Muhammad.

[Servant19]

The number one thing that the devil intended to achieve from creating a religion that looks ok on the surface is to deny the divinity of Christ. Once this has been done, he has stopped people believing in God’s one true religion. Therefore they are on a way ride in the wrong direction.

Your signature is critical to answering your concerns dolphinlove

What makes you think that the devil was not successful in achieving Catholicism?

.

 

[dolphinlove]

Your signature is critical to answering your concerns dolphinlove

What makes you think that the devil was not successful in achieving Catholicism?

.

If you want me to list this, start a new thread. This thread is about islam, not catholicism.
This is the usual tact muslims use when confronted with these statements.

 

[Servant19]

If you want me to list this, start a new thread. This thread is about islam, not catholicism.
This is the usual tact muslims use when confronted with these statements.

Well, dear friend, it would be wonderful, therefore, for you to show me where in Christian Scripture it says that all those who do not profess the Divinity of Christ are deceived by the devil?



.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

^^^ A good strategy – and one I try to use myself – but in my experience it doesn’t usually lead to in depth and thoughtful replies from Muslim interlocutors, who often fall back on what is essentially a more elaborate “Yeah, well…your prophets did it too!” type answer. Hopefully you and others here have better luck with it.

Which should lead to a discussion concerning what the various prophets did and what happened to them when they undertook immoral actions. It should also lead to a discussion on how Judaism, Christianity, and Islam view the various prophets in regards to “saintliness” and from whom morality actually comes. Does morality in Islam come from Muhammad (Muhammad did X so we can do X) or from the Quran (Muhammad did X, the Quran teaches that X is wrong, God punished/corrected Muhammad for doing X, Muslims can not do X even though Muhammad did) or from both equally. The “yeah your prophets (who for the most part are also prophets for Muslims)” only works if the discussion starts off with just “Muhammad did X.”

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Most of İslamic scholars estimate marriage year of Aisha as 16 engaged and 19 married. There are many proofs according to records that show She was 19. That issue get confused because of Arab’s language. Because at that times Arabs had used to say for example 5 instead 15. İn Arabic language that issue can be understand more easier. İf someone insists on the year 6 and 9 then we have not certain reports. And also Companions desirous to try do every thing as like prophet Muhammad did. İf Muhammad had done somethink like that there would be countless samples like that. Muslims think doing like Muhammad is worhip for Allah and is a good deed even in common behaviours.

Although alls every one can believe and think freely. But the person being talked is a messenger of Allah and seal of prophet. İf someone thing bad things about Muhammad then it shows indeed he does not a believe that Muhammad is a prophet. İf some does not thing Muhammad is a prophet then he must disclaim all proofs about Muhammad.

Christians have a wish to denial Muhammad to save their religion but indeed they collapse their religion. Because Muhammad proved presence of God and all divine issues. Muhammad strengthened Christianity and all Muslims have a very certain believe about Christianity and accept Jesus with all other prophets. İf there is some conflicts and differents we must argue with proofs but not with detractions.

So Islam views Muhammad as being sinless/without fault/perfect in action? No action undertaken by Muhammad was immoral?

 

[dronald]

I don’t see any Sura # from the Koran. I want to be able to look it up in my copy of the Koran. I am not interested in any hadiths. You clearly said it was in the Koran.

As I said, “Those whom your right hand possesses” appears 14 times in the Qur’an. The term means slaves, and the Hadith gives rules on how female slaves ought to be treated.

 

[Matthew_Light]

Moreover, Aisha was still playing with dolls when she was wedded and bedded by Mohammed, which is quite frankly disturbing.

Lots of late teenagers still play with dolls. In any event, the “dolls” hadith is part of Aisha’s attempt to make herself seem absolutely pure and above reproach.

I hope everyone here talking about Aisha realizes that she had to come across as young and virginal at marriage in order to help her father win political control of Arabia after the death of Muhammad. There were questions about whether she was virginal at marriage, and accusations during their marriage that she had been unfaithful to Muhammad.

All of Muhammad’s other wives were widows or divorcees, and Aisha wanted to make herself seem a better wife than any of them so she and her father could lay claim to the Caliphate.

It cannot be minimized how highly virginity and sexual purity was and is valued in traditional cultures.

 

[Matthew_Light]

The Quran goes hand in hand with the hadiths. You can’t have a discussion about Islamic theology without being interested in the hadiths. That would be like trying to learn Christianity without bothering to be interested in Sacred Tradition.

In the Baha’i view, many of the Hadiths are incorrect and some are fraudulent.

