How did Muhammad die and at what age?
Robert Houghton
Your Muslim respondents are reticent - with reason.
Muhammad died as the delayed result of being poisoned by a Jewish woman, the
poisoning taking place immediately after the Muslim conquest of the Jewish
oasis of Khaibar. Having failed in an attempt at Mecca, and having concluded
with the Meccans the humiliating Treaty of Hudaybiyya, Muhammad delivered
the victory and the booty his men had been frustrated of by attacking the
Jews. It is notorious that Muhammad had several of the Jewish leaders
beheaded, and he tortured one of them (he was later beheaded) to force him
to disclose the whereabouts of buried treasure. He also 'married' a most
beautiful Jewish woman whose husband he had had killed. Many of the women
and children were enslaved. Other Jews offered to surrender to Muhammad half
of the produce of the oasis annually in exchange for not being enslaved;
this was agreed, it being stipulated that they had no property rights or
rights of tenure, and they were in fact all expelled by Umar in later years.
This is the background to Muhammad's being poisoned by a Jewish woman. She
administered the poison in a piece of lamb. It took three years for the
poison finally to kill him.
Muhammad's dying words are remarkable; they are a curse on Christians and
Jews. Here is the account in Ibn Sa'd's biography, "Kitab al-Tabaqat
al-Kabir", vol 2, p322:
"When the last moment of the prophet was near, he used to draw a sheet over
his face, but when he felt uneasy, he removed it from his face and said
'Allah's damnation on the Jews and Christians who made the graves of their
prophets objects of worship.'"
It is illuminating to compare this curse with the words of Jesus, also the
victim of murder, in his case judicial murder. He prayed for those
responsible for his death: "Father, forgive them; they know not what they
do."
There is a very full discussion of the whole issue, with extensive
documentation by Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa'd, Tabari, and Sahih Muslim at
the following link: http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Silas/mo-death.htm
Abdelkarim Benoît Evans
"Robert Houghton" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote:
> Muhammad's dying words are remarkable; they are a curse on Christians and
> Jews. Here is the account in Ibn Sa'd's biography, "Kitab al-Tabaqat
> al-Kabir", vol 2, p322:
>
> "When the last moment of the prophet was near, he used to draw a sheet over
> his face, but when he felt uneasy, he removed it from his face and said
> 'Allah's damnation on the Jews and Christians who made the graves of their
> prophets objects of worship.'"
Based on the absence of any reference to this in several other
biographies and the frequent claim of other authors that his last words
were different, I find it difficult to give much credence to such a
report. In any case, I have not read Ibn Sa'd's book and I rather doubt
that you have. The only places on the Web that talk about this are
primarily the Answering Islam site and several others that, for the most
part, seem to have taken their information from Answering Islam.
In any case, for the sake of discussion, let us suppose that the
quotation you give is accurate. Do you think for a moment that God's
blessing or even absence of condemnation will be upon any Jew or
Christian (or anyone else) who "makes the graves of their prophets
objects of worship"?
Did not God himself give the commandment to Moses:
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the water under the earth.
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD
thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
"And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my
commandments."
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoît Evans
Zuiko Azumazi
news:kevans-783164....@r01.iad01.newshosting.com...
<snip> ...
> Based on the absence of any reference to this in several other
> biographies and the frequent claim of other authors that his last words
> were different, I find it difficult to give much credence to such a
> report. ... The only places on the Web that talk about this are
> primarily the Answering Islam site and several others that, for the most
> part, seem to have taken their information from Answering Islam.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
As the serious historian Harald Motzki, author of the authoritative "The
Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence - Meccan Fiqh before the Classical Schools"
(A comprehensive critique of the Schacht school) and editor of "The
Biography of Muhammad: The Issue of the Sources", shrewdly remarked:
"At present, the study of Muhammad, the founder of the Muslim community, is
obviously caught in a dilemma. On the one hand, it is not possible to write
a historical biography of the Prophet without being accused of using the
sources uncritically, while on the other hand, when using the sources
critically, it is simply not possible to write such a biography."
One might ask if the hapless Christian apologists, over at the hostile
Answering Islam website, took this wisdom into serious consideration before
publishing their usual disinformation? Aren't they and their echoing
mimickers in this forum then caught out on the horns of this irrefutable
dilemma?
I'm sure that the innocuous inquiry made by 'Proud Canadian', in the other
active thread, wasn't meant act as a gratuitous feed or to give another
pulpit opportunity to the usual "Apocalyptic Blogospherse" suspects. As you
indicated how much credence can be put on such "echo chamber" reports!
Doesn't this highlight once more this keen "blogging" observation by Todd
Leventhal, Chief of the Counter-Information Team, U.S. Department of State:-
http://fpc.state.gov:80/fpc/44433.htm
Extract:-
"But some of the methods that some blogs use aren't so good. And some of
them are basically used to float false data -- false information, they want
to put false information out there, they're funded by people and their whole
mission is to kind of put bad information out there. And then once it gets
out there into the
"blogosphere" it's kind of an echo chamber, stuff just starts bouncing
around and it appears on one site, it appears on another site.
End extract.
--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
DKleinecke
wrote:
> In article <000001c77608$b3c84150$4101a8c0@rhdt>,
> "Robert Houghton" <rober...@f2s.com> wrote:
>
> > Muhammad's dying words are remarkable; they are a curse on Christians and
> > Jews. Here is the account in Ibn Sa'd's biography, "Kitab al-Tabaqat
> > al-Kabir", vol 2, p322:
>
> > "When the last moment of the prophet was near, he used to draw a sheet over
> > his face, but when he felt uneasy, he removed it from his face and said
> > 'Allah's damnation on the Jews and Christians who made the graves of their
> > prophets objects of worship.'"
I replied to this on the other thread - but somehow my reply was never
posted. Here is some of it again:
According to Ibn Ishaq, the oldest and best biographer, 'A'isha was
holding him in her arms and he said "Nay, the most exalted Companions"
and died (p682 in Guillaume's translation).
