What one author says about the Muslim "religion"

[Christos]

You are a sick individual if you think that this context excuses or justifies the quoted portion. It does not at all. Non-Muslims are taken to be “attacking” the religion by voicing their disapproval of it and rejection of Muhammad and his supposed prophethood. I do that, so I guess I am no better than them. Should I then wait to be killed for “attacking” Islam, and made to feel like I started it if Muslims come into my home and try to impose their will on me? That is the context for Muhammad’s confrontation with the pagans, was it not?

Put it this way, Israel and Palestine make a treaty not to fight. However, Israel breaks their oath/treaty intending to remove the palestines from what is left of their homes WHILE THEY ATTACK FIRST (refer back to the quote) THEN fight them. If you know anything about Muhammad, then you will know that he was born in Makkah, and lived there for 53 years of his life. He was then forced to emigrate from Makkah to Madina. So no, he is not going into others homes. He preached there peacefully, until he was forced out, and now he is reclaming what was once his. Not just him, all the other people who were forced out also. There has never been such a honest takeover of its kind, that after being persecuted soo much he refused to kill people except 10 people who were the main instigators you could say. Even from them, not all were killed because some asked the Prophet for forgiveness and he could not refuse. So yes, if someone kicked you out your home, and you go back to visit again, making a treaty first, and they break the treaty and attack you, then yes fight back. What is wrong in that. You don’t know the story, yet you comment so greatly on it.

What’s your point? So now it is the Islamic Allah who is telling Muslims to massacre people for being disbelievers? That’s not any better.

What you mean NOW its the Islamic Allah, it was always the same Allah. He is just reminding them of how he helped them and told them to not turn away from Battle.

Is it or is it not a common charge against Christians by Muslims that we have “joined partners with Allah” because of our belief in the Holy Trinity? I have read it here and elsewehre, from Muslims. If it is true, this verse addresses me. If it is not, then this verse addresses other people. EITHER WAY, it is no justification, just a declarative satement about how you’re going to terrorize people for not believing as you do. Not justifiable in the least.

Once again you ignored the context it was written in even after I told you the context. No point in arguing with you here.

And if you read about the early Christian martyrs, you will see why we do not accept such justifications.

Again, how are 190 and 191 logically related? How can you “not transgress the limits” and yet also “kill them wherever you find them”? If that is justified, then just what is the limit?

So if they give up resisting Islam, don’t kill them anymore. How nice.

Like Christ, the Son of God? No deal.

Do not trangress the limits. Your in battle, killing is going to happen, but dont trangress the limits meaning don’t go beyond, if they surrender, then let it be, if they want a truce, then let it be, if they flee, then let it be. How simple is that. If they cease just means if they stop, you can stop fighting for many reasons. Why can it not include to make a truce. Like many times they made treaties, but it was always the oposing parties who broke it, not the Muslims. Its not about then giving up resisting Islam, it’s about them leading their own lives, and not fighting against Islam. When Muhammad captured Makkah, he let the pagans live their own lives, he did not force them to accept Islam, though obviously it was an option for them. However, he would not let their idols remain in the House of God.

I didn’t miss them. I just don’t agree with your contextual justifications at all.

Then you shouldnt agree with the contextual justification in the Bible, cause many a times they fight for their freedom dont they, or to take back what is their, yet they slaughterd all the people, men, woman, children, and animals. WOW, amazing. Muhammad spares everyones lives, the Jews murder everyone, and Muhammad is the violent one. Amazing.

Yeah, the Qur’an is pretty twisted, at least from the point of view of the people who are the victims of its sick violence-minded exhortations. I’m sure if you’re a Muslim, it seems great.

It just doesnt seem great only if you’re a Muslim, but to the other millions of people who have learned the Religion and understand it, even to them. They may not accept everything, but they understand the basic principle of peace. It seems your eyes are closed to see it.

Ugh. That is HORRIFYING. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I certainly do not stand with such people. They should all be ashamed.

Atleast, we agree on something.

Furthermore, i have clearly seen that your points are very week, and you insist on proving Islam is a violent religion even when given proof that Islam offers ways to refrain from fighting. Also, sometimes the final option is Battle and when they refer to the final option u bash us down for being Violent. May God Forgive You.

