Question on Islam -- round 4

[jakasaki]

By `Umar

On the discovery of two closing verses of Q 9, Umar is said to have remarked, 'Had they been three verses, I would have made them a separate sura', (Jalal al Din Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 61) - report which disturbed some scholars. (p. 215)

Umar b. al Khattab enquired about a verse of the Book of God. On being informed that it had been in the possession of so-and-so who had been killed in the Yemama wars, Umar exclaimed the formula expressing loss, ‘We are God’s and unto Him is our return.’ `Umar gave the command and the Qur’an was collected.

He was the first to collect the Qur’an.
(p. 120, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)

Umar was the first to collect the Qur'an into a single volume [mushaf]... Umar desired to collect the Qur’an. He address the people, ‘Whoever among you received any part of the Qur’an directly from the very mouth of the Prophet let him bring it here to us.’
(p. 122, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)

Omitting the words, ‘between two covers’ or ‘into a single volume’, and supposing the transmission to be accurate, the meaning of jamaa al Qur'an would be 'memorised the Qur'an.' (p. 122, Abu Bakr Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)

Similarly, where used of ``Umar, the root j m signifies asara bi jamihi, ‘advised its collection.’
(p. 122-3, Ahmad b. Ali b. Muhammad al Asqalani, ibn Hajar, “Fath al Bari”, 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 10; Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)

`Umar decided to collect the Qur’an. He addressed the people, ‘Let whoever received direct from the mouth of the Prophet any part of the Qur’an now bring it here to us.’

They had written what they had heard on sheets, tablets and palm-branches. Umar would not accept anything from anyone until two witnesses bore testimony. He was assassinated while still engaged on his collection. His successor, Uthman addressed the people, ‘Let whoever has anything of the Book of God bring it here to us.’ `Uthman would accept nothing from anyone until two witnesses bore testimony. Khuzaima b. Thabit said, 'I see that you have omitted two verses.

You have not written them.’ They asked what they were and he said, 'I had direct from the Prophet: “There has come to you…”. Uthman said, 'And I bear witness that these verses come from God.' He asked Khuzaima where they should enter them. He replied, 'Make them the close of the latest Qur'anic revelation.' Thus was Bara'a sealed with these words. (p. 123, Abu Bakr Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)

When Umar determined to write out the imam, he ordered a group of the Companions to set to work and advised them that, if they disagreed linguistically, they should write it in the language of Mudar, since it had been revealed to a man of Mudar. (p. 153, Abu Bakr Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 11)

 

[jakasaki]

By `Uthman

The collection of the Qur’an ab initio (jamal Qur'an fi sahifa, fi suhuf, fi mushaf, baina lawhain) is a distinctive activity and has, we have seen, been ascribed to numerous individuals among the Companion generation, including each of Muhammad's four immediate successors as Head of State, Abu Bakr,Umar Uthman, and Ali.

The provision of a textus receptus (jamal masahifala mushaf wahid, jamal nasala mushaf) in which the root j m abandons the meaning 'to collect' to take on the force of 'collating', 'reconciling', is a different activity and has been attributed to only one of Muhammad's successors,Uthman b. `Affan (A.D. 644-56). (p. 139)

The alternative jam` al masahif view requires our assent to the contrary proposition. Not only had the Qur’an texts been organised, preserved and collected at a much earlier date, but this had been done on innumerable occasions and by innumerable persons.

On the accession of the Prophet’s third successor there existed such an unwieldy body of materials that it was not only possible but essential to establish a textus receptus ne varietur while many of those best qualified to bring this vital undertaking to a successful conclusion were still happily alive. (p. 140)

 

[jakasaki]

By `Ali

[On the death of Muhammad, Ali] ‘vowed that he would not don outdoor clothes until he had collected the Qur’an into a single volume.’
(p. 121, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)

In one version of the report on `Ali’s vow, we read, ‘until I collected the Qur’an between two covers’.

The commentators assure us that this version is erroneous. Only a single transmitter credits `Ali with a collection ab initio. The report is isolate.

(p. 122, Ahmad b. Ali b. Muhammad al Asqalani, ibn Hajar, “Fath al Bari”, 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 9)

That’s it for now…!

 

[Agabriel]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

why ask about the past ? Islam teaches that if u repent sincerely , your sin is forgiven . A human must not dig another person’s life to find out what sins s/he committed in the past .