The moral character of many of the early Muslims is questionable (given they began to kill the family of the prophet soon after his passing) and in the case of Islam there was a government to run and control after Muhammad.

A few fake “sayings” of Muhammad could be (and in the the Baha’i view were) helpful in seizing control, wealth and power.

One can acknowledge the accuracy of the Qur’an and dispute the accuracy of the Hadiths - it is an intellectually sound position.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

In the Baha’i view, many of the Hadiths are incorrect and some are fraudulent.

The moral character of many of the early Muslims is questionable (given they began to kill the family of the prophet soon after his passing) and in the case of Islam there was a government to run and control after Muhammad.

A few fake “sayings” of Muhammad could be (and in the the Baha’i view were) helpful in seizing control, wealth and power.

One can acknowledge the accuracy of the Qur’an and dispute the accuracy of the Hadiths - it is an intellectually sound position.

We aren’t talking about the Baha’i faith though, we are talking about the Islamic faith.

 

[Matthew_Light]

As I said, “Those whom your right hand possesses” appears 14 times in the Qur’an. The term means slaves, and the Hadith gives rules on how female slaves ought to be treated.

Yes, neither the Old Testament, New Testament, nor Qur’an outlawed slavery (although Muhammad encouraged manumission).

The Baha’i scriptures do outlaw slavery (and Baha’u’llah freed his father’s slaves upon his father’s death in 1839).

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Lots of late teenagers still play with dolls. In any event, the “dolls” hadith is part of Aisha’s attempt to make herself seem absolutely pure and above reproach.

I hope everyone here talking about Aisha realizes that she had to come across as young and virginal at marriage in order to help her father win political control of Arabia after the death of Muhammad. There were questions about whether she was virginal at marriage, and accusations during their marriage that she had been unfaithful to Muhammad.

All of Muhammad’s other wives were widows or divorcees, and Aisha wanted to make herself seem a better wife than any of them so she and her father could lay claim to the Caliphate.

It cannot be minimized how highly virginity and sexual purity was and is valued in traditional cultures.

The concept of “teenager” is rather new. A 19 year old was a full adult during that time period.

 

[Matthew_Light]

We aren’t talking about the Baha’i faith though, we are talking about the Islamic faith.

Well there are Muslims who disavow Hadith.

Since all Muslims agree on the Qur’an and they disagree on which Hadith are valid, it is very clear that the Qur’an is more important.

 

[Matthew_Light]

The concept of “teenager” is rather new. A 19 year old was a full adult during that time period.

I expect a 19 year old bride who wanted pre-eminence among Muhammad’s widows through virginity and youth (versus divorcees and widows) might not be averse to “remembering” playing with dolls and shaving a decade off her age, regardless of the reality of the situation.

Only when modern historical analysis is applied to the hadith collection can the reality of the situation be seen more clearly.

 

[dronald]

We aren’t talking about the Baha’i faith though, we are talking about the Islamic faith.

This is how I usually feel in these threads as well.

We get it, the Baha’i are peaceful; they’re a reformed version of Islam which quite frankly would be great if all the Muslims accepted instead of their Sunni beliefs. The world would be a better place if all Muslims became Baha’i.

The issue is, Muslims take these passages at face value and we take issue with them.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Well there are Muslims who disavow Hadith.

Since all Muslims agree on the Qur’an and they disagree on which Hadith are valid, it is very clear that the Qur’an is more important.

Please list the Islamic faiths that disavow all hadiths and rely solely on the Quran.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

This is how I usually feel in these threads as well.

We get it, the Baha’i are peaceful; they’re a reformed version of Islam which quite frankly would be great if all the Muslims accepted instead of their Sunni beliefs. The world would be a better place if all Muslims became Baha’i.

The issue is, Muslims take these passages at face value and we take issue with them.

The issue is that actual Islamic theology and thought is being ignored in order to promote the dismissal of a hadith the other poster either takes issue with or can not argue against. Artificial conditions are being created (hadiths don’t count in Islamic theology, just the Quran) in order to “prove” a position.

 

[Matthew_Light]

This is how I usually feel in these threads as well.

We get it, the Baha’i are peaceful; they’re a reformed version of Islam which quite frankly would be great if all the Muslims accepted instead of their Sunni beliefs. The world would be a better place if all Muslims became Baha’i.

This isn’t about getting anyone to become Baha’is. It’s not about changing anyone’s religion. It’s about supporting a more positive model of interaction with people of other religions regardless of whether they are Jewish, Christian, Muslim or any other faith.