 

[sedonaman]

…A list is made out, of 100 greatest men of the world. Of course that list is of the greatest men. Muhammad is on top of that list according to that author. …

Hitler was Time Magazine’s Man of the Year for 1938, Stalin for 1939 and 1942, Nikita Krushchev for 1957, and Barack 0bama for 2008. So much for Mohammed’s greatness and the opinion of some authors.

 

[Benadam]

Im sorry, but I honestly dont understand what you are saying here. I am not trying to be rude, but could you elaborate please.

The Ultimate end for the world in the minds of Christians and Muslims is conversion to their respective faith or be destroyed. True? Everyone who converts will live in paradise everyone else will suffer destruction. Right? For Catholic christians not everyone will convert even but in the end everyone in heaven will be Catholic.

Peace is fostered in as much as the destruction part is left to God. War is fostered in as much as it is not.

 

[Christos]

(quote shortened due to lack of space.)

…us it was in 7 dialects, and I asked a second time which one is the true Qur’an and received no reply. Muslim claims get even more absurd because the same site says you don’t have to know Arabic to become a Muslim, but “learning Arabic will be an advantage as there is a big difference between reading the translations of the Qur’an and the original text in Arabic.” It is virtually impossible then to convey Allah’s message to a potential convert if he doesn’t understand Arabic [and it would have to be 7th century Arabic, to boot], so how can a person become a believer in Islam if Islam is one thing in his own language, but the real Islam is something else in Arabic? I posed this question to a Muslim on another forum, and he replied that “an Islamic scholar would explain it.” That’s all well and good, but in what language would he explain it since he would have to translate Qur’anic concepts into English and there is a big difference between translations of The Qur’an and the original text in Arabic?
If I say that A is true because X is true, and later say X is “corrupted”, what does that tell you about A? What does it tell you about me? It is Mohammed who is in the inescapable dilemma. He points to Judeo-Christian scriptures as proof of his prophethood, then later denies their validity by claiming they’ve become “corrupted” because they were written by men. If writing by men introduces corruption, how did the Qur’an escape, because it was recited then later written down … by men?

Sahih Muslim Book 004, Number 1787:
Ubayy b. Ka’b reported: I was in the mosque when a man entered and prayed and recited (the Qur’in) in a style to which I objected. Then another man entered (the mosque) and recited in a style different from that of his companion. When we had finished the prayer, we all went to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said to him: This man recited in a style to which I objected, and the other entered and recited in a style different from that of his companion. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) asked them to recite and so they recited, and the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) expressed approval of their affairs (their modes of recitation). and there occurred In my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance. When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) saw how I was affected (by a wrong idea), he struck my chest, whereupon I broke into sweating and felt as though I were looking at Allah with fear. He (the Holy Prophet) said to me: Ubayy. a message was sent to me to recite the Qur’an in one dialect, and I replied: Make (things) easy for my people. It was conveyed to me for the second time that it should be recited in two dialects. I again replied to him: Make affairs easy for my people. It was again conveyed to me for the third time to recite in seven dialects And (I was further told): You have got a seeking for every reply that I sent you, which you should seek from Me. I said: O Allah! forgive my people, forgive my people, and I have deferred the third one for the day on which the entire creation will turn to me, including even Ibrahim (peace be upon him) (for intercession).

The way of producing the voices for the letters, is called dialect. Like how i mentioned before, (in a post maybe in another thread), the way we say tomato (tomahto, tomayto), it is still the same word. Furthermore, an Indian may say zebra as Jebra (because they dont actually have the sound zzz in their language. I know cause I am Indian, though Canadian born. It doesnt, mean they are changing the meaning cause they are still saying the same word. I hope that clears it up. If your reply is that a single letter difference may give it a different meaning, these dialects are not in that that form. If they were giving different meanings, it would have been refused outright the day they were being recited. Its the Arabs had many dialects then, and as I believe they also have many now.

Furthermore, modern Arabs, have alot of slang words, but it is still Arabic. The “Posh” way of speaking in England, is using the highest grammer, therfore, the “Posh” in the Arab world, would be using the highest grammer. Arabic grammer is taken from the Quran, because it is the best example of written literature in the Arabic language.

