where Muslims form a majority of the state.

The book of Jude speaks of him.

It does not, you liar. Muhammad is not in the Bible, save for the passages about false prophets and the evilness and ruin that they bring into the world.

You may ask where this paran is. We all know that Ishmael and Hagar dwelt in the wilderness of Arabia. We all agree to this so please do not say that no they did not. As we all agree to this fact I will show you the name of this wilderness written in the bible

Why do we all know that? Because you say so? Most of the maps I’ve seen not made by Islamist weirdos with an agenda to bring gullible Christians into Islam do not show Paran anywhere near Mecca. Mecca is far too north. In fact, this issue has been dealt with several times on this board and each time the Islamic claims have been found to be severely lacking.

And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.
Genesis 21:21

Oh, well then…that settles it…

Now that we see that this Paran was indeed in Arabia, we can indeed say that this verse refers to Muhammad

How do we see that Paran is indeed in Arabia based on what you’ve posted?

Now the question is did Muhammad conquer Makkah with 10 000 followers/faithful companions/saints? If you do a little research and learn about the Conquest of Makkah you will learn that Indeed Muhammad did conquer Makkah with 10 000 faithful.

The verse says “tens of thousands”, not “ten thousand”.

If Muslims had spread by the sword, then tell me, which Muslim Army went to Malaysia? Which Muslim Army went to Indonesia?

Which armies would have had to? By the time Islam came to Southeast Asia, trade links with the wider world established Islam there without the need for the forced conversions experienced by people to whom Islam had come earlier, such as the Berbers in North Africa.

Muslims ruled Spain for EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS. If Islam was spread by the sword then why was it that the Muslims were eventually removed from Spain.

This does not even make sense. Islam was most DEFINITELY spread by the sword in the VIsigothic Christian kingdom of Spain, which was illegally overrun by Muslims from North Africa. They were not welcomed there, and eventually were removed, thanks be to almighty God. No one I’ve ever met or talked to, including scholars of all religious backgrounds, has ever described the Muslim conquest of Spain as being anything but an invasion. If you think otherwise, you are incredibly delusional.

The Muslims ruled India for ONE THOUSAND YEARS, then why is it that when the nations split the Muslims get one quarter and the Hindus get three.

Because, try as they might, the Muslims could not convert the majority of Hindus away from their deeply rooted faith. You guys got Pakistan, which only exists because of Muslims’ complaining, and now you’re complaining that you don’t get more of India? Get outta here!

This is because we in most cases never subjugated others, we never put them to the sword. Yet, I do not deny, even amongts the Muslims we’ve had wolves in sheeps clothing which has given Islam a bad name.

Yes, yes, there are good Muslims, there are bad Muslims, but there are no good Islamic conquests or good Islamic apologetics for those conquests. Your post is a perfect example of that.

 

[dzheremi]

For anyone who is interested in the view of someone other than an Islamic apologist on the history of Muslim-Hindu relations in Muslim India, I think this entry by an Indian blogger sums it up pretty darn well: Muslim persecution of Hindus in India

It really is not a pretty picture.

 

[ZAKI]

For anyone who is interested in the view of someone other than an Islamic apologist on the history of Muslim-Hindu relations in Muslim India, I think this entry by an Indian blogger sums it up pretty darn well: Muslim persecution of Hindus in India

It really is not a pretty picture.

MUSLIM PERSECUTION OF HINDUS IN INDIA??? what a load of ****!
it is the opposite way around!

wasalam

 

[ZAKI]

MUSLIM PERSECUTION OF HINDUS IN INDIA??? what a load of ****!
it is the opposite way around!

wasalam

i just checked it out! a hindus point of view

wasalam

 

[dzheremi]

Uh…so, let me get this straight…you decided it was “a load of ****”, and THEN you read it, and now you give it a thumbs up?

 

[trdchubi]

If you study and learn about life in the Holy Land while the Muslims were ruling you will see that ALL THREE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS lived in peace and were allowed to practise their own religions in peace. It was the Christians and their HOLY WAR the Crusades Authorized by the POPE who went into The Holy Land and SLAUGHTERED Men, WOMAN, AND CHILDREN both JEWS and MUSLIMS.

Oh yeah they live in peace. The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan — TYRANNY. So how can that be peace?