Later on Ibn Ishaq has a somewhat mixed-up story from al-Zuhri which
says that Muhammad said "God slay a people who choose the graves of
their prophets as mosques" which he (Ibn Ishaq) interprets as a
warning to the Muslims not to do that. Then he says that "on the same
authority" (leaving it unclear whether he meant 'Aisha or al-Zuhri)
that the last command he gave was "Let not two religions be left in
the Arabian peninsula".
Note that his last command and his last words need not be the same.
'A'isha's version was not a command. Moreover note that he says TWO
religions. We know that at least THREE were involved - Judaism,
Christianity and Islam - but maybe Muhammad didn't distinguish between
Christianity and Islam.
In any case it looks like Ibn Sa'd (or al-Waqidi, who told him
everything he knew) has "improved" on the earlier version. I fear it
is almost impossible to determine what Muhammad actually said.
A Hirsi
> I reply to Proud Canadian March 26
>
> Your Muslim respondents are reticent - with reason.
>
You have now become a mind reader and a poor one at that. There is
already a thread in progress.
Why do you start a new one? What is this insatiable obsession with
transmitting bogus information?
> It is illuminating to compare this curse with the words of Jesus, also the
> victim of murder, in his case judicial murder. He prayed for those
> responsible for his death: "Father, forgive them; they know not what they
> do."
Jesus was never killed. Muslims do not believe the story you related
above.
> There is a very full discussion of the whole issue, with extensive
> documentation by Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa'd, Tabari, and Sahih Muslim at
> the following link:http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Silas/mo-death.htm
Nice of you to give us a link to your sources of bogus and discredited
information.
A Hirsi
asimm...@yahoo.com
>
> This is the background to Muhammad's being poisoned by a Jewish woman. She
> administered the poison in a piece of lamb. It took three years for the
> poison finally to kill him.
There are differing reports of the account. Some have the Prophet
tasting it, another he is not reported to have tasted anything. What
is confirmed is that the Companion who also ate from the meat died
immediately. In which world does poison remain in system for over 3
years, before eventually killing somebody?
Let us assume the report is correct:
Isn't it ironic that even with the alleged poisoning, Muhammad (S) did
not die until he completed his mission by liberating the Ka'aba and
gaining dominance over Arabia? Isn't it ironic that he only passed
once the revelation of the Quran was complete?
What are you trying to prove?
>
> Muhammad's dying words are remarkable; they are a curse on Christians and
> Jews. Here is the account in Ibn Sa'd's biography, "Kitab al-Tabaqat
> al-Kabir", vol 2, p322:
These were not the Prophet's dying words. These are some of the
things he is reported to have said during his last few days. His last
reported words reflected his desire to meet his Lord. Prior to these
words, "prayer" was on his lips.
>
> "When the last moment of the prophet was near, he used to draw a sheet over
> his face, but when he felt uneasy, he removed it from his face and said
> 'Allah's damnation on the Jews and Christians who made the graves of their
> prophets objects of worship.'"
>
Why not try to understand? This statement was one of many statements
he made, knowing that his time was approaching.
If you would take a minute to think, before you speak, you wold have
realized that this phrase was directed to the Muslims, and how they
need to react once the Prophet leaves this world, i.e. he died. The
Prophet, whom you would like to claim as self-serving, is warning his
own ummah from falling into worshipping him, unlike the Jews and
Christians, who took to excess, and moved away from the worship of God
by worshipping their Prophets. He, even to the point of death, was
keen n preserving the tradition of monotheism that all Prophets
preached.
Self-serving?
> It is illuminating to compare this curse with the words of Jesus, also the
> victim of murder, in his case judicial murder. He prayed for those
> responsible for his death: "Father, forgive them; they know not what they
> do."
>
Actually, Jesus reported that the Temple would be destroyed, and God's
punishment would lead to the Rabbinic expulsion from Jerusalem. It
happened in 70 AD, just as Jesus foretold.
And does this sound like a man that was sent to be 'crucified' for
men's sins? Praying forgiveness for the people who comitted an act
that was suppose to free men from their sins?
Robert
My reply seems to have been lost. I'll try again.
You reject the account of Muhammad's calling for God's curse on
Christians and Jews. We do not need to establish that this curse was
chronologically Muhammad's last words, so different accounts of these
do not tend to show that Ibn Sa'd's account is erroneous.
Whether or not you and I have read Ibn Sa'd's book is beside the
point: we can consider his evidence irespective of that, and the fact
that Answering Islam is the source of the information has no bearing
on its truth. Here is evidence which you are bound to respect: Bukhari
records this account of Muhammad's curse on Jews and Christians (Vol
7, book 72, Non 706):
"Narrated 'Aisha and Abdullah bin 'Abbas: 'May Allah curse the Jews
[and] Christians because they took the graves of their prophets as
places of worship.'"
You evidently take it that Muhammad's belief that Christians and Jews
make the graves of prophets OBJECTS of worship was true. As an ex-
Christian, how can you do that? - a grave is not divine, and NOBODY,
Christian, Jew or otherwise thinks that it is. And to revere a saint
is not to regard him as divine. Muslim fashion, you insist upon
conflating prayers asking a saint to pray for one with according
divinity to the saint. This is nonsense: I can ask my neighbour to
pray for me (and my Muslim friends, I am happy to say,do pray for me),
but this does not amount to regarding them as divine. But it is false
and NONSENSE to say that Christians and Jews took the graves of
prophets as objects of worship. As regards Bukhari's account why
shouldn't one erect a church at the shrine of a saint or martyr? Are
Muslims forbidden to do this? Even so, Why not?
Furthermore, that Muhammad CURSED is shocking; Jesus cursed no one,
and Christians do not curse - judgment is God's. One should not wish
ill on anyone.
Robert
No doubt there are different accounts of Muhammad's death; they were
set down in writing many years - even hundreds of years - after the
event, but Bukhari gives two accounts; Ibn Sa'd gives five accounts by
four individuals; and Tabari gives the accounts of three individuals.
Any report of Muhammad's not tasting anything of the poisoned lamb
hardly makes sense.
How do you know that he only died when the 'revelation' of the Koran
was complete? Do you have access to the heavenly tablets to check
that?