You dont have to understand Arabic to be a Muslim. I can read Arabic (atleast with it’s vowel markings, and sometimes even without.), but i dont understand the majority of it. As to your example of A and X. The Arab language is so unique and exquisite that they have over 300 words just to say Camel. Each word is different than the other. One may mean a female camel, one a male camel, one a camel with two humps, a camel sitting, a camel standing, and so on, but it is still one word, not a joining of words. Also, lets say the Arabic word “Rab” It can be translated as Lord, Cherisher, Sustainer, and many more because the word “Rab” describes all these different aspects. However, it is usually written as Lord, because the word Lord, can sum up the rest of the other aspects of the word also. Do you understand this? (Honest question) That is why when you say it is translated into English, yes it is the meaning, but if you want a theological understanding of what the Quran is trying to say, it would be better to learn Arabic, as Christians learn Greek and Hebrew to get a more thorough theological understanding of the Bible. It is the same thing.

The Quran was immediatly written down as the verses were being revealed. Muhammad ensured they were written correctly by having the scribe read back what they wrote, and he would verify if it was correct. Furthermore, it is most commonly assumed that the Quran was gathered together during Uthman’s time, much later then the Prophet. The Prophet had his own copy of the verses of the quran, but they were written on many different things. Therefore, immediately after the Prophets death, Abu Bakr, got a scribe to write these on a single item(rather than bark, paper, and so on.) Finally, he binded these together. This copy was passed to Umar, and later his daugher Hafsa. Uthman when he decided to unify the Quran in one dialect, he took this copy of the Quran from Hafsa, and got it duplicated to send to the other people.

 

[planten]

**Well said christos, you have done well to tell the truth to christian friends about the compilation of the Quran. If they do not believe, it will affect them in the long end.

Your last para was also very good.**

 

[sedonaman]

Sahih Muslim Book 004, Number 1787:
Ubayy b. Ka’b reported: I was in the mosque when a man entered and prayed and recited (the Qur’in) in a style to which I objected. …

Then Muslims should abandon the claim that the Qur’an is unalterable.

You dont have to understand Arabic to be a Muslim.

You do if what Muslims claim is true that “learning Arabic will be an advantage as there is a big difference between reading the translations of the Qur’an and the original text in Arabic.” If you don’t understand something, then you can’t believe what is being conveyed. So, I repeat, it is virtually impossible then to convey Allah’s message to a potential convert if he doesn’t understand Arabic, so how can a person become a believer in Islam if Islam is one thing in his own language, but the real Islam is something else in 7th century Arabic? In addition, it doesn’t make sense that Allah would reveal his word in a language only a few scholars could understand.

I can read Arabic (at least with it’s vowel markings, and sometimes even without.), but i dont understand the majority of it.

Then you are claiming to believe in something you don’t know. That is the same as my reading a Medieval Bible written all in Latin. I would not understand what I was reading and therefore not increasing my belief in Christianity. It would be a useless exercise.

…The Arab language is so unique and exquisite that they have over 300 words just to say Camel. Each word is different than the other.

Arabic is not unique in this regard. Did you know that American English has thousands of words just to say “automobile”? Not only is there “automobile” and “car”, but there are “Ford”, “Chevrolet”, Pontiac”, “Oldsmobile”, etc. Not only that, but there are “1959 Ford”, “1965 Chevrolet”, “1970 Pontiac”, “1980 Oldsmobile”, etc. My favorite example is “1985 Oldsmobile Cutlass Sierra Brougham”. Each word is different from the other. All these different names for automobile describe them in detail just like the different Arabic words for camel describe whether it is female, with one hump, standing, etc. It proves not eloquence but only how important the object is to the particular society. So Muslims can stop congratulating themselves for being members of some exclusive club or other.

… but if you want a theological understanding of what the Quran is trying to say, it would be better to learn Arabic, as Christians learn Greek and Hebrew to get a more thorough theological understanding of the Bible. It is the same thing.

But those concepts in Greek and Hebrew are translatable into other languages, otherwise they would not become known to anyone except scholars who understood Greek and Hebrew. That’s why Jews and Christians do not make the claim that the only true Bible is in Greek and/or Hebrew.