“Religious fanaticism and hatred are a world-devouring fire, whose violence none can quench. The Hand of Divine power can, alone, deliver mankind from this desolating affliction.” - Baha’u’llah

What do Christians do that fan the flames of religious fanaticism and hatred? Saying the Muhammad is a child molester and rapist. Saying that the true Muslim believers are terrorists, and well-behaved Muslims aren’t real Muslims.

Christians should follow the lead of the Pope in seeking to achieve positive relationships between the Muslim and Christian communities. That is the answer, not screeds written by hate-mongers.

The fruit of the tree of conciliation and peace is a good fruit. The fruit of the tree of religious hatred is the Sabra and Chatila, the 9/11 attacks and Utøya island. We all get to decide which tree to water, and which tree to turn our back on.

 

[Matthew_Light]

The issue is that actual Islamic theology and thought is being ignored in order to promote the dismissal of a hadith the other poster either takes issue with or can not argue against. Artificial conditions are being created (hadiths don’t count in Islamic theology, just the Quran) in order to “prove” a position.

No, the position is that the Qur’an is reliable and the Hadiths are unreliable.

The goal is to stop Christian hatred of Muhammad and Islam. Ending that hatred (and the hatred and fear many Muslims have for Christians and Jews) is essential to working towards world peace.

In a world of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, we must learn to get along with one another. The beginning of that path is to stop civilizational antipathy and to see God in one another, and not see other communities as the spawn of Satan, recognizing only their flaws and excusing all of our own.

 

[josie_L]

Lots of late teenagers still play with dolls. In any event, the “dolls” hadith is part of Aisha’s attempt to make herself seem absolutely pure and above reproach.

NO, there are not lots of teenagers that still play with dolls Matthew, sorry, but that is rubbish. Moreover, if Aisha was nine years of age when she married Mohammed, is it really essential to prove that she was pure, i.e., she was NINE, I mean how could she have been anything else??? The dolls are significant of her tender age and no more.

It was not normative to marry and bed NINE year olds even for this period (Roman and Church law stipulated that 12 years of age was the minimum age for females to wed).

I hope everyone here talking about Aisha realizes that she had to come across as young and virginal at marriage in order to help her father win political control of Arabia after the death of Muhammad. There were questions about whether she was virginal at marriage, and accusations during their marriage that she had been unfaithful to Muhammad.

She was NINE years old, i.e., if there was doubt about her virginity at such a tender age, than everybody’s virginity should be in doubt, not just Aisha’s?? Moreover, if she was not virginal than Mohammed (the “prophet”) would surely have returned her back to her parents as ruined goods, but he didn’t.

All of Muhammad’s other wives were widows or divorcees, and Aisha wanted to make herself seem a better wife than any of them so she and her father could lay claim to the Caliphate.

She was nine years of age and she was never cast off as ruined goods by the prophet, what more did they need?

It cannot be minimized how highly virginity and sexual purity was and is valued in traditional cultures.

Exactly, so then there should be no question of Aisha’s purity upon marriage to Mohammed because he himself would have cast her off, I mean do Muslims doubt the integrity/honour of the “prophet”???

 

[oldcatholicguy]

This isn’t about getting anyone to become Baha’is. It’s not about changing anyone’s religion. It’s about supporting a more positive model of interaction with people of other religions regardless of whether they are Jewish, Christian, Muslim or any other faith.

“Religious fanaticism and hatred are a world-devouring fire, whose violence none can quench. The Hand of Divine power can, alone, deliver mankind from this desolating affliction.” - Baha’u’llah

What do Christians do that fan the flames of religious fanaticism and hatred? Saying the Muhammad is a child molester and rapist. Saying that the true Muslim believers are terrorists, and well-behaved Muslims aren’t real Muslims.

Christians should follow the lead of the Pope in seeking to achieve positive relationships between the Muslim and Christian communities. That is the answer, not screeds written by hate-mongers.

The fruit of the tree of conciliation and peace is a good fruit. The fruit of the tree of religious hatred is the Sabra and Chatila, the 9/11 attacks and Utøya island. We all get to decide which tree to water, and which tree to turn our back on.

Apparently you don’t hold that I, some of the other posters on here, or the Holy Father are “real” Christians since we don’t hold that “true Muslim believers are terrorists, and well-behaved Muslims aren’t real Muslims.” Using broad false generalizations to defeat different broad false generalizations doesn’t work. But it does let us know some of your true feelings in regards to Christians (who apparently believe Muhammad was a child molester and rapist and that all real Muslims are terrorists). Do you happen to get your information about what Christians really believe from Crusadewatch.com or Answering-Christianity.com?