You ask what I am trying to prove. Proof isn't the issue, but I am
showing that Muhammad was not a Prophet: Jesus said that those who
live by the sword will die by the sword and forbade his disciples to
resort to arms to defend him against the Jewish authorities; but
Muhammad established his power in Arabia by violence - consequently he
died by violence at the hands of a Jewess revenging herself for the
horrific treatment that Muhammad handed out to the Jews.
Whether Muhammad's words cursing Jews and Christians were precisely
his last, as reported by Ibn Sa'd, cannot be determined and isn't
important.
No, the curse was directed at Christians and Jews, though no doubt it
had point for Muslims. And Muhammad's curse is false: Christians and
Jews do NOT worship the graves of prophets. You are again completely
misinformed - no doubt it is a current Muslim canard - Christians and
Jews do not worship Prophets. No doubt you will cite Jesus as a
Prophet who is worshiped, but he is not worshiped as man, but as God.
Thus there is no idolatry. If Muslims were not wholly ignorant of
Christianity and Judaism they would not believe such canards.
You seem to imply that in prophesying the destruction of the Temple in
70CE Jesus was uttering a curse: not so. Jesus didn't prophesy the
expulsion of the Rabbis from Jerusalem.
The fact that Jesus's self-sacrifice would enable men to be freed from
their sins in no way took away from the guilt of those responsible for
his judicial murder; THEY didn't send him to be crucified for men's
sins. Again you are abysmally ignorant of Christianity and have no
understanding of it.
Do you find it incredible and illogical that Jesus should pray for
those who were killing him?
asimm...@yahoo.com
> hardly makes sense.
According to who? If a Companion ate first, and immediately died,
than why would Muhammad taste it? How does that not make any sense?
And you failed to answer the obvious question.
Which poison maintains itself in the body for 3 years, ultimately
causing the death of a person? Abbass (R) is reported to have stated
to Ali (R) that his uncle was going to die, and the latter should make
a request for leadership. Abbass (R) is reported to have given the
reason for this because the manner in which the Prophet died was
common to his ancestors. They fell ill, and their condition seemed to
improve, yet they ultimately passed.
It is all well and good that you quoted varying reports, but it only
proves what I was saying all along. There are varying reports, and
they differ on whether Muhammad actually tasted the meat or not. But
they all agree on one thing. The Jews tried to assassinate Muhammad,
despite putting on a pretense of reconciliation. What are you trying
to prove?
> How do you know that he only died when the 'revelation' of the Koran
> was complete? Do you have access to the heavenly tablets to check
> that?
So are you admitting the Quran is stored in the heavenly tablets? If
you assert that, than you would have to assert that God has protected
the revelation of the Quran, because every verse about the heavenly
tablets is an argument in favor of the preservation of the
transmission of the Quran.
The Quran itself states that the religion was perfected, and the
descendants of Ishamel were given dominance in the land as promised.
They were further given control of the Ka'aba, as foretold in the
Quran. The declaration of victory was made in Surah Nasr. The
internal evidence dictates that the mission of Muhammad (S) was
nearing it's end.
The irrational assumption is to assume the Quranic revelation wasn't
complete. It is a subjective assertion, not supported by a single
piec of evidence.
>
> You ask what I am trying to prove. Proof isn't the issue, but I am
> showing that Muhammad was not a Prophet: Jesus said that those who
> live by the sword will die by the sword and forbade his disciples to
> resort to arms to defend him against the Jewish authorities; but
> Muhammad established his power in Arabia by violence - consequently he
> died by violence at the hands of a Jewess revenging herself for the
> horrific treatment that Muhammad handed out to the Jews.
>
ANd the final Prophet would be like Moses, not Jesus. Further, Moses
and David raised the sword. Many Prophets of past raised the sword
from among the Israelites, and their power was established through
violence. The Israelites forceable entered Canaan, by directive of
Moses, the one whom God spoke face to face. Deuteronomy is full of
stipulations of what the Israelites are to do with various groups
within Canaan.
How did the Prophet die of violence, when he lived 3 years after this
alleged incident? Especially considering the Kaaba was liberated and
he was granted dominance in the land. The state of the Muslims was of
complete independence and victory. What planet are you living in if
you think that Muhammad died by 'violence'? He died in the lap of his
wife, in his own house. He prayed with his Companions, and smiled
when observing them in prayer. He even had the chance to brush his
teeth with miswak.
Whatever the Quran predicted about his mission came true? How is that
a horrific death? God grant me such a horrific death...
> Whether Muhammad's words cursing Jews and Christians were precisely
> his last, as reported by Ibn Sa'd, cannot be determined and isn't
> important.
Your the one that claimed it was important. You wanted to drum up
some charge that his statement was predicated upon his being
'assassinated' by the Jews, when it had nothing to do with the
situation. It is called fabricating evidence. But you have become
reknowned for that on this forum.
>
> No, the curse was directed at Christians and Jews, though no doubt it
> had point for Muslims. And Muhammad's curse is false: Christians and
> Jews do NOT worship the graves of prophets.
Yes, they do. They build monuments around the bodies of past saints.
The Catholic Church declares certain places sacred, because a
particular saint died there. People invoke saints at these grave-
yards. Maybe to you, this is not worship. But to Muslims and our
world-view it is clearly worship.
You are again completely
> misinformed - no doubt it is a current Muslim canard - Christians and
> Jews do not worship Prophets. No doubt you will cite Jesus as a
> Prophet who is worshiped, but he is not worshiped as man, but as God.
And the idol-worshippers bow to stones because they believe they are
gods? Does that mean that they are invoking gods?
"These are just names, which ye and your forefathers have made up."
You can worship Jesus as God, but that makes you guilty of two things:
1. Foolishness for worshipping a man
2. Believing that Jesus said He was God, yet he bowed to God in
paryer
> Thus there is no idolatry. If Muslims were not wholly ignorant of
> Christianity and Judaism they would not believe such canards.
>
Than the idol-worshipper isn't guilty of idolatry, because he believes
that the stone he actually worships is a god.
> You seem to imply that in prophesying the destruction of the Temple in
> 70CE Jesus was uttering a curse: not so. Jesus didn't prophesy the
> expulsion of the Rabbis from Jerusalem.
