Muhammed's theology FAILS.

[dzheremi]

Thank you! And to you too!!



Now, try this… say ‘shaik’ out loud to yourself. What does it sound like?

Sheik, Sheikh, or shaik!!! I would say we have a… well, you guess. no matter how one spells it - it is still the same. Maybe he is embarressed to be one.

Just so you know, Sheikh does not have negative connotations in Arabic. It can apply to Muslims, Christians, Jews, and anyone else who is considered a wise “elder”/leader. It literally means “elder”. There are Jews who are known as Sheikh (like the famous Tunisian Jewish singer from the 1920s, “Cheikh El Afrit” - Cheikh is just the French spelling). I have read Christian leaders like Lebanese Forces commander and assassinated President-Elect Bashir Gemayel referred to as “Cheikh Bashir”. And of course, Muslim leaders and respected persons can also be called Sheikh.

And in Modern Standard Arabic, it sounds like “shake”, sort of (the k sound is like the ch in Scottish “loch”, but the vowel is closer to an “ay”, because it’s a diphthong). It is probably most accurately phonetically transliterated as “shaykh”.

</language nerd hat>

 

[LutheranDK]

No. The verse is challening the claims of Christians and Jews that God loves them especially. That is why it counters by saying God punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills, i.e. being a Christian or a Jew makes no difference.

Neither Christian nor Jewish Orthodoxy says, that God loves Christians/Jews more than any other people?
In fact, as far as I know, islam refuses to talk about “God’s love”, as only God’s WILL was (supposedly) delivered to Muhammed…

 

[staffsgt7]

Just so you know, Sheikh does not have negative connotations in Arabic. It can apply to Muslims, Christians, Jews, and anyone else who is considered a wise “elder”/leader. It literally means “elder”. There are Jews who are known as Sheikh (like the famous Tunisian Jewish singer from the 1920s, “Cheikh El Afrit” - Cheikh is just the French spelling). I have read Christian leaders like Lebanese Forces commander and assassinated President-Elect Bashir Gemayel referred to as “Cheikh Bashir”. And of course, Muslim leaders and respected persons can also be called Sheikh.

And in Modern Standard Arabic, it sounds like “shake”, sort of (the k sound is like the ch in Scottish “loch”, but the vowel is closer to an “ay”, because it’s a diphthong). It is probably most accurately phonetically transliterated as “shaykh”.

</language nerd hat>

Go read some of his posts I am confused I will admit as to what he is but whatever. Whatever he is he doesn’t want to admit to it openly.

 

[dzheremi]

Oh, I don’t care what he is either way. I just figured that post might help in case you or anyone else thought that sheikh is a Muslim-only title.

 

[Reuben_J]

**Kadaveri
No. The verse is challening the claims of Christians and Jews that God loves them especially. That is why it counters by saying God punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills, i.e. being a Christian or a Jew makes no difference.

LutheranDK
Neither Christian nor Jewish Orthodoxy says, that God loves Christians/Jews more than any other people?
In fact, as far as I know, islam refuses to talk about “God’s love”, as only God’s WILL was (supposedly) delivered to Muhammed… **

We will note that there are similar errors in the Quran – where it states or implies wrongly what Christians believed.

One of them is where it says the Trinity consists of Father, Son and Mother. Muslims have denied this but their explanation is not convincing enough to me. Clearly that verse means that God of Christians consist of father, son and mother. I find it hard to believe that it should say mother if it does not mean that the Trinity consists of ‘mother’. This contention is also supported in other verses where it says God does not have a father or mother.

Similarly here, it implies that being special in God’s eyes, Jews and Christians believe that God allows them to sin (which of course, is not true).

 

[Kadaveri]

Raphinal -

The issue is how God being ‘The Father’ is interpreted. I agree with Elwill that there is very strong evidence that Jews refered to God using paternalistic terms in such a way that does not constitute shirk in Islam. However, I do disagree with him in his using this as an explanation as to why Jesus Christ is described as being the ‘Son’ of God in the New Testament. The Synoptic Gospels are not clear, and there’s a fair argument to be made that they’re using ‘Son of God’ in the same way that past Jewish Prophets were referred to as sons of God, meaning servant of God. However to my mind it’s beyond reasonable doubt that when the Gospel of John calls Jesus the Son of God (or especially, the only begotten Son), that this explanation is not tenable. For reasons as a Catholic I’m sure you’re already aware of and I need not explain in detail, the author of the Gospel of John clearly believes Jesus to have been far more than just a human Prophet.