Also , Islam does not say to confess to any human being . We must confess to God only & ask His forgiveness & must be careful not to repeat the sin/mistake.

The whole problem is the definition of sin in Islam. Doing whatever to unbelievers is a-ok. Doing anything to spread Islam is also a-ok, especially if they don’t accept Islam or subjugation to Sharia laws. Telling others that they are polytheists, or they commit shirk, while they do the same thing when they judge others, and their own Prophet committed it many times (if you want me to repost that proof I will do so - but I don’t think you are reading them or your eyes do this :hypno: when you read stuff that you don’t want to comprehend).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You generalize too much on ‘religion is an obstacle to peace’ statement. this is why I stopped the other discussion. I cannot figure out where you are coming from, or maybe you are just thinking while writing.

why would you say something like I think while I write? If you can’t make sense out of my very simple and consistent posts … I really don’t know what to say.

Let me clarify it again … I’m not in favor of knee jerk reactions just because we don’t understand a problem we’re confronted with. You, as a Catholic, might want to take a look at how your last two Popes have interacted with Islam. There was a slightly offensive incident with Benedict, for which the Vatican apologized for (IMO the Pope wasn’t intentionally offending Islam, and it was simply a misunderstanding). Pope John Paul went out of his way to reach out to Islam. This is how you make peace … and wasn’t it said: “blessed are the peace makers”!

here is the difference between Christians who become martyrs - not usually by choice while Muslims become martyrs when they kill unbelievers. Maybe listen to Walid Shoebat, a Palestinian ex-muslim PLO guy talk about this martyrdom in Islam.

Don’t mistake my words … I’m not arguing that Islam isn’t in a really bad place right now. In addition it is a complex problem that I’m really not sure how to confront. However, IMO the well tempered person thinks before he speaks, and the more complex the problem he’s facing the more he thinks and the more care he approaches the issue with.

Look … I’m not even religious, so Muslims will probably tend to hate me far more than they hate you. I believe in freedom of speech, and that means if someone is doing a political or religious satire piece and they poke fun at Muhammad or the Pope or whomever, whether or not I think they might lack tact … I support their freedom of expression with every fiber in my being.

It’s very difficult I admit to get along with people who rely on fear tactics to make their point. It’s certainly un-American that’s for sure, and it goes against the western idea of liberty.

The only thing I know is tossing mud for the sake of tossing mud isn’t going to accomplish anything.

Those who espouse a lack of religion means peace doesn’t make sense to me either. The lack of religion in communism caused more deaths than Hitler in Stalin’s Russia. This is also true with Mao. Then look at Cuba, etc.

Now we have a secular Europe who are in full political correctness mode, who have no values or have lost them, and let the Muslims just run roughshod over their country and their values.

That seems pretty narrow minded. First atheism didn’t cause communism, it happened the other way around. If you want the real picture of free nations who have become secular look to Scandinavia. In a recent survey all three of the top three happiest nations on earth are in secular Scandinavia.

In fact nearly every country on the top ten list is in, as you call it, “secular Europe.” So what shall we say … atheists and agnostics are happier? I’m not really sure (nor is this really the topic at hand here).

Anyway … believe what you want, fight with Muslims if it tickles your fancy, I don’t think I have much more to add here … I said my piece!

 

[Agabriel]

Islam is always in a bad place. They have been for 1400 years and the reason why we don’t know it is because we are not taught it in our schools. We got some overview of the Crusades, and now that history is even worse because the agenda is to put Christians in the bad light and make Islam sound like it is full of benevolence and peace. That is pure hogwash. I put links in my posts to the history of Jihad and if you don’t want to read it - I don’t blame you because it is lengthly - then just peruse them.

(it is one of the letter writing campaigns that Act for America is going through now - to let the government know that this is not right - that history is not correct as it is in our kid’s history books)

If you are afraid that is your problem. Knowledge should not create fear. Lying and deception will indeed create it though. I am telling the truth about Islam. Go to its texts, read it for yourself. Read its history.