If calling certain Jews wolves in sheeps clothing, and condemning them
in prophetic words about their total destruction in the context of
their hypocrisy isn't a curse, than what is? I guess we are also to
assume that Jesus wasn't really being harsh, despite the fact he
called them liars, and unfaithful to God, and hypocrites who seek to
deceive men. He was really trying to 'inspire' them...
>
> The fact that Jesus's self-sacrifice would enable men to be freed from
> their sins in no way took away from the guilt of those responsible for
> his judicial murder; THEY didn't send him to be crucified for men's
> sins. Again you are abysmally ignorant of Christianity and have no
> understanding of it.
>
So he was assassinated by his enemies... Interesting that this whole
argument is predicated on the fact that Muhammad was allegedly
assassinated by his enemies... So who was behind this assassination
attempt of Jesus? And who was behind this assassination attempt of
Muhammad?
They both have a common theme, i.e. the people behind it were
rejecting the claims to Prophethood without due right...
> Do you find it incredible and illogical that Jesus should pray for
> those who were killing him?
Jesus wasn't even on the cross...
Robert
If you check out the Wikipedia you will find confirmation of what I
have said about the Koran's allegation that Christians worship saints.
Christians give honour and respect to Saints and ask them to intercede
and pray to God for them; Divine worship is offered only to God and
NEVER to saints.
As regards the poison lasting for three years in Muhammad's body,
there are many poisons that remain indefinitely in the body; that is
how cumulative poisons act.
Pagans, whether they believe their idol is a god or not, are guilty of
idolatry because they accord divine worship to what is not God.
Robert
You say that many prophets "raised the sword" from among the
Israelites. This is not true. David, the great warrior, was a
'prophet' only in a technical sense: a few of his psalms have been
regarded as prophetic, but he was not a member of the prophetic guilds
and did not fulfil the prophetic office, calling upon the Israelites
to respect their Covenant with God. Also David was guilty of great
wickedness: adultery and murder, and for this violence he was
condemned. Do you condemn Muhammad for his many violent and unjust
actions? None of the great Prophets used violence, just as none of
them practised polygamy.
The Israelites, on the instructions of Moses, fought to enter Canaan,
and 'devoted' a number of Canaanite cities; that is they killed and
destroyed everything in them. This was the practice of the nomadic
Semites of the time. Whether this was God's will I find difficult to
decide: certainly God, only God, has rights over innocent life. As a
Catholic I am not committed to believing that the Old Testament
account that the devoting took place as a result of revelation. But
God has condemned us all - innocent or not - to death.
However, your raising this is just another instance of the common
Muslim practice of deploying the 'tu quoque' fallacy, distracting from
the facts about Islam, which are the issue. Muhammad DID have many
innocent people killed and must be condemned for this. On the evidence
of the earliest Muslim historians he was responsible for eighty
political assassinations; the early historians and the hadith report
numerous atrocities.
But the main point is that whereas violence is intrinsic to Islam,
present in its origins, written into the Koran, and being claimed to
be enjoined by God himself, this is not true of Christianity and
Judaism. Islam was spread by violence: pagans were offered the
alternatives of submission to Islam or death. To this day every Muslim
is under an obligation to support jihad - armed conflict against the
infidel in the way of God. I remind you again that only two Islamic
countries were not converted by the sword: Malaysia and Indonesia.
Christians have been violent, and very rarely have 'converted' people
by force (an impossibility according to Christian teaching), but the
Church does not teach violence - just the opposite. With only
insignificant exceptions, Christianity was not spread by force, and
when it was, this was contrary to the Christian Faith.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1176243690.5...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
>> You ask what I am trying to prove. Proof isn't the issue, ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
As an observation, doesn't this bald assertion, personify the irrational
form of this purported faultfinding polemic? How can any rational person
pose a dubious (i.e. open to doubt or suspicion) question like; "How did
Muhammad die and at what age?", and then meaningfully articulate that
evidential "proof isn't the issue"! This is tantamount to saying that
substantiation or validation is unnecessary in any argumentation?
Which raises the serious question in this Islamic forum: How can any Muslim
sensibly respond to such vacuous bunkum?
--
Peace
--
The opinion of the intelligent is worth more than the certitude of the
ignorant. [Arab Proverb]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
Poisoned at the age of 63, by a Jewish Woman, who had a beef with him;
poisoned not instantly but over a period of a few years (which sounds to
me like the arsenic poisoning of Napoleon on St. Helena, many years
later).
Detailed description of the death of Mohammed: Edward Gibbon, The
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. III, p. 1762-3.
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite wrote:
> Detailed description of the death of Mohammed: Edward Gibbon, The
> Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. III, p. 1762-3.
Try this link:
http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap50.htm#Death
man06
>
> You ask what I am trying to prove. Proof isn't the issue, but I am
> showing that Muhammad was not a Prophet: Jesus said that those who
> live by the sword will die by the sword and forbade his disciples to
The violent man-god used the whip in the temple to drive out money
lenders.
Commenting on the words "the whip of cord", Carmichael says that:
"they unmistakably imply violence and equally unmistakably represent a
sort of minimal toning-down of what actually must have been a massive
undertaking. If we simply imagine the size of the temple the tens of
thousands of pilgrims thronging into and through it the numerous
attendants, the police force, the Roman soldiers, as well as the
normal reaction of the ox-drivers themselves to say nothing of the
moneychangers, we see that it must have taken much more than mere
surprise to have accomplished it at all. The scene behind this
fragmentary recollection in the fourth Gospel must have been vastly
different The chronicler has softened it by "spiritualising" it out of
all reality. "
The man-god you worship should of known that those who live by the
whip shall die by crucifixion.What happened before your god got nailed
to a cross? he got the whip, right?
quoting the words of asim "It was not taken that way by Muhammad (S)
either, despite him 'turning the other cheek' for over 4 times the
length of Jesus' whole ministry"
> resort to arms to defend him against the Jewish authorities; but
> Muhammad established his power in Arabia by violence - consequently he
> died by violence at the hands of a Jewess revenging herself for the
> horrific treatment that Muhammad handed out to the Jews.
What is wrong with using vilence against ppl who are persecuting you?
were the money lenders persecuting your god? are you feeling bad
inside that your god was originally a crucified failure and then your
church turned him into a saviour?