The Quran was immediatly written down as the verses were being revealed. Muhammad ensured they were written correctly by having the scribe read back what they wrote, and he would verify if it was correct. Furthermore, it is most commonly assumed that the Quran was gathered together during Uthman’s time, much later then the Prophet. The Prophet had his own copy of the verses of the quran, but they were written on many different things. Therefore, immediately after the Prophets death, Abu Bakr, got a scribe to write these on a single item(rather than bark, paper, and so on.) Finally, he binded these together. This copy was passed to Umar, and later his daugher Hafsa. Uthman when he decided to unify the Quran in one dialect, he took this copy of the Quran from Hafsa, and got it duplicated to send to the other people.

You forgot the part where some Qur’anic writings were burned. How do you know they were destroyed to suit the goals for one man?

 

[dzheremi]

I apologize for the lateness of my reply, Christos. I have been busy, but I want to address some of what you’ve said, lest you leave with false impressions of my position.

Put it this way, Israel and Palestine make a treaty not to fight. However, Israel breaks their oath/treaty intending to remove the palestines from what is left of their homes WHILE THEY ATTACK FIRST (refer back to the quote) THEN fight them.

Uh huh. Except that this isn’t anything like that. I am no fan of Israel, but my immediate reaction to this would be two-fold:

1. In the context of the verses you quoted, it is unclear as to whether or not “attack” means a physical attack. 9:12, as you have quoted it, does not mention any sort of violence in the attack. It is apparently enough that they “attack your religion with disapproval and criticism”…kind of like I’m doing right now. Kind of like what any Christian who is honest about our theological, philosophical, and epistemogical differences must do in one way or another. So I’m naturally a bit leery about this, since I do not trust Muslims en masse to be reasonable about what constitutes an attack and what constitutes a disagreement.Someone disagreeing with your religion, even loudly voicing criticism or deriding it, is not attacking you. It does not call for the sort of response mandated in 9:29, or anywhere else for that matter.
2. I do not believe that Muhammad saw contracts as anything inherently inviolable to begin with, so it is a bit hypocritical for Muslims to turn around and claim victimhood over some broken contracts when Muhammad himself said according to Bukhari (a reliable collection of hadith, no?): “if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath.” (source)

If you know anything about Muhammad, then you will know that he was born in Makkah, and lived there for 53 years of his life. He was then forced to emigrate from Makkah to Madina. So no, he is not going into others homes. He preached there peacefully, until he was forced out, and now he is reclaming what was once his.

Excuse me, but this is ridiculous. Muhammad may have been born there, but this does not mean that he was reclaiming anything that was once his. I too was born in a given town same as anyone, but if I were to return to it and take it over, I could not with a straight face claim that I was simply retaking what had once been mine. Muhammad was not the king of Mecca. He had no right to the entire area any more than his elders or any of the others he overtook by force. You don’t own a whole city just by virtue of having been born there.

So yes, if someone kicked you out your home, and you go back to visit again, making a treaty first, and they break the treaty and attack you, then yes fight back. What is wrong in that. You don’t know the story, yet you comment so greatly on it.

I do know the story. I don’t agree with your interpretation of it. The conquest of Mecca occured without bloodshed because Muhammad refused to restore the treaty after the Banu Bakr, not the Quraysh, had broken it, so they knew better than to try to fight in such a weakened state. It was NOT because Muhammad was such a great guy.

What you mean NOW its the Islamic Allah, it was always the same Allah. He is just reminding them of how he helped them and told them to not turn away from Battle.

Because you accused me of misquoting the verse when I quoted it as saying “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”. It DOES say this, and the portion that I left out was “(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels,Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed.” This does not change the context of what follows it (the portion I did quote) but to say that it is the Islamic Allah who is exhorting his believers to murder, in the name of “keeping firm” in what they believe. If this is your idea of a contextual justification of the violent portion, then I can only say I am greatly disturbed by it and do not agree with it at all.

Once again you ignored the context it was written in even after I told you the context. No point in arguing with you here.