Especially look at the current history and what they are doing when they gain to a certain percentage at what they do. Especially in countries such as Lebanon, that used to be a bright spot in the ME, that used to be economically good and the ‘Riviera of the ME’ and is now a pit. Hezbollah uses it to lob bombs into Israel daily. (Because They Hate, written by Brigette Gabriel, has a good story about that). Or Bosnia/Kosovo. Or listen to what Geert Wilders is trying to tells us what is happening in Europe. (While Europe Slept and/or Menace in Europe and/or Eurasia)

If you don’t want to read these books, that is fine but don’t tell me that I am causing you to be fearful. For telling the truth, I am being fearful?!

The Popes should reach out, but kissing the Quran is not reaching out - it is kissing a book that has more violence in it, or I should say instructions on doing violence against the unbelievers, than even Mein Kampf. And yes, I have read that too, along with the ‘Art of War’.

Here is the problem - Islam divides us into believers/unbelievers. They divide the lands into dar al harb and dar al islam. Basically it is the land of war vs the land of islam. And while Muslims reside in dar al harb, lands that are not under sharia laws then they are in a state of war with us. their terminology is different than ours to a point that they make war and hate into something holy. It is their holy jihad. (Centrality of jihad in islam) While they are in dar al harb all the rules of war apply - deception, and other things. If we do not accept the call to Islam in a peaceful way, via da’wa, then they are ok with the next step.

In fact you telling me that is about as un-American as one can get! That is the tactic of the left and especially the Muslims who are trying to shut us up via the UN (and they have successfully gotten things passed to do that) and intimidation and lawsuits. Just ask Geert Wilders, Michael Savage, Ayan Hirsi Ali and many many others. Faithfreedom.org is now going around with Muslims trying to shut them down.

It has gone on for 1400 years in Muslim countries - death to anyone who discusses Islam and especially finds out about the atrocious behavior of their Prophet, and the violence that is perpetrated via the Quran.

‘War is deception’ , Muhammed

I posted many links in posts to you previously that apply to what I am restating here.

If you don’t want to read them, that is fine. I am just posting them to make sure that they are available to you, or anyone else reading these posts. To show that I am not making this stuff up. Do a search on ‘Father Botros’ and see what he has discovered about Islam. and because he does - they have put a price on his head just like they do for the ones I mentioned above.

 

[tomarin]

Islam is always in a bad place. They have been for 1400 years and the reason why we don’t know it is because we are not taught it in our schools.

There was this golden age of Islamic civilization, however. I don’t suppose we’d hear about that if you were writing the history books.

We got some overview of the Crusades, and now that history is even worse because the agenda is to put Christians in the bad light and make Islam sound like it is full of benevolence and peace. That is pure hogwash.

You’re right. Neither Christianity or Islam is a religion of peace, really. Both have a mixed record when it comes to promoting peace.

 

[Booklover]

You know that’s such a bad approach IMO (I’m referring to subjective morality). I bet when you speak of Muhammad betrothing Alisha at six years old it shocks your conscience and you’re appauled by it. Of course Muslims would say we should not judge their prophets actions by todays standards. However, it’s you folks who believe in a god who transcends time right?

The only problem that I can see with what you posted here, is that Muslims consider Muhammad to be their role model for all time.

I’m a soldier, I’ve been to Iraq.

Thank you!

Vickie

 

[tomarin]

The only problem that I can see with what you posted here, is that Muslims consider Muhammad to be their role model for all time.

That is an inconsistency of theirs, it’s true.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...goBlobs&blobwhere=1216291280480&ssbinary=true

The Qur’an: An Awakening of Reason

By Muhammad Muhammad Dawud

…And when it is said unto them: Follow that which Allah hath revealed, they say: We follow that wherein we found our fathers. What! Even though their fathers were wholly unintelligent and had no guidance?] (Al-Baqarah 2:170).

Allah Almighty also says, [Will they then not meditate on the Qur’an, or are there locks on the hearts?] (Muhammad 47:24). In this verse, Allah Almighty calls the disbelievers to reflect on the verses of the Qur’an and try to get the message they imply.

Likewise, the Qur’an calls people to meditate deeply upon Allah’s creation. He Almighty, for instance, says, [Lo! In the creation of the heavens and the earth and (in) the difference of night and day are tokens (of His sovereignty) for men of understanding] (Aal `Imran 3:190).

The Qur’an also awakens people to reflect upon Allah’s creation and the truth of their being by posing rhetorical questions in this respect. Allah Almighty says, for example, [Have they not observed all thing that Allah hath created] (An-Nahl 16:48). He Most High also says, [Will they not regard the camels, how they are created?] (Al-Ghashiyah 88:17).