> No, the curse was directed at Christians and Jews, though no doubt it
> had point for Muslims. And Muhammad's curse is false: Christians and
> Jews do NOT worship the graves of prophets.
"At this very time in history Judaism split into more than twenty
sects, including the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Hemerobaptists,
Nasaraeans, Ossaeans, Herodians, Therapeutae, Bana'im, Hypsistarians,
Maghariya, Masbotheans, Samaritans, Galilaeans, Qumranians, Essenes,
Dositheans, Sebuaeans, Gorothenes, and a dozen others...
They all differed and often fell into heated debate over the proper
beliefs and community values, yet they all thrived. Some rejected the
Torah, some credited an angel with the creation, some worshipped Moses
as Christ, some permitted obeisance to idols, some practiced
astrology, some accepted baptism as an atonement for sins, some
rejected a literal interpretation of the scriptures, some scorned the
Jerusalem Temple, some believed Herod was the messiah, some denied the
existence of souls or angels or spirits of any kind, and some denied
resurrection altogether.
As a result, every Jewish sect was a deviant sect to at least some
other Jewish sect. They were all attacking each other and trying to
convert people to their way of thinking. It is no surprise that
Christianity arose at the very time in history when schismatic
deviations from orthodox Judaism were more frequent and more
successful than ever before or since."
all of them claimed to be orthodox.Your protestant brothers believe
they are orthodox and you are going to the fire.
ALLAH replies to all of you and the phony muslims who call upon thier
saints for help.
No doubt you will cite Jesus as a
> Prophet who is worshiped, but he is not worshiped as man, but as God.
did the deciples know your god was a god? did they worship the god
part or the god-man combo? is it possible that they thought the man-
god was co existant with the son persona? is krishna a god? or he
became a god like your god?
why do you turn to marry? are your sins greater than gods mercy? is
god merciful only when you ask in mary's name? is mary able to see you
from heaven? is calling upon god directly a affront to the mother you
worship? is mary called upon in her human form or spirtitual form?
please answer
you brought up the nt version of jewish judicial law.
answer to your nt version: Of all of the throngs of believers the
gospels would have us think followed Jesus and greeted him in his
excursions throughout their towns, it would only have taken two to
maintain the credibility of the man. But they all stayed home! Peter-
the pontiff yet, lied to save himself, James, Matthew, John, Mary,
Mary and Mary, Joseph, Lazarus and all the rest are nowhere to be
found as character witnesses.
Two witnesses! That is all that was required of Jewish law to proclaim
one's innocence. And not one from the MULTITUDE came forward. Instead,
they all supposedly condemned the man to die. All the throngs who
cheered on his arrival; all the familial members of those whom he
raised from the dead, all the healed and fed--they all stayed home!
The man-god got caught when his right hand man betrayed him.i find it
strange that the man-god didn't turn the other cheek when the jewish
authorities were about to stone him.The man-god hid by surrounding
himself with sympathtic crowds.Amazing way of "turning the other
cheek" isn't it?
> The fact that Jesus's self-sacrifice would enable men to be freed from
> their sins in no way took away from the guilt of those responsible for
> his judicial murder;
if they didn't nail your god then sinners like you wouldn't be
saved.in your gods plan he had to plan that his "chosen ones" nail him
to a cross.why did this god of yours DECIEVE THEM? Why in his plan
didn't he allow the "chosen ones" to see him as god in the form of a
man? why was was his torah used to condemn him?
THEY didn't send him to be crucified for men's
> sins. Again you are abysmally ignorant of Christianity and have no
> understanding of it.
>
blame your god for keeping them in the dark.
"i said nothing in secret", said jesus.That is a blatant lie he did
have IMPORTANT secret teachings.One of the teachings according to the
christian cult is that jesus died for the sins of men.But why didn't
he convey this message to the guy who was questioning him about his
teachings?
... Jesus should pray for
> those who were killing him?
this prayer is not found in the other gospels.
"mark's jesus has been beaten, mocked, deserted, and forsaken, not
just by his followers but finally god himself.his only words in the
entire proceeding come at the very end, when he cries out "eloi, eloi,
lema sabachtani..."
robert, what were the man-gods last words? why did luke remodel the
scene in mark to show that jesus is at peace in the face of death?
Altway
"Robert" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
> You say that many prophets "raised the sword" from among the
Israelites. This is not true. David, the great warrior, was a
'prophet' only in a technical sense: a few of his psalms have been
regarded as prophetic, but he was not a member of the prophetic guilds
and did not fulfil the prophetic office, calling upon the Israelites
to respect their Covenant with God.
Comment:-
That is your belief, not the Islamic one.
Muslims believe he was a Prophet who had revelations
to guide people.
Hamid S. Aziz
Robert
You say that to "invoke" saints at their graves is, according to
Islam, worship. Yes, but Islam is clearly wrong and only maintains
this erroneous position because of statements in the Koran. Christians
pray to saints to pray for them; to do this is no more to accord
divine honours to them than asking one's neighbour to pray for one
accords divine honour to one's neighbour. Asking saints in Heaven to
pray for one is not to regard them as gods.
To kill someone by administering poison to them is an act of violence
just as much as killing them with a weapon.
Robert
It is not a matter of mind reading to note that Muslims were not
forthcoming about Muhammad's death in answer to a query.
I didn't start a new thread, I merely contributed by email and the
moderators started the new thread. I did this because when using the
reply facility on this forum I not infrequently loose my
contributions.
The information that I supply, I supply in good faith. The information
I supplied about Muhammad's death came from Answering Islam; they gave
references to Bukhari, Ibn Sa'd, and Tabari. These cannot be dismissed
as bogus. I do not LIKE Answering Islam because of their obtrusively
Protestant theology, and quasi-fundamentalist approach to Scripture,
but I have found them perfectly honest and an excellent source of
information about Islam. There is nothing bogus about them. On the
other hand Muslim anti-Christian sites are notably dishonest in line
with the Islamic permission that Muslims have to lie to obtain a good
end.
