The Truth About Islam

[planten]

Also, keep in mind that Lot’s illicit relationship with his 2 daughters was by accident(upon his part).

We Muslims do not even believe it as accident too. WE do not believe that story at all, that he indulged in sex with his own daughters. There is no mention of such bad thing in our Quran or Hadith. How it came about in the bibleOT is not understood by the Muslims.

You are giving some excuse (grace) to Lot. WE do not need to do that.

I feel that the story was invented by some Jewish people to shunt out Lot and his progeny from the Grace of God because they loved to have all the blessings for themselves only. I do not need to believe that story. Similarly, the way Jacob lied and cheated his father (Issac) and snatched the Grace (blessings) of God is another bad story which cannot be reconciled with any spiritual matters.

The Quran does not mention that at all. There seemed to be a feeling amongst the Jews that the blessing was only for the eldest son, the first born. That was a wrong notion to start with. When they had that bad belief, they did not know how to justify the blessings for Jacob. So a story was made up which was worse than any faith in God.

To us Muslims, the blessings of God are unlimited and He blesses whomsoever He chooses. There was no harm if Jacob overtook his brother Esau in the matter of blessings from God. There was no need to act in a bad way to steal the blessings.

 

[Young_Thinker]

We Muslims do not even believe it as accident too. WE do not believe that story at all, that he indulged in sex with his own daughters. There is no mention of such bad thing in our Quran or Hadith. How it came about in the bibleOT is not understood by the Muslims.

You are giving some excuse (grace) to Lot. WE do not need to do that.

I feel that the story was invented by some Jewish people to shunt out Lot and his progeny from the Grace of God because they loved to have all the blessings for themselves only. I do not need to believe that story. Similarly, the way Jacob lied and cheated his father (Issac) and snatched the Grace (blessings) of God is another bad story which cannot be reconciled with any spiritual matters.

The Quran does not mention that at all. There seemed to be a feeling amongst the Jews that the blessing was only for the eldest son, the first born. That was a wrong notion to start with. When they had that bad belief, they did not know how to justify the blessings for Jacob. So a story was made up which was worse than any faith in God.

To us Muslims, the blessings of God are unlimited and He blesses whomsoever He chooses. There was no harm if Jacob overtook his brother Esau in the matter of blessings from God. There was no need to act in a bad way to steal the blessings.

I see. That also reminds me that, in Islam, Eve is given a name(Haw-wa, I believe) with a lovely meaning, and of the legend about Satan being expelled from Heaven for essentially loving Allah too much(and, thus, not bowing to man). But if the latter story(the one about Satan) is true, would not that be an example of Allah being cruel?

 

[Young_Thinker]

…I hope that I did not just ask you a ridiculous question.

 

[famdigy]

I see. That also reminds me that, in Islam, Eve is given a name(Haw-wa, I believe) with a lovely meaning, and of the legend about Satan being expelled from Heaven for essentially loving Allah too much(and, thus, not bowing to man). But if the latter story(the one about Satan) is true, would not that be an example of Allah being cruel?

From what I gather, Satan was expelled from heaven because he was jealous of Adam (as), Allah (swt) asked him and others to bow down to Adam but Satan felt Jealous, he felt that he was superior than Adam and that Adam did not deserve the gesture. He was expelled for his pride, arrogance and disobedience.

 

[KingAlfred]

The Myth of Islamic Intellectual Achievement

**Contrary to popular myth, Islam was never the foundation of significant cultural or scientific development. Indeed, there was a time when Islamic culture was more advanced than that of Europe, but that superiority corresponded directly with the period when Muslims were able to learn from and copy the achievements of Byzantium and other conquered civilizations. For example, the architectural design of mosques, a source of pride among Muslims, was copied from the shape and structure of Byzantine churches. Another indication of Islam’s inability to advance culture and science is its prohibition of music and artistic renderings of the human form.