That’s great, because I actually asked a question here and you didn’t answer it. Does the verse in question include Christians among the people who have “joined partners with Allah” or not? I have heard this charge directed to Christians from Muslims (with that specific wording, so I do not wonder where this idea comes from), so I want to know if it is something that applies to me and my Christian brothers and sisters TODAY, as we presist in believing in the Holy Trinity today and tomorrow as surely as yesterday, so there’s no real context in which it could stop applying to us if it ever did (hence, no context that could justify it to me).

 

[dzheremi]

Do not trangress the limits. Your in battle, killing is going to happen, but dont trangress the limits meaning don’t go beyond, if they surrender, then let it be, if they want a truce, then let it be, if they flee, then let it be. How simple is that. If they cease just means if they stop, you can stop fighting for many reasons.

Exactly. If they stop resisting Islam, leave them be. If they continue to resist, kill them.

Why can it not include to make a truce.

It doesn’t seem that Muslims are obliged to treat treaties as binding. In fact, it seems that the Qur’an gives conditions under which Muslims are sanctioned to break treaties. That might be a good reason why all this talk about the importance of treaties is suspect to non-Muslims.

“If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous.” (8:58)

“Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.” (9:1)

An interesting bit of work, that. So if you fear that the other side may break their treaty, you can pre-emptively break it so as to be on equal terms?

Its not about then giving up resisting Islam, it’s about them leading their own lives, and not fighting against Islam.

Uh…“it’s not about giving up resisting Islam…it’s about not fighting Islam”.

When Muhammad captured Makkah, he let the pagans live their own lives, he did not force them to accept Islam, though obviously it was an option for them. However, he would not let their idols remain in the House of God.

That’s nice. I don’t know whether the idolers spoken of in 9:1 are the Meccans or not, but a little while later we see how wonderfully non-believers are to be treated:

9:4 Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).
9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

More “do not oppose Islam or we’ll kill you”, “convert to Islam or pay us money so that we don’t kill you”, etc. Even if these aren’t directed towards the Meccans, they give me more than a little reason to doubt that all things were hunky-dory between the conquerers and the conquered in Mecca, if this is how the non-believers were treated.

Then you shouldnt agree with the contextual justification in the Bible, cause many a times they fight for their freedom dont they, or to take back what is their, yet they slaughterd all the people, men, woman, children, and animals. WOW, amazing. Muhammad spares everyones lives, the Jews murder everyone, and Muhammad is the violent one. Amazing

.

Who’s talking about the Bible? That’s not what this thread is about. Start a thread about the Bible if you want to discuss it. I would be more than willing to.

It just doesnt seem great only if you’re a Muslim, but to the other millions of people who have learned the Religion and understand it, even to them. They may not accept everything, but they understand the basic principle of peace. It seems your eyes are closed to see it.

Who are these “millions” of people who are not Muslims yet love and understand the religion so well? Karen Armstrong and her ilk? Bah. I have no time for that garbage.

Since you don’t know me personally at all, I don’t know where you get off telling me that my eyes are closed to anything. I have many Muslim friends and while I will never agree with their religion and what it seems to sometimes call for with regard to my people, I do love the sort of people that they are, and if that is the result of their fidelity to their religion then that’s wonderful. My problems with Islam come not from some sort of abject hatred of all things Islam and all Muslims, but from a serious, and I believe historically and contemporarily well-founded, concern over the fate of non-Muslims both in Muslim dominated lands and in other places where Muslims agitate to establish their laws over non-Muslim populations (Nigeria, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Lebanon, etc). I care about my people just as surely as you care about your own, and hearing what is happening now and has happened in the past to the Armenians, Assyrians, Copts, and others puts me on my guard, so to speak. I want persecution in the name of Islam’s version of God to stop. Not just towards Christians, but also towards Jews, Hindus, and every other type of person. I don’t believe it is ever right that a Muslim should fight anyone so that “all religion is for Allah” (as stated by Muhammad, and repeated by that scumbag Osama bin Ladin). That is why I write all this. I don’t want Muslims to be second-class citizens, but I also don’t want them to be overlords, which is what it seems like Islam calls for them to be. I refuse to be anyone’s slave but God’s. I refuse to recognize Muhammad or Islam as being true expressions of faith as I understand it, and I don’t think my life or anyone else’s should be threatened or endangered as a result of my refusal anymore than I think that yours or any other Muslim’s should be threatened or endangered for your refusal to accept Christianity or its central ideas (the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, etc). I want true equality, not the fake Islamic “peace” that relies on my subjugation.