…Almighty Allah forbids all things that may cause harm to man’s intellect and make him intoxicated. Hence, He Almighty says, [O ye who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan’s handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed] (Al-Ma’idah 5:90).

The Qur’an also stresses that having sound knowledge is the means for developing one’s intellectual faculties; this is implied in Almighty Allah’s words [And such are the parables We set forth for mankind, but only those understand them who have knowledge] (Al-`Ankabut 29:43).

…it is not enough to memorize the Qur’an by heart; Muslims must also meditate upon its meaning and message and inculcate in their children’s minds that the Qur’an teaches them the way to lead positive and enlightened lives.

Theses are points for all reasonable people to consider, and exceptionally truthful are Almighty Allah’s words [But none remember except men of understanding] (Al-Baqarah 2:269).

islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1158658468114&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah%2FLSELayout

 

[dolphinlove]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...goBlobs&blobwhere=1216291280480&ssbinary=true

The Qur’an: An Awakening of Reason

By Muhammad Muhammad Dawud

…And when it is said unto them: Follow that which Allah hath revealed, they say: We follow that wherein we found our fathers. What! Even though their fathers were wholly unintelligent and had no guidance?] (Al-Baqarah 2:170).

Allah Almighty also says, [Will they then not meditate on the Qur’an, or are there locks on the hearts?] (Muhammad 47:24). In this verse, Allah Almighty calls the disbelievers to reflect on the verses of the Qur’an and try to get the message they imply.

Likewise, the Qur’an calls people to meditate deeply upon Allah’s creation. He Almighty, for instance, says, [Lo! In the creation of the heavens and the earth and (in) the difference of night and day are tokens (of His sovereignty) for men of understanding] (Aal `Imran 3:190).

The Qur’an also awakens people to reflect upon Allah’s creation and the truth of their being by posing rhetorical questions in this respect. Allah Almighty says, for example, [Have they not observed all thing that Allah hath created] (An-Nahl 16:48). He Most High also says, [Will they not regard the camels, how they are created?] (Al-Ghashiyah 88:17).

…Almighty Allah forbids all things that may cause harm to man’s intellect and make him intoxicated. Hence, He Almighty says, [O ye who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan’s handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed] (Al-Ma’idah 5:90).

The Qur’an also stresses that having sound knowledge is the means for developing one’s intellectual faculties; this is implied in Almighty Allah’s words [And such are the parables We set forth for mankind, but only those understand them who have knowledge] (Al-`Ankabut 29:43).

…it is not enough to memorize the Qur’an by heart; Muslims must also meditate upon its meaning and message and inculcate in their children’s minds that the Qur’an teaches them the way to lead positive and enlightened lives.

Theses are points for all reasonable people to consider, and exceptionally truthful are Almighty Allah’s words [But none remember except men of understanding] (Al-Baqarah 2:269).

islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1158658468114&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah%2FLSELayout

And Jesus warned us with the following:

Mat 7
15 **'Beware of false prophets **who come to you disguised as sheep but underneath are ravenous wolves.
16 You will be able to tell them by their fruits. Can people pick grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
17 In the same way, a sound tree produces good fruit but a rotten tree bad fruit.
18 A sound tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor a rotten tree bear good fruit.
19 Any tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown on the fire.
20 I repeat, you will be able to tell them by their fruits.
21 'It is not anyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the person who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22 When the day comes many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, drive out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?”
23 Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, all evil doers!

Mat24
24 for false Christs and false prophets will arise and provide great signs and portents, enough to deceive even the elect, if that were possible.

MW, you are very lucky to be at this site, you have the chance to learn about Jesus, the real Jesus and what he taught us. Do not throw away this opportunity to learn the truth.
Jesus loves you and wants you to follow him, that is why your here.
Now open your heart to him, and take him in.

 

[jakasaki]

**The Integrity of Muhammad ** Dr. Robert Morey

The integrity of Muhammad is all important. He was either whom he claimed to be, a liar or a nut case (mentally insane or demon possessed).This is why the Traditions went to such great lengths to create a model of Muhammad that depicts him as a “super man” as well as a prophet. What do we find in the Hadith?

1. Muhammad’s credentials for prophethood are unacceptable. The two prominent Hadithic “proofs” of his prophethood came from pagan ideas of what a shaman would look like and the manner in which he would be spired.