While there are countless examples of how and why Islam opposes human progress, the primary source of its backwardness is the Quran. Muslims consider it the perfect book and source of all truth and knowledge. As a result, the majority of Muslims concluded long ago they simply did not need knowledge originating in other sources, and certainly not that which came from infidels. Therefore, after they stole what they could from Byzantium and Persia, and after they forced sufficient numbers of Jews and Christians to convert to their religion, or accept its brutal oppression, Islam descended into intellectual stagnation, from which it has not yet emerged.**

 

[w2bp88]

Has anyone watched these?

youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc&feature=PlayList&p=FE5A96CBDC2582F7&index=0

 

[Young_Thinker]

Thank you.

From what I gather, Satan was expelled from heaven because he was jealous of Adam (as), Allah (swt) asked him and others to bow down to Adam but Satan felt Jealous, he felt that he was superior than Adam and that Adam did not deserve the gesture. He was expelled for his pride, arrogance and disobedience.

 

[Young_Thinker]

The Myth of Islamic Intellectual Achievement

Another indication of Islam’s inability to advance culture and science is its prohibition of music and artistic renderings of the human form.
.

Well, for one thing, the medieval Church also seems to have disapproved of human dissection and any art which did not involve the Bible or any saints. One should also remember that the main reason why the Galen, the Greco-Roman physician, made so “misinterpretations” in his research was because he was forbidden to use cadavers; so he had to resort to using baboons(even though, with their gladiatorial games, the Romans were not exactly respecting human dignity).

 

[sedonaman]

Also, keep in mind that Lot’s illicit relationship with his 2 daughters was by accident(upon his part).

No. No. No. All that stuff about the holy people of the Bible sinning all over the place is completely irrelevant to what Mohammad did. What they did shouldn’t even be mentioned, and since this thread is about Islam, Mohammad has to be judged by an objective standard and not excused because some others did likewise [IOW, two wrongs don’t make a right].

And that goes for your post #549 also.

 

[Young_Thinker]

No. No. No. All that stuff about the holy people of the Bible sinning all over the place is completely irrelevant to what Mohammad did. What they did shouldn’t even be mentioned, and since this thread is about Islam, Mohammad has to be judged by an objective standard and not excused because some others did likewise [IOW, two wrongs don’t make a right].

And that goes for your post #549 also.

All right; thank you.

 

[famdigy]

Mohammad has to be judged by an **objective **standard and not excused because some others did likewise

Only if that were really the case, but sadly many non-muslims who Criticize Muhammad (pbuh&hf) don’t care for objective standards, for them, it’s a clear shut case, they’ve made up their minds and won’t entertain any notion that the charges against him are false.

 

[Jay53]

Only if that were really the case, but sadly many non-muslims who Criticize Muhammad (pbuh&hf) don’t care for objective standards, for them, it’s a clear shut case, they’ve made up their minds and won’t entertain any notion that the charges against him are false.

My objective criticism of Muhammad is that he denies the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, even though both events were witnessed by His disciples and His own mother. That in itself is proof to me that Muhammad is a false prophet.

 

[planten]

I see. That also reminds me that, in Islam, Eve is given a name(Haw-wa, I believe) with a lovely meaning, and of the legend about Satan being expelled from Heaven for essentially loving Allah too much(and, thus, not bowing to man). But if the latter story(the one about Satan) is true, would not that be an example of Allah being cruel?

The devil was called Iblees. He was from the Jinn i.e. The leader of cavemen. He was a self made leader (Imam) who was not guided or appointed by Allah. He thought he knew more and that he was more obedient to Allah in his own way. He was proud of his works.

When Allah elevated Adam to a better status (gave him special knowledge by revelation) and appointed Adam to lead all mankind including the Jinn, the Iblees who had bad intentions became jealous, very upset. He refused to obey Adam. Allah had said about Adam “When I have perfected the man and breathed into him of my Spirit, bow down thou all, being obedient to Adam.”