Atleast, we agree on something.

الحمدلله أخي

Furthermore, i have clearly seen that your points are very week, and you insist on proving Islam is a violent religion even when given proof that Islam offers ways to refrain from fighting.

I have never denied that Islam offers ways to refrain from fighting. I do not agree with the underlying presumption of what I have seen of those options (I submit to you as a superior because you are a Muslim, I do not speak honestly about my beliefs concerning Muhammad or Islam even though the Qur’an is rife with denials and mockery of my beliefs, etc). I think they are built on dispicable double standards that should be rejected by ANY person of conscience, regardless of their religion.

Also, sometimes the final option is Battle and when they refer to the final option u bash us down for being Violent. May God Forgive You.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

If I have written anything out of malice, please forgive me. As I stated clearly above, I do not hate Muslims. I only want equality.

 

[planten]

**dzhereme, the verses of the Quran are quite clear: See again:

9:4 Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).

9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful**

The verse 9:4 is telling the Muslims to honor the treaty to its due time. There should be no objection. it also tells that Allah loves those who honor the treaties. Christians have been preaching that Allah doe snot know about love. Why is that?

The verse 9:5 should be remembered in its proper context which can be found by reading these verses from beginning of chapter 9.

The pagan Arabs had been persecutiing and killing the Muslims for many years. They (from Makkah) did not let the Muslims rest in Ethiopia and even in Madinah. They had been very cruel towards the Muslims. They even stopped the Muslims from performing their religious rites, Hajj etc. That went on for about 20 years. 20 Years is not a short time.

keep that in view please. It was prophesied by the prophet Muhammad that there will be teh downfall of the polytheists. they will be defeated. So they were defeated and the city of Makkah fell to the Muslims. No one was killed. There was no bloodshed.

Those polytheists were given the choice to accept Islam or leave the city within four (4) months. that was not a bad offer. Actually, they were all fit to be killed. But they were forgiven and spared their lives. See the verse in that context.

9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

I hope the matter is understood now. The prophet Muhammad forgave the utter enemies (idolators) with the same words that Joseph son of Jacob used with his 10 brothers in Egypt. (Laa tathreeba Alaikum al yaum.). Joseph did not take any revenge and Muhammad also did not take any revenge.

 

[dzheremi]

Planten, I know the supposed context. I quoted 9:1, as well. Also, how can it be that Muhammad forgave the idolaters? Was it not a verse in his own Qur’an to slay the idolaters after four months? Or did he disobey this command?

Anyway, killing people who have wronged you is about as far away from forgiveness and not taking revenge as you can get.

 

[sedonaman]

…
Anyway, killing people who have wronged you is about as far away from forgiveness and not taking revenge as you can get.

He has stated before that revenge is permitted in Islam.

 

[distracted]

I read that book way back in the early 90’s and there was a movie on it - Sally field played the mom.

You should try to catch it on DVD…

thanks… for the reminder…

does the movie stick to the book??

 

[distracted]

J C, that man who wrote the book “100 Greatest men of the world.” was not a fool. He put Muhammad as number one in his list. It means that for muhammad, all is clean. That writer has wiped out all your false allegations against Muhammad.
topic.

i don’t u/stand why someone would follow a man-made religion when they can follow a God-made one…

 

[distracted]

** If Muhammad is the greatest man of the world’s 100 greatest men of the world, he would be the greatest man among the thousand (1000) greatest men too. Do you understand that please?. If he is greatest amongst the 100 greatest men then he is greatest of all men.

See it like this.

A list is made out, of 100 greatest men of the world. Of course that list is of the greatest men. Muhammad is on top of that list according to that author. Now suppose, he prepares another list of 1000 greatest men of the world. Do you think that the author could put up some one else at the top? That is not possible.