All the evidence is that Jesus was killed. The apostles witnessed his
death, which concluded in a spear thrust through the chest; he was
interred; the Sanhedrin accepted his death, the pagan historians,
Suetonius and Tacitus, referred to his death, Josephus referred to his
death, the Talmud recognizes his death: his death is a historical
fact, with far more attestation than the deaths of most historical
figures. You only have the word of Muhammad that he didn't die, and
how could HE know? You'll say it isn't the word of Muhammad - it's the
word of God, but HOW DO YOU KNOW? If Jesus didn't die, God is
responsible for a fantastic deceit imposed upon the first and all
subsequent Christians, as well as an extraordinary divine conjuring
trick in switching two identities: this is the stuff of pseudo-
religious fantasy. And if Jesus didn't die, why, according to Muslims,
does death still wait for him? I understand Muslims have a grave ready
for him next to Muhammad.
Robert
Yes, what I stated is my belief; your belief is that David was a
prophet who had revelations to guide people. The point is this: there
is extensive historical evidence for my belief; you can give none for
yours. Your belief is based merely on the word of Muhammad that he had
the information from God - but what is the evidence for THAT?
Why should we believe such an extraordinary claim?
asimm...@yahoo.com
> You say that many prophets "raised the sword" from among the
> Israelites. This is not true.
No, it is absolutely true one hundred percent without a shadow of a
doubt. Prophets have raised the sword and continued to raise the
sword in Israelite tradition, whether it was against the idolaters or
other tribes of Israel. The prophecies of Isaiah are in regards to a
battle between Israel and Judah, not the Israelites and the non-
Israelites. I am not woefully ignorant of your scriptures Robert,
that you can pass away blatant disregard for truth right before my
eyes.
Also David was guilty of great
> wickedness: adultery and murder, and for this violence he was
> condemned. Do you condemn Muhammad for his many violent and unjust
> actions? None of the great Prophets used violence, just as none of
> them practised polygamy.
>
1.
Nice game of logic, but I don't suscribe to your games. First of all,
violence does not necessarily predicate injustice. Second, none of
Muhammad's violent actions were unjust.
2.
The fact is we are speaking about what God is recorded to have ORDERED
in the Old Testament, irrespective of whether the allegations
regarding David are true or not. Further, we are not just referred to
David, but a series of Prophets within the Israelite tradition. Your
just side-steeping the issue. As I pointed before, we have the
example par excellence in Judaic tradition of a Prophet, whom God
spoke face-to-face with, that ordered his people to invade Canaan and
take it by force. The greatest Prophet, according to Israelite
tradition, ordered offensive wars. This is just the reality of the
matter, and no amount of back-peddling can change this reality.
3.
Further, the Israelite theme of salavation is found in the re-
establishment of the Temple of DAVID. David is the central figure in
apocalyptic Judaic tradition regarding salvation. The Messiah, as
propagated by the lying pens of the Pharisees, was suppose to descend
from the line of David.
What does this say about your argument regarding violence?
> The Israelites, on the instructions of Moses, fought to enter Canaan,
> and 'devoted' a number of Canaanite cities; that is they killed and
> destroyed everything in them. This was the practice of the nomadic
> Semites of the time.
Ah... You see how the justification changes for your own beliefs.
Interesting... I find it rather hypocritical.
Whether this was God's will I find difficult to
> decide: certainly God, only God, has rights over innocent life.
Yes, and in my eyes just as Moses was a Prophet, Muhammad was a
Prophet. So you need to confine yourself to the standard of whether
Muhammad was a Prophet or not. We all know Prophet's waged wars, so
waging wars and fighting battles, even OFFENSIVE, are not the standard
that defines a Prophet from a non-Prophet. Your whole argument is
predicated on the fact that because Muhammad waged violent wars as a
staple of his prophethood, which is in fact disputable, because the
violence itself was rather limited, he could not be a Prophet. Yet,
you refuse to follow this same standard for Moses or David. You just
keep running around in circles trying to justify it for Moses, but not
for Muhammad.
I find it rather ironic that not in one single instance do you speak
about all the persecution that Muhammad and his followers faced in
Mecca, as well as the baseless idol worship they indulged in. The
very idol-worship that neither Moses, Abraham, or Jesus justified.
Yet, you want to make Muhammad the subject of your attacks.
"When they (Bani Israel) are asked who is better, they reply the
disbelievers."
This is how far their hatred had reached for their own brother, the
one who descended from their father Abraham. They had preferred the
defense of what was clearly forbidden in their own scriptures, because
they hated a man for receiving revelation from God, who was not
directly from their own tribe. THIS IS THE REALITY OF THE MATTER.
And you are acting just like them Robert. But "those who do wrong,
wrong their own souls." Your not going to bother Muhammad or me
regarding what you say. I am just speaking the truth as it is.
> However, your raising this is just another instance of the common
> Muslim practice of deploying the 'tu quoque' fallacy, distracting from
> the facts about Islam, which are the issue.
What distraction? Muhammad is the final Prophet in the line of a
series of Messengers God sent to humanity. This has nothing to do
with distracting from the facts of Islam, because Islam is the same
religion sent to mankind, through the Prophets, throughout the ages.
If Prophets of past fought, than what is so strange that Muhammad
fought? You are not going to find me denying that Muhammad waged wars
and some of these wars were quite violent. Just as your not going to
find me denying that nations such as Sodom and Gomorrah, or the towns
of Thamud and Ad were destroyed rather violently, and the heavens and
the earth never shed a single tear for them. In fact, the Quran is
rather blunt when it speaks about the punishment accorded to the
disbelievers in the next life.
Thus, to claim Muhammad is not a Prophet simply because he waged
violence is the 'to quoque' fallacy. I assert Muhammad is a final
chain of Messengers. And I assert that God punishes those that
ultimately reject his Messengers, despite the fact that God makes it
clear to the people that these are Messengers.
It bothers me NOT ONE BIT that blood was shed. I wish it hadn't, and
the people accepted, but those who were stubborn, and bore hatred,
they only harmed themselves.
Muhammad DID have many
> innocent people killed and must be condemned for this. On the evidence
> of the earliest Muslim historians he was responsible for eighty
> political assassinations; the early historians and the hadith report
> numerous atrocities.