That was not the birth of Adam or the first man. It was the elevation of mankind to a higher status, the breathing of holy spirit into a walking talking man (not a caveman), Adam.

Iblees refused to bow down to the appointed Imam (The Imam, the caliph), the first prophet of God, that was Adam. Iblees refused to obey the order of God. Thereby he fell from the Grace of Allah. Allah declared him as Al-Shaitan (the dare devil).

The Devil, not only disobeyed God willfully but when questioned to explain things, he came out against the Will of God proudly, openly, adamantly.

Later, Adam and Eve also made a mistake (not willfully of their own accord). But they did not oppose Allah… They repented and sought forgiveness from Allah. Allah forgave them both.

Allah is not Cruel. He announced punishment for the Dare Devil. But the Devil sought some time limit to prove that he was right. Allah gave him the liberty to prove himself…

Such is the description in the Quran… Allah was not cruel. He simply called for an explanation from the haughty, naughty Devil. Allah has not yet punished the devil and his cronies. They are free roaming about, misguiding people even today, misleading people away from the rememberance of Allah i.e. God.

 

[Contarini]

No. No. No. All that stuff about the holy people of the Bible sinning all over the place is completely irrelevant to what Mohammad did. What they did shouldn’t even be mentioned

Why not, except that it embarrasses you, which is not a good enough reason for anyone except perhaps yourself?

and since this thread is about Islam, Mohammad has to be judged by an objective standard and not excused because some others did likewise [IOW, two wrongs don’t make a right].

Now *that *is irrelevant, because no one is claiming it. The point is that if an argument hurts you as much as it does your opponent, you need to rethink it. If you make arguments against Islam that are really arguments against Western monotheism as a whole, then your position is incoherent.

In C. S. Lewis’s The Pilgrim’s Regress the character “Reason” tells a story about a man who is fleeing to his castle and wants to find a way to let himself across the drawbridge while not letting his enemy across. That is the position in which conservative Christian critics of Islam generally find themselves. And it is quite fair to point out this embarrassing fact. In fact it is a grave sin against justice to ignore it.

Edwin

 

[Young_Thinker]

Thank you, and forgive me for having asked that particular question. I was alluding to a Persian story about the devil. However, why would you say that Iblis(I alternate between names) was the leader of “cavemen”(e.g. Neaderthals)? Do you mean the Nephilim(giants whom were apparently half-human and half-demon)?

The devil was called Iblees. He was from the Jinn i.e. The leader of cavemen. He was a self made leader (Imam) who was not guided or appointed by Allah. He thought he knew more and that he was more obedient to Allah in his own way. He was proud of his works.

When Allah elevated Adam to a better status (gave him special knowledge by revelation) and appointed Adam to lead all mankind including the Jinn, the Iblees who had bad intentions became jealous, very upset. He refused to obey Adam. Allah had said about Adam “When I have perfected the man and breathed into him of my Spirit, bow down thou all, being obedient to Adam.”

That was not the birth of Adam or the first man. It was the elevation of mankind to a higher status, the breathing of holy spirit into a walking talking man (not a caveman), Adam.

Iblees refused to bow down to the appointed Imam (The Imam, the caliph), the first prophet of God, that was Adam. Iblees refused to obey the order of God. Thereby he fell from the Grace of Allah. Allah declared him as Al-Shaitan (the dare devil).

The Devil, not only disobeyed God willfully but when questioned to explain things, he came out against the Will of God proudly, openly, adamantly.

Later, Adam and Eve also made a mistake (not willfully of their own accord). But they did not oppose Allah… They repented and sought forgiveness from Allah. Allah forgave them both.

Allah is not Cruel. He announced punishment for the Dare Devil. But the Devil sought some time limit to prove that he was right. Allah gave him the liberty to prove himself…

Such is the description in the Quran… Allah was not cruel. He simply called for an explanation from the haughty, naughty Devil. Allah has not yet punished the devil and his cronies. They are free roaming about, misguiding people even today, misleading people away from the rememberance of Allah i.e. God.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Not going into biology, I think that cavemen were simply men without souls(i.e. high-functioning animals).