A. The Hadith explains that when the Qur’an an refers to the seal of prophethood being upon Muhammad (Surah 33:40), the seal was a large hairy mole on his back. This is found in both Bukhari (vol. I, no. 189; vol. IV, no. 741) and Muslim (vol. IV, no. 5790,5793).

This mole was the physical proof that Muhammad was a prophet according to Tabari and other later Muslim authorities. They even claimed that the mole was a fulfillment of such Scriptures as Isa. 9:6. We cannot accept this proof.

While such ideas can be found in pagan traditions from many primitive cultures, it is not a part of the religion of Abraham, the prophets, the apostles or Jesus.

B. Both the Bukhari and Muslim Hadiths describe what happened to Muhammad
when inspiration came upon him. He heard ringing in his ears, fell to the ground, turned red, sweated profusely, made moaning sounds, spit ran from his mouth, etc…

While ancient pagans placed a great deal of importance on such things, they were never a part of the biblical prophets.

1. He failed a direct test of his claim to prophethood. He was asked to explain why a child will look like one parent as opposed to looking like the other. He claimed that Gabriel came and gave the inspired answer. See Bukhari vol. IV: no. 546. So, we are dealing with revelation and not just his personal opinion.

He said that the child will look like which parent reaches his or her sexual climax first. The study of genetics and DNA forever disproves this idea.

1. He believed in magic, the evil eye, amulets, omens, spells, etc. He was superstitious about many things and made up weird rules about bathroom duties (Bukhari vol. I, no. 144; vol. IV, nos. 110, 111; vol. VII, nos. 636, 648, 649, 650; Muslim vol. I, no. 458; vol. III,
   nos. 5424, 5427 ).

He was afraid whenever a strong wind blew (Bukhari vol. II, no. 144) and of eclipses (Bukhari vol. II, no. 167).

While this is bad enough, the Hadith tells us that Muhammad was at times under magical spells, i.e., bewitched, and told lies and did things while under those spells. (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 400, 490; VII, no. 660; Muslim vol. III, no. 5428)

Once it is admitted that he told lies and did things while under satanic influence, then the entire Qur’an could be satanic in origin.

Later Muslim authorities even went so far as to say that he was at one time inspired by Satan to put some verses into the Qur’an. They were later removed because they were Satanic verses. (Surah 53:19,20)

1. The Hadith tells us that “Allah made the prophet wealthy through conquests.” (Bukhari III: no. 495). Was he was in it for the money? Some Muslims are ignorant of this Hadith and claim that Muhammad was poor like Jesus.
2. He did not keep the rules he imposed upon others. He had more wives that four (Bukhari vol. I, no. 268) and did not write a will (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 3,4).
3. He commanded that anyone who fell away from Islam should be murdered.
   (Bukhari vol IV, no. 260; vol. V, no. 630) Volume IX is filled with death threats against apostasy (pgs. 10,11, 26, 34, 45,50, 57, 341,342).

These Hadiths contradict other Hadiths which say that no one ever leaves Islam (Bukhari vol. I, nos. 6, 48).

The punishment of apostates reveals that he did not believe in the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of the press. The fact that he commanded that no churches or synagogues be allowed in Arabia is a telling argument that he was not a man of peace.

1. The Hadith reveals that Muhammad had to ask forgiveness for sin more than seventy times a day. (Bukhari vol. I, nos. 711; 78; vol. V, no. 724) Since Muslims believe that prophets must be sinless, this means that Muhammad was not a prophet.
2. He was guilty of false prophecies.
3. The 100 yr. Prophecy. (Bukhari vol. I, no. 539)
4. The end of the world predictions. (Bukhari vol. IV, no.401)
5. He kissed and caressed the idol of black stone set into the wall of the Kabah. (Muslim vol. II, no. 2912,2916) We cannot imagine Abraham or Jesus kissing a pagan idol and then commanding their followers to do so.
6. While Muslims claim that Muhammad was illiterate order to make the Qur’an a miracle, the Hadith records that he could in fact read and write. (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 393)

 

[Agabriel]

There was this golden age of Islamic civilization, however. I don’t suppose we’d hear about that if you were writing the history books.

You’re right. Neither Christianity or Islam is a religion of peace, really. Both have a mixed record when it comes to promoting peace.