Can you tell me the count of how many people Muhammad killed in these
battles of war? You know, there is an interestin statistic. Out of
ten of the 13 years Muhammad was in Medina, he can be said to be in a
state of war. Yet the amount of blood that was shed, was quite
small. A few hundreds. Further, Muhammad was the one who had almost
ALL OF ARABIA against him, yet he came out in top. At least, if your
not going to accept him as Prophet, give him credit for unifying a
nation of tribes and nomads into an amazing civilization.
>
> But the main point is that whereas violence is intrinsic to Islam,
> present in its origins, written into the Koran, and being claimed to
> be enjoined by God himself, this is not true of Christianity and
> Judaism.
Judaism, as it is taught today, is founded on the premise that they
have right to the Holy Land, and they can wage war for it.
Salvational history is premised on the idea that the Temple will be
rebuilt, and the Sons of Light will defeat the Sons of Darkness, to
borrow the Dead Sea Scrolls terminology, in a battle unknown by human
history. And your arguing that our religion is violentally intrinsic?
The Quran says,
"We created death and life to see who amongst you is BEST in deeds."
The foundation of this life is a test. It is not predicated on any
salvational history, and further, this life is meant for the doing of
good. Salvation is predicated on the doing of good, not some concept
of armageddon. As our Prophet is reported to have said,
"If the Day of Judgement comes, and you are planting a tree, continue
planting the tree."
Islam was spread by violence: pagans were offered the
> alternatives of submission to Islam or death.
What happened in Canaan? God promised certains lands to the
descendants of Abraham, did he not? Were not the descendants of
ABraham required to uphold a certain code. Did not Moses order the
killing of the guilt among Israel for calf-worship when he returned
from Sinai?
To this day every Muslim
> is under an obligation to support jihad - armed conflict against the
> infidel in the way of God.
Jihad is a JUST WAR, fought for God. And your right. If a LEGITIMATE
jihad is being waged for the sake of God, and the sake of God means
the removal of oppression and injustice, than we are obliged to
support it whether materially, financially, economically, or SIMPLY BY
OUR CONSCIENCE. We do not favor nationalism or any other -ism over
the Eternal Being. You shouldn't either, especially since you claim
that you follow people like Jesus.
asimm...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> Poisoned at the age of 63, by a Jewish Woman, who had a beef with him;
> poisoned not instantly but over a period of a few years (which sounds to
> me like the arsenic poisoning of Napoleon on St. Helena, many years
> later).
>
That Jewish woman was executed because her poisoining resulted in the
death of one of the Prophet's Companions. How could the Prophet be
poisoned over a series of a few years, if his contact with the woman
was at most a few minutes?
And how does death happen instantly for his Companion who tasted the
same meat, and not for the Prophet? Arsenic does not cause death
because of a taste. Napolean sustained exposure to arsenic over many
years.
Let me repeat it clearly, one more time:
Muhammad liberated the Arabian peninsula, re-gained control over the
Kaaba, and by the end of his life, the nation was in his total
control.
His death was ordained by God, when his mission was to be completed.
It happened just as foretold.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:4622F1E5...@myface.net...
<snip>
<snip> ...
Comment:-
As an observation, do you think your reply satisfies "Proud Canadian's"
original question, which was:-
news:1174518738.3...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
"Curious question.... nowone ever mentioned how the Prophet Mohammed
died and at what age ? can anyone enlighten me on this."
Why would anyone today seriously rely on 17th century historical scholarship
concerning this Islamic matter? Modern western historians of note seldom, if
at all, cite Edward Gibbon as an authoritative source in these controversial
matters. Certainly, I cannot find any reference to this "curious question"
in either Hitti, Hourani or Lapidus. One might ask is this because these
well-respected professional historians found that Gibbon's cited sources
(i.e. Abulfeda and Al Jannabi) to be suspect?
The cynical view might be that the only people who would amateurishly invoke
or rely on such superseded western historical scholarship are those hapless
polemicists on a disingenuous missionary campaign, e.g. Answering Islam. Do
Muslims, in this forum, really need to seriously respond to the likes of
Zonaras, Ockley, Gagnier, Sale, Maracci, Prideaux, et al, when modern
western historical scholarship has already found these sources to be
"notoriously unreliable"?
You have indicated elsewhere, using your own words: "One thing I have often
observed but never understood is that the religious think that non-members
should observe the particulars of their own religious sects."
news:45FC6931...@myface.net...
Which raises the additional question, particularly for Muslim readers: is
why would a "non-member" chose to cite the very partisan religious CCEL
(Baptist - Calvinist) website as a supposedly neutral source to substantiate
their specious claims against Muslims in this forum?
--
Peace
--
Facts and truth really don't have much to do with each other. [William
Faulkner]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
asimm...@yahoo.com
> All the evidence is that Jesus was killed.
And you failed to answer the point. You argued that because Muhammad
was allegedly assassinated by the Jews, that predicates that one lives
by the sword one dies by the sword. Yet, Jesus, according to
Christian theology, died an even more horrific and violent death. He
was executed by hanging on the cross. His hands and feet were nailed
into the wood.
So that, according to your logic, must necessitate that Jesus lived by
the sword and died by the sword. But than again, you will argue that
his enemies were guilty. But you do not record the same respect for
Muhammad. You don't speak about the context of his mission, as well
as the treaties he signed, and the back-stabbing he received from
certain tribes who claimed they would support him.
How can somebody consider you serious?
asimm...@yahoo.com
> More for asimmehm
>
> If you check out the Wikipedia you will find confirmation of what I
> have said about the Koran's allegation that Christians worship saints.
According to our world-view this is worship. Worship is the practical
manifestation of extreme reverance for a particular being. One does
not worship something one does not have reverence for. Further,
worship, according to the Quran, also is to follow a people who
declare certain things forbidden that God has declared allowed, and
indulge in things forbidden that God has ordaiend because these very
people consider it allowed. One does not do this unless one
reverences a particular person so much so, whether from social
conditioning or some other reason, that one follows him not matter
what. God does not accept claims of belief in his oneness, but
practical manifestation of belief in his oneness.
> Christians give honour and respect to Saints and ask them to intercede
> and pray to God for them; Divine worship is offered only to God and
> NEVER to saints.