You are worried about Jesus why he missed the grade. Just relax. One author had given his pure opinion. You cannot beat that author until you write another book on that topic.**

I’m greater than Muhammad… and I’m not even a man…

I’m greater because i don’t have more than one spouse… I don’t even have ONE…

If God came to Earth, He wouldn’t get married becasue, for one. God doesn’t need anyone… He is complete…

and God did come to Earth and it is true that he didn’t marry… Jesus said if you have seen Him you have seen the Father… “I and the Father are one”.

in the Mass readings for the day - Saturday, i think it was… (posted in Non-C Religions and Sacred Scripture daily)… it speeaks of celibacy… and says that all those who can stay celibate should…

so as to be more “into” God… more “married” to Him…

having even ONE spouse distracts a person from God…

& yet Islam says you can have more than one??? Well, at least men can…

Is God sexist…?

 

[sedonaman]

**J C, that man who wrote the book “100 Greatest men of the world.” was not a fool. He put Muhammad as number one in his list. It means that for muhammad, all is clean. That writer has wiped out all your false allegations against Muhammad.

Because you could not swallow that bitter pill, you are trying to find faults in that book. Whatever, it was the opinion of an educated person who did some research and placed Muhammad at the top of the list of 100 greatest men of the world. But you do not like that.

It is natural for you to complain. I do not blame you. I had told you about what one author said about Muhammad. That was the topic.**

Funny, this book does not appear in either amazon.com or abebooks.com. Could it be that you wrote the book and couldn’t find a publisher?

 

[distracted]

Put it this way, Israel and Palestine make a treaty not to fight. However, Israel breaks their oath/treaty intending to remove the palestines from what is left of their homes WHILE THEY ATTACK FIRST (refer back to the quote) THEN fight them. If you know anything about Muhammad, then you will know that he was born in Makkah, and lived there for 53 years of his life. u.

did he rise from the dead??

 

[distracted]

**Well said christos, you have done well to tell the truth to christian friends about the compilation of the Quran. If they do not believe, it will affect them in the long end.

Your last para was also very good.**

is this another vieled threat?

or are you saying that if we dont convert to Islam we will all go to Hell…?

why am i NOT worried?

 

[distracted]

Hitler was Time Magazine’s Man of the Year for 1938, Stalin for 1939 and 1942, Nikita Krushchev for 1957, and Barack 0bama for 2008. So much for Mohammed’s greatness and the opinion of some authors.

no, no… you are wrong…

He’s going to be Man of the Year for 2009…
or at least by 2020…
because if BHO and the anti-ameican terrorists have their way…

by then we will be a Muslim nation…

3000 down…

350 milliion to go…

 

[cthulhubryan]

Put it this way, Israel and Palestine make a treaty not to fight. However, Israel breaks their oath/treaty intending to remove the palestines from what is left of their homes WHILE THEY ATTACK FIRST (refer back to the quote) THEN fight them. If you know anything about Muhammad, then you will know that he was born in Makkah, and lived there for 53 years of his life. He was then forced to emigrate from Makkah to Madina. So no, he is not going into others homes. He preached there peacefully, until he was forced out, and now he is reclaming what was once his. Not just him, all the other people who were forced out also. There has never been such a honest takeover of its kind, that after being persecuted soo much he refused to kill people except 10 people who were the main instigators you could say. Even from them, not all were killed because some asked the Prophet for forgiveness and he could not refuse. So yes, if someone kicked you out your home, and you go back to visit again, making a treaty first, and they break the treaty and attack you, then yes fight back. What is wrong in that. You don’t know the story, yet you comment so greatly on it.

Israel cannot be said to be attacking first if the Palestinian population is dumb enough to shelter terrorist who lob bombs and missles at Israel.

What you mean NOW its the Islamic Allah, it was always the same Allah. He is just reminding them of how he helped them and told them to not turn away from Battle.

I believe that we were told that the word Allah meant God? If this is correct, then his use of the term “Islamic Allah” is correct because the god of the Koran is not God. God does not condone the things that Mahomet did.

 

[distracted]

Israel cannot be said to be attacking first if the Palestinian population is dumb enough to shelter terrorist who lob bombs and missles at Israel.

I believe that we were told that the word Allah meant God? If this is correct, then his use of the term “Islamic Allah” is correct because the god of the Koran is not God. God does not condone the things that Mahomet did.

what made you want to come home?