 

[sedonaman]

Why not, except that it embarrasses you, which is not a good enough reason for anyone except perhaps yourself?

It doesn’t embarrass me. I freely concede that they did those things. Therefore, the C. S. Lewis quote is irrelevant.

Now *that *is irrelevant, because no one is claiming it. …

But he is claiming it. We’ve been down this road before. KingAlfred made the statement,

… Muhammad himself married a girl of six years of age, and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old. …

and other statements about Muslims marrying under-age girls. Friendship responded with,

…
Know [sic] have a look at your prophets in your bible!! Ebraham married his sister!(Genesis20:12) and Lot Who had sex with his girls!(Genesis19:30-38) and Solomon who has 1000 wives(1Kings11) and David who had sex with a woman who had a husband and killed his husband!(2Samuel11:2-27)

You are the one always saying arguments should be logical. What’s logical about changing the subject from Islam/Mohammed to Christianity/Jesus? It is known as a Red Herring. Accusing the O T people of doing the same [or worse] acts is known as Tu Quoque, AKA, “two wrongs make a right.”

For one who says that arguments should be logical, you should be embarrassed for not spotting this and thus being illogical yourself.

 

[sedonaman]

October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 in the morning [Eastern Standard Time, of course].

 

[Contarini]

You are the one always saying arguments should be logical. What’s logical about changing the subject from Islam/Mohammed to Christianity/Jesus?

Here’s the debate in syllogistic form.

You and others appear to be claiming

“Muhammad committed actions of type X;
Prophets of God do not commit actions of type X;
Therefore Muhammad is not a prophet of God.”

Muslims respond, logically,

“Biblical prophets also commit actions of type X, therefore;
Either the Biblical prophets were false prophets
Or the fact that Muhammad committed actions of type X is not an argument against his prophethood.”

There are at least two logical ways to respond to this argument. One can deny that the Biblical prophets actually committed actions of the same type as those of Muhammad. Or one can drop the claim that Muhammad’s actions prove him to be no prophet (in the Biblical sense) and fall back on the argument that Muhammad’s actions are not a good basis for the moral code of an entire religion. I think that’s a much stronger argument, because traditionally Muslims *do *regard Muhammad’s actions as paradigmatic, and a very good case can be made that this has had a highly detrimental effect on Islamic ethics. At that point it is relevant to say “well yes, prophets and holy people in the Bible did bad things, but we admit that they were sinners and not to be imitated in every respect.”

What is not logical is to accuse Muslims of “changing the subject” when they make a legitimate attempt to question the general premise upon which your entire argument depends. When the argument depends on assumptions about the implications of certain actions for a person’s status within a religion (or for the claims of a religion that gives such a person an elevated status), it is entirely logical to bring into question the behavior of people who have a lofty status within Christianity.

Again, “logical” doesn’t mean that the argument works. I think there are lots of problems with the way Muslims go about making this argument. But the argument is, in principle, a legitimate one, and therefore I believe that Young Thinker was taking the right approach (addressing the specifics of the argument, however tiresome) and you are taking the wrong one.

Edwin

 

[tomarin]

Just FYI, I think the current scholarship on this is that the evidence cited for the burials (which I think consists of traces of flower pollen in the context of Neanderthal bones) is not as solid as many paleontologists once thought. In general the tide has been turning since the seventies against very strong equations of Neanderthal “culture” and behavior with that of modern humans – not that it’s impossible the scholarly consensus might reverse itself sometime in the future as more evidence comes to light.

Of course they still could have had souls even if they didn’t bury their dead the way modern humans do. In fact it’s hard to imagine that they didn’t since they knew how to use tools and hunt (that is to say they were capable of very sophisticated behaviors even if they were not capable of every sophisticated behavior displayed by modern humans).