Is this a trick? Did I miss a redefinition of a word? A ‘Golden Age’ for Islam is what? (the link on this one is mostly pics) That they really got a lot of ground and people (slaves or dhimmi) that year? Seriously, what do you describe as a ‘Golden Age’ in Islam?

Usually the short time span after their conquests they leached off of their dhimmi populations until they even succombed to the backwardness of Islam.

Another video (this one is the best) about some sort of ‘Golden Age’ in Islam.

I find your last statement a generalization that is said often from our left wing liberals and Muslims who use tu quoque excuses to explain the violence in Islam. The teachings of Jesus are not violent, while the teachings of Muhammed are indeed violent. If you compare some brief periods of history, done by bad men in Christianity that are not practicing what Jesus taught, then you might be able to justify your answer.

What you do though is also think that governments who defend themselves against the Islamic onslaught (or slaughers) as ‘evil Christians’ then you might be able to justify your response, in your mind.

If the Muslims want to rewrite history - then so be it. They do it all the time as it is. As we are seeing with current history, they do it and they have the help from many media organizations. That doesn’t make their versions true. As we saw in this latest war - the Muslims started the violence, they keep it up on a daily basis, they killed more Muslims and hid behind them and aimed for Muslims and blamed the Jews. They gave nothing, and too often stole, any humanitarian help that even came from Israel itself - even after they were, and currently are, being bombed on a daily basis from the Gaza AND Lebanon.

Here is yet another video: Golden Age of Islam

 

[tomarin]

Is this a trick? Did I miss a redefinition of a word? A ‘Golden Age’ for Islam is what? (the link on this one is mostly pics) That they really got a lot of ground and people (slaves or dhimmi) that year? Seriously, what do you describe as a ‘Golden Age’ in Islam?

A period where they built a highly developed civilization with advanced science and arts. It’s true, look it up.

Usually the short time span after their conquests they leached off of their dhimmi populations until they even succombed to the backwardness of Islam.

No, most of their accomplishments were their own. It would be more accurate to say the non-Muslim philosophers and scientists during this period participated in a broad Islamic civilization (despite not being Muslims) than the other way around.

I find your last statement a generalization that is said often from our left wing liberals and Muslims who use tu quoque excuses to explain the violence in Islam.

I’m just trying to be objective. I wouldn’t describe either Christianity or Islam is pacifistic. Would you? Are you a pacifist for example?

The teachings of Jesus are not violent, while the teachings of Muhammed are indeed violent. If you compare some brief periods of history, done by bad men in Christianity that are not practicing what Jesus taught, then you might be able to justify your answer.

There’s not much violence in the New Testament, true, but there’s a lot in the Old Testament (not unlike what is found in the Qu’ran – descriptions of God’s wrath and so forth). Jesus did a few violent things and even said “I have not come to bring peace but a sword”. But in general I agree that as he is portrayed in the Gospels Jesus is an otherworldly figure who doesn’t seem well-suited to being in a position of earthly power – because “his kingdom is not of this world”. Mohammad’s career as the leader of a community surrounded by hostile tribes meant he necessarily would be deeply involved in strategy and warfare to ensure his group’s survival.

What you do though is also think that governments who defend themselves against the Islamic onslaught (or slaughers) as ‘evil Christians’ then you might be able to justify your response, in your mind.

I never said Christians were evil (far from it), just that Christianity is not a pacifistic religion. Do you disagree?

 

[Agabriel]

tomarin - no, you look it up. If you want to prove something then provide references.

None of what you are writing makes any sense to me, therefore it isn’t true. You can try to prove yourself, but your one sentence rebuttals on these things doesn’t make anything true. I also will look at the sources since it is so common for Muslims to rewrite history.

All one really has to look at is the last 10 years if one wants to look at how Islam contributes to the world of science. The awards and achievements to the Jews vs the Muslims alone should tell you something. A 200 to 1 comparison! And the Jews are counted in the lower millions while the Muslims are counted over a billion.

Why don’t you tell me if you are a pacifist.

That same old stuff - Jesus’ ‘bringing the sword’ stuff, while the ones who USED the sword were the Muslims.