It is this understanding which the Qur’an condemns, as Jesus being the Son of God as in being the incarnation of God on Earth, and God being ‘The Father’ as in the hypostases of the Trinity from which the Son (and the Holy Ghost) proceed. Such a belief is in clear contradiction to Islamic monotheism, as it effectively divides God into ‘parts’.

Such an understanding of God being ‘The Father’ is all that most Muslims are familiar with, that and Arab Pagan beliefs of God being a ‘father’ in a much more literal sense, so naturally they will be adverse to anyone speaking of God using such terminology. But on speaking of God as ‘The Father’ in a clearly and strictly metaphorical sense such as how some Jews used, I have not came across any evidence or convincing argument that this is forbidden in Islam. I still don’t think it’s a good idea though.

Also, I’d like to remind you that Muslims do not believe the New Testament to be a divinely inspired work, despite it containing some truth.

 

[Kadaveri]

Charlotte408 -

On why 9/11 happened. If you’re looking for answers in the Qur’an then, respectfully, I think you’re going about this in entirely the wrong way. Those attacks were not about and had nothing to do with religion or theology. A much better way to approach the question would be to do some reading on how the USA has behaved in the Middle-east since about the 1950s. I’m not saying this in an attempt to dodge your question, but to be honest with you I don’t have much interest in getting into a discussion about US Middle-east policy in this thread.

On 2:191. This Qur’anic verse is referring to a specific war during Muhammad’s Prophethood in which Muslims were threatened with attack and probably annihilation by the Meccan Pagans, though the principles contained therein are considered by jurists to be general in application. That is to say, what it says are laws of war for Muslims. The phrase ‘persecution is worse than slaughter’ basically means the same thing as ‘give me liberty or give me death’. It means that its better that persecuted people refuse to be persecuted even if that means that they will be killed. The verse on its own is I think quite clear that force should be used only to defend yourself from the aggressors use of force. If that isn’t made adequately clear in 2:191, then the very next verse, which reads "But if they stop, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (2:192)) should settle the matter.

 

[Kadaveri]

Neither Christian nor Jewish Orthodoxy says, that God loves Christians/Jews more than any other people?
In fact, as far as I know, islam refuses to talk about “God’s love”, as only God’s WILL was (supposedly) delivered to Muhammed…

Do Christians and Jews believe that they can get to Paradise even though they reject Muhammad’s Prophethood? That alone is enough of a reason for the Qur’an to consider them as expecting special treatment from God. Read the Qur’an from an Islamic lens.

And I don’t understand what you’re talking about when you say “Islam refuses to talk about God’s love”. The Qur’an talks about God’s love quite often, 85:14 to give an quick example off the top of my head.

 

[dzheremi]

Do Christians and Jews believe that they can get to Paradise even though they reject Muhammad’s Prophethood? That alone is enough of a reason for the Qur’an to consider them as expecting special treatment from God. Read the Qur’an from an Islamic lens.

This is not a sensible objection, however. We are saying that the CHRISTIANS AND JEWS themselves, who are accused of believing this about themselves by the Qur’an, do not actually believe this. So the Qur’an is wrong about us once again.

It is NOT about how a Muslim sees a Christian or a Jew. It is about how the Qur’an says Christians and Jews see themselves.

 

[staffsgt7]

Do Christians and Jews believe that they can get to Paradise even though they reject Muhammad’s Prophethood? That alone is enough of a reason for the Qur’an to consider them as expecting special treatment from God. Read the Qur’an from an Islamic lens.

And I don’t understand what you’re talking about when you say “Islam refuses to talk about God’s love”. The Qur’an talks about God’s love quite often, 85:14 to give an quick example off the top of my head.

Why should anyone read the Koran for anything? It isn’t an extension of Judaism, or Christianity. Why don’t you look at other’s beliefs through their lens?

Mohammed comes along and tries to create a new religion. There is only a self proclamation of prophethood, he fulfills nothing (well, except maybe the anti-Christ). But let us not go there right now. The Koran contradicts the Bible. The Koran contradicts itself.

Mohammed throws out all normal sense of right and wrong. And when he gains power he is nothing but a pediphile warlord who kills and enslaves people and takes their belongings. What is so holy about that?!?! It isn’t holy except that Mohammed says that some God says it is holy and whatever Mohammed wants to do he uses Allah as an excuse to get what he wants.

There is nothing in the Koran that follows what the Bible says, either the OT or the NT. The Bible stories are incorrect. And the understanding for many things are framed around a man who didn’t understand any of it.