That is your claim, but that is not our world-view. And again, you
missed the point. The idol-worshippers believe that the idols they
bow to actually have power over the affairs of the heavens and the
earth. This belief has no effect on reality. So you can say the
Christians believe that they are worshipping God, but they are not
when they indulge in these acts.
Dead saints cannot hear. People pray to Saints, because they believe
they have some uncanny ability to hear, even from beyond the graves.
They fall into exxageration, which is ultimately how all polytheism
starts. This exxageration than turns into worship, and people start
erecting monuments, wasting money on gold tombs, instead of social
justice and alleviating the misery of the poor. Pope's begin to wear
extravagant clothes, because he has some special status with God.
People cry when the Pope comes to town, but the rest of their life,
they are neglecting the real obligations of their religion. This is
how Satan deceives men.
>
> As regards the poison lasting for three years in Muhammad's body,
> there are many poisons that remain indefinitely in the body; that is
> how cumulative poisons act.
Now your an authority on medicine? Can you inform me of what types of
poison's act like that, especially considering one of his Companions
died when tasting the meat? What happened to the rest of the
Companions that allegedly ate it?
>
> Pagans, whether they believe their idol is a god or not, are guilty of
> idolatry because they accord divine worship to what is not God.
So what... Your argument is predicated on the notion that Christians
believe that they are doing something that is worship. The idol
worshippers do the same thing. But the reality is, they both, just as
Muslims who indulge in these type of activities, are living in
delusion.
Robert Houghton
The charge that Jesus was a man of violence, as shown by the episode of the
cleansing of the Temple, is a commonplace of Muslim anti-Christian
propaganda, and is used as a 'tu quoque' distraction from the manifest
violence of Muhammad's politico-religious life shown in his 80 political
assassinations (according to the early Muslim historians who didn't idealize
him as the perfect man), his treatment of the Jews of Khaibar, the beheading
of 600 Jews in Medina, his killing of the dozen personal enemies on his
entry into Mecca, including one singing slave girl who had mocked him in her
satirical songs (modern Muslim historians falsify the story saying that she
cursed him, not mocked him; but even so since when has cursing deserved
death?) .... the story of Muhammad's violence can be continued almost
indefinitely.
You do not identify your Carmichael whose 'reconstruction' of the cleansing
of the Temple you reproduce: it is pure malicious speculation without a
SHRED of evidence to support it. He quotes John who, says "In the temple he
found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money
changers at their business. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all,
with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of
the money changers, and overturned their tables." (John 2:13). Carmichael
says that the words "whip of cord" unmistakably imply violence. Not so, a
whip of cord is NOT a whip. Your authority then paints a picture (without
authority) which implies that great force must have been used to drive out
the "thousands of pilgrims". But the Court of the Gentiles would not have
held thousands of pilgrims, and Jesus did not drive out the pilgrims, he
drove out the traders: "Take these things away, you shall not make my
Father's house a house of trade." Jesus drove out the traders by force of
spiritual authority, as was recognized when the Jewish authorities asked
"What sign have you for doing this?" He implicitly but cryptically claimed
his authority was that of the Messiah. Many took his cleansing of the Temple
as a sign that he was precisely that.
You ask what is wrong with using violence against people who are persecuting
you. The Jews of Khaibar, the Jews of Medina, and the singing slave girls in
Mecca were not violently persecuting Muhammad, yet Muhammad used violence
against them.
You give an extraordinary account (to no point) of the Jewish sects: in fact
there were very few of any significance - the Sadducees collapsed at the
destruction of the Temple, the Scribes were not a sect, the Nasaraeans were
Christians .... and they did NOT all thrive, as you claim (you seem to be
quoting some unreliable author.) The major sects did NOT try to convert one
another; they lived in apartheid. But I believe Islam is the same; how many
Muslim sects are there?
The disciples did not recognize the divinity of Jesus until after his
Resurrection; then they worshiped him as God. They recognized him as Man and
God, addressing him as Lord, the title of God, knowing him also to be the
man they had previously known and loved.
The rest of your stuff is not worthy of attention.
Altway
Wikipedia you will find confirmation of what I
> have said about the Koran's allegation that Christians worship saints.
and pray to God for them; Divine worship is offered only to God and
NEVER to saints.
Comment:-
Some Muslims visit the graves of Saints and also pray for their
intercession.
I have visited Cathedrals and seen that they are filled with statues of
saints and I have seen people praying before them.
But I cannot understand:-
What is the rational of praying to a saint to intercede for them
with God? Will God change His mind and not punish the culprit in a just
manner
because the Saint says so?
Will the Saint intercede with God on behalf of a culprit?
Will the Saint expect God to give up His justice because the Saint requests
it?
Can someone explain?
Hamid S. Aziz
Robert
You merely bluster and assert. You claim that there was a series of
prophets who "raised the sword," and merely repeat your assertion in
response to my denial. Please establish your claim from historical
scripture: name the prophets and detail their violence. You accuse me
of blatant disregard of truth but fail to produce any candidates for
the truth you allege I disregard.
Of course, violence does not predicate injustice: the hangman's
violence, the policeman's reasonable violence, and the violence of a
just war are not unjust. That is the very point of my describing
Muhammad's violence AS unjust: his political assassinations, his
decapitation of 600 Jews at Medina, and his murder of his dozen
personal enemies, includinn gold men and girls, in Mecca were unjust,
and therefore in the strongest sence of the legal term VIOLENTIA - the
opposite of justice.
The action of the Israelites in invading Canaan was not an act of
VIOLENTIA - it was just since God promised them the land.
Where is your evidence concerning "the lying pens of the Pharisees"?
What motive could they have for lying about the descent of the Messiah
from David? How could they perpetrate a falsification of the
Scriptures given that there were thousands of copies distributed
across the Roman and Persian Empires. All the Scriptures would need to
be collected and replaced. How could this extraordinary feat be
performed while maintaining deceit and without becoming a fact of
history?
My argument is that because Muhammad's violence and teaching of
violence were unjust he was not a prophet. The problem of proving that
he was falls to Muslims: their arguments do not hold; Islam
established itself by violence, spread and enriched itself by