Yes, Muhammed had to survive because he leached off his first wife to a point where he was broke and had to raid and loot to survive. Working was out of the question for him, he grew used to living off of her and not working for decades. Except that he took it to extremes. The number of slaves, the loot, etc that he took was excessive - and this shows us that he was no prophet, but used his god to his own means whenever he wanted to get something. Whether it was loot, or when he lusted after someone that was taboo at the time, he would say that it was ok because he was the prophet of Allah.

Then he also took revenge on those he harassed in Mecca who didn’t want to be Muslims. Muhammed’s feelings were hurt that they didn’t buy his prophethood.

I will leave you with this from Andre Servier;

"The intelligence of an Arab rises as high as the faculty of imitation. Put him on a motor-car or a locomotive engine, and after a certain time of apprenticeship, they will be able to drive it; but if the machine should get out of order, he will be quite incapable of repairing it, and still less could he make a new one.”

"‘Islam was not a torch, as has been claimed, but an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use of a barbarous people, it was-and it remains-incapable of adapting itself to civiliza*tion. Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse towards progress and checked the evolution of society.’

Read ‘Princes of Darkness’ to back up this guy’s assertions!

 

[Agabriel]

Some inventions by Christians

Some Israeli inventions

A quick validation of Israeli vs other country patents

Jewish Nobel prize winners

They don’t list nobel prize winners classifed as Christians, but they do for Muslims:

let me see, Arafat? And that was a pure joke! A terrorist thug, associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, whose agenda is destroying Israel! Who would make a treaty with Israel and break it as soon as he could, similar to what Hamas and Hezbollah do! It shows us the world was more into appeasement mode and not the truth of the matter.

 

[tomarin]

tomarin - no, you look it up. If you want to prove something then provide references.

Here is a good summary. Scroll down to the part of the essay subtitled “Science” to read about classical Islamic civilization’s achievements in math, science, and medicine.

None of what you are writing makes any sense to me, therefore it isn’t true. You can try to prove yourself, but your one sentence rebuttals on these things doesn’t make anything true. I also will look at the sources since it is so common for Muslims to rewrite history.

I think I’m communicating clearly. What part of what I’m saying doesn’t make sense?

All one really has to look at is the last 10 years if one wants to look at how Islam contributes to the world of science. The awards and achievements to the Jews vs the Muslims alone should tell you something. A 200 to 1 comparison! And the Jews are counted in the lower millions while the Muslims are counted over a billion.

It’s a sad state of affairs (science in Islam today) but it wasn’t always true, so it’s not correct to blame it on some intrinsic quality of Islam.

Why don’t you tell me if you are a pacifist.

I am not a pacifist.

I will leave you with this from Andre Servier;

I don’t know who this Servier guy is, but he sounds like a bit of a racist (which is not a word I toss around casually).

 

[Jay53]

There’s not much violence in the New Testament, true, but there’s a lot in the Old Testament (not unlike what is found in the Qu’ran – descriptions of God’s wrath and so forth). Jesus did a few violent things and even said “I have not come to bring peace but a sword”. But in general I agree that as he is portrayed in the Gospels Jesus is an otherworldly figure who doesn’t seem well-suited to being in a position of earthly power – because “his kingdom is not of this world”. Mohammad’s career as the leader of a community surrounded by hostile tribes meant he necessarily would be deeply involved in strategy and warfare to ensure his group’s survival.

I don’t want to get in the middle of your debate here, but I just cannot believe as a Catholic that you are actually using the above quote (in bold) to argue about violence in Christianity. You obviously don’t understand the context of that quote and you obviously have been reading Planten’s posts too often!!!

 

[tomarin]

I don’t want to get in the middle of your debate here, but I just cannot believe as a Catholic that you are actually using the above quote (in bold) to argue about violence in Christianity. You obviously don’t understand the context of that quote and you obviously have been reading Planten’s posts too often!!!

Why not? I don’t think Jesus was a pacifist, and neither does the catechism of the Catholic Church:

*2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”
*

I’m not a pacifist. Are you?

 

[Jay53]

Why not? I don’t think Jesus was a pacifist, and neither does the catechism of the Catholic Church:

*2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”
*

I’m not a pacifist. Are you?

That quote has nothing to do with an actual sword or Jesus advocating violence!!! I am not arguing anything about pacifism with you - I’m just appalled that you are using that quote as an argument for violence. As a Catholic you should understand the meaning and context of Jesus’ words - not be giving Planten-esque arguments with it.