He was raised as a pagan of his time and that is why he introduces the kabaa and a black stone because they used to worship that stone in the building. He even included some of Allah’s sisters which later he finds are inconvenient to include so he decides to say that those were told to him by Satan. Ironically the three daughters are mild compared to the killing, sexual deviancy, thievery, torture, lying, slavery, etc that he started up after he gained power. That sounds more like what a devil described in the Bible would influence someone to do!

Anyway, I think that no Muslim has yet even talked about Islam’s theology.

No one has talked about the good deeds, the requirement of all Muslilms to wage Jihad with 97% of it as talked about as violence against the unbelievers, predestination, the idea that Muslims will all spend some time in hell unless they die while killing unbelievers then they are eligible to go straight to heaven. Most Muslim women will stay in hell because Mohammed said most women go there or that Allah is a deceiver, and demands submission (like the Judeo-Christian’s Satan).

 

[Kadaveri]

Reuben J -

It’s not true that the Qur’an says the Trinity of ‘Father, Son and Mother’. I don’t want to go into any depth here as I think that would only serve to hijack the thread, but if you want to open a new thread on this I’d be happy to continue the discussion there.

 

[Kadaveri]

This is not a sensible objection, however. We are saying that the CHRISTIANS AND JEWS themselves, who are accused of believing this about themselves by the Qur’an, do not actually believe this. So the Qur’an is wrong about us once again.

It is NOT about how a Muslim sees a Christian or a Jew. It is about how the Qur’an says Christians and Jews see themselves.

No. It’s about how God sees Christians and Jews. God says Muhammad is my Prophet sent to all mankind and that rejecting him means to reject Me. Christians and Jews say we reject Muhammad but we still think we’re on our way to Paradise because we are God’s people. God says you’re not getting special treatment, I punish whom I will. The Qur’an is not wrong about you, you do reject Muhammad and yet still think you can get to Paradise.

 

[staffsgt7]

No. It’s about how God sees Christians and Jews. God says Muhammad is my Prophet sent to all mankind and that rejecting him means to reject Me. Christians and Jews say we reject Muhammad but we still think we’re on our way to Paradise because we are God’s people. God says you’re not getting special treatment, I punish whom I will. The Qur’an is not wrong about you, you do reject Muhammad and yet still think you can get to Paradise.

But your whole premise is wrong if Mohammed wasn’t a prophet and his God was just his imagination. And it is easy to see how Mohammed’s God was his imagination when he did despicable acts and said that Allah allowed it.

The whole premise that Islam hangs on is what Mohammed proclaimed for himself. And that is pretty feeble.

Mohammed offered absolutely no proof of his prophethood or that his God was anything but his imagination. winning in battles is not a proof of anything except fighting better than the other guys.

Where in the Bible does it say that Christians get special treatment? I read the complete opposite, unless you meant that ‘special’ would be that they would be persecuted. And too many Muslims seem to be helping out to fulfill that part. And don’t tell me that not all Muslims do that because according to Sharia laws they are to subjugate them if they don’t accept Islam or kill them, and deceiving them is ok too. I suppose enslaving them is an option too.

 

[ZAKI]

Sorry, but I have your Sharia laws right next to me. Violence can be used at any time against unbelievers (non-Muslims). The ‘call to Islam’ doesn’t even have to be done before that violence erupts and that violence can indeed include killing. There is a whole chapter on Jihad (o.9). It is even ok to kill apostates from islam (o5.4)

Please don’t start writing stuff if you are just doing taqiyya to me because I got your laws in my hot little hands. o.9 talks about who is obligated to fight, it defines making war on the Jews, Christians and others even if they chose not to accept subjugation or conversion. The arrogance of Islam to even think they should force people to accept their ideology is beyond the pale. I suppose that it is a matter of labels on what murder is in Islam just like it is with the label of pediphile. (putting the label of a wife as young as 1 year old makes it not pediphilia anymore )

As for misinterpreted, I chose not to interpret them with the definitions for words that Muslims use. I prefer the calling a ‘spade a spade’ interpretation and not some taqiyya driven definitions or redefinitions that Muslims use to justify the violence in Islam.

Your Jihadists are not misinterpreting Islam at all. They follow the Koran and Sharia laws right down to a tee. The only problem is that some of us know this and that is not a good thing so you have to start muddying the waters and making it sound like Islam doesn’t ok killing the non-Muslim.

im not even a muslim-i just have to disagree with idiots and the comments they make whether from muslims or christians like yourself.

 

[ZAKI]

But your whole premise is wrong if Mohammed wasn’t a prophet and his God was just his imagination. And it is easy to see how Mohammed’s God was his imagination when he did despicable acts and said that Allah allowed it.

The whole premise that Islam hangs on is what Mohammed proclaimed for himself. And that is pretty feeble.

Your being very arrogant to say this. Your saying that all the people who followed Muhammed were idiots (people who had lived with him, known his characteristics, etc) and now over 700 years later we have you saying that Muhammed just made everything up.

 

[ZAKI]

You are incorrect. Look at the 99 names of Allah.

These are just a few from a quick go though of the names.

• Al-Quddūs - The Most Holy, The Most Pure, The Most Perfect (Qu’ran 59:23, 62:1)
• Al-Azīz - The Almighty, The Self Sufficient, The Most Honorable (Qu’ran 3:6, 4:158, 9:40, 48:7, 59:23)
• Al-Jabbār - The Powerful, The Irresistible, The Compeller, The Most Lofty, The Restorer/Improver of Affairs (Qu’ran 59:23)
• Al-'Alīm - The All Knowing, The Omniscient (Qu’ran 2:158, 3:92, 4:35, 24:41, 33:40)

You are either:

1. Incredibly stupid
   OR
2. Actually cementing what I was saying of God being supreme and having names attached to him to describe his greatness (such as al-jabbar, al-rahim, al-rahman, al-malik, al-quddus, al-aziz, al-alim), which creates the quandary of: why did you say I was incorrect???

 

[dzheremi]

No. It’s about how God sees Christians and Jews.

This makes absolutely NO sense because it is not consistent with the reply you gave in post #7 in this thread, when you wrote the following:

No. The verse is challening the claims of Christians and Jews that God loves them especially. That is why it counters by saying God punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills, i.e. being a Christian or a Jew makes no difference.

When it was pointed out to you by LutheranDK that Christianity does not teach that we are preferred by God by virtue of our being Christians, you told us to look at things through a Muslim’s eyes. Okay, I’ll do that.

This verse comes from God, right? God is saying “the claims of Christians and Jews that I love them especially are wrong” (this is your analysis - the ideas of a Muslim, so the closest I can get to seeing it through Muslim eyes)

But wait a minute - this is not what we claim to begin with! How can it be that God does not understand His own creation when He made us and knows our every thought and action? He KNOWS we don’t claim this, and we don’t teach this, because it is simply not a part of the faith as passed down from the apostles. It is simply NOT a teaching that you will find anywhere in Christianity. It is wrong, and GOD knows it is wrong (because God knows everything), so how can you say it is about how God sees Christians when He knows that we don’t say that or believe it to begin with? Why are you calling God a liar to make Muhammad free from any error? Who will judge you on the last day - God or Muhammad?

God says Muhammad is my Prophet sent to all mankind and that rejecting him means to reject Me.

Okay, well leaving aside whether or not God chose Muhammad (you know we’ll say no to this, so), why does God in the Qur’an lie about Christians and then expect them to turn around and follow the one he lied for? Why would anyone follow that god or his supposed prophet?

Christians and Jews say we reject Muhammad but we still think we’re on our way to Paradise because we are God’s people.

This is so out there, I don’t even know which way to go with it…for one thing, I will say that it is FLAT OUT WRONG. We do not say we get into Paradise despite Muhammad. If anything, Muhammad gets into Paradise despite Muhammad, and that is solely at God’s discretion and I won’t comment on its likelihood. Still, this gives Muhammad an importance that he simply does not have in either the Christian or the Jewish religion. To the Christians, he is an anti-Christ and a blasphemer and a worker of inequity and nothing more. He is a devourer of eastern Christianity and it is on his words that so many have been put to death, both non-Muslim and Muslim alike. Muhammad does not figure into Christian or Jewish theology because he came so late after both. Muhammad is NOTHING. Nada. Sifr!

God says you’re not getting special treatment, I punish whom I will. The Qur’an is not wrong about you, you do reject Muhammad and yet still think you can get to Paradise.

I have posted elsewhere that the first Christians to have encountered Muslims, the Syriacs, saw Muhammad as a tool of God’s punishment brought down upon them, something like how He used the Assyrians themselves to punish Israel. But this is the extent to which Muhammad or Islam figure into Christianity. It is an entirely negative and ruinous relation, but beyond that it is nothing. We reject Muhammad, I reject Muhammad, and it means nothing because, theologically-speaking, from a Christian perspective, Muhammad is not to be embraced.

I can’t guarantee that any Christian will go to paradise, but whether or not they do will have nothing to do with their rejection of Muhammad and Islam. Either God is wrong in the Qur’an in which case he is not God, or Muhammad is wrong in the Qur’an in which case who cares, we can add it to the list of things he is wrong about that are obvious to the non-Muslim observer. All I know is that SOMEONE/SOMETHING gave that verse, and whoever/whatever they were, they are so obviously wrong that I will not follow them and their foolishness. God knows His creation, so I have my money on Muhammad, and yes, I will sleep soundly in the knowledge that I don’t worship a foolish liar “god” or prophet.

 

[ralphinal]

Raphinal -

The issue is how God being ‘The Father’ is interpreted. I agree with Elwill that there is very strong evidence that Jews refered to God using paternalistic terms in such a way that does not constitute shirk in Islam. However, I do disagree with him in his using this as an explanation as to why Jesus Christ is described as being the ‘Son’ of God in the New Testament. The Synoptic Gospels are not clear, and there’s a fair argument to be made that they’re using ‘Son of God’ in the same way that past Jewish Prophets were referred to as sons of God, meaning servant of God. However to my mind it’s beyond reasonable doubt that when the Gospel of John calls Jesus the Son of God (or especially, the only begotten Son), that this explanation is not tenable. For reasons as a Catholic I’m sure you’re already aware of and I need not explain in detail, the author of the Gospel of John clearly believes Jesus to have been far more than just a human Prophet.

It is this understanding which the Qur’an condemns, as Jesus being the Son of God as in being the incarnation of God on Earth, and God being ‘The Father’ as in the hypostases of the Trinity from which the Son (and the Holy Ghost) proceed. Such a belief is in clear contradiction to Islamic monotheism, as it effectively divides God into ‘parts’.

Such an understanding of God being ‘The Father’ is all that most Muslims are familiar with, that and Arab Pagan beliefs of God being a ‘father’ in a much more literal sense, so naturally they will be adverse to anyone speaking of God using such terminology. But on speaking of God as ‘The Father’ in a clearly and strictly metaphorical sense such as how some Jews used, I have not came across any evidence or convincing argument that this is forbidden in Islam. I still don’t think it’s a good idea though.

Also, I’d like to remind you that Muslims do not believe the New Testament to be a divinely inspired work, despite it containing some truth.

Ok. Now I think I understand.

I know that this next question may not be answerable, but why was Yaweh not one of the 99 names given? If GOd told Moses that it would be His name forever to all generations, why was it left off?

 

[schaick]

What are you trying to say?

The Muslims define a LOT of words differently than anyone else does, eg: innocent, war, peace, etc. there is a whole list of words they redefine.

My point exactly!! Islam is from backwards world! It is as if all “good” Muslims are wired differently. It is the “bad” Muslim that is a good person.

I truly believe that Islam is from an evil force-satan/devil.

 

[schaick]

Equality in Islamic Law:

A classical manual of Islamic Sacred Law by Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al Misri (D. 769/1368), with the English text, commentary and appendices translated by Noah Ha Mim Keller.

1BOOK O: JUSTICE

@O1.1
Retaliation is obligatory (A: if the person entitled wishes to take it (dis: o3.8) against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right. (O: Intentionally is a first restriction and excludes killing someone through an honest mistake, while purely excludes a mistake made in a deliberate injury (def: o2.3), and without right excludes cases of justifiable homicide such as lawful retaliation.)
@O1.2
The following are not subject to retaliation:
-1- a child or insane person, under any circumstances (O: whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
The ruling for a person intermitently insane is that he is considered as a sane person when in his right mind, and as if someone continously insane when in an interval of insanity. If someone against whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently becomes insane, the full penalty is nevertheless exacted. A homicide committed by someone who is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis: n1.2) );
-2- a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;
-3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);
-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) fir killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring;-5- nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for (A: his ancestor’s) killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.

Catch that no retaliation when a muslim kills a non-muslims.

See point 4- reason why there are so many honor killings that go unpunished in Islamic countries.

More equality in Islamic Law:

@O4.2
The indemnity for killing a male Muslim is 100 camels.
(N: Shafi`i scholars early converted the pastoral equivalents to gold dinars (n: one dinar equalling 4.235 grams of gold (dis: w15) ), the amount due in the rulings below being the weight of the gold, regardless of its current market value.) (A: The stronger position in the Shafi’s school is that indemnities should be reckoned in camels, after which both parties may agree on a lesser amount or another form of payment.)

The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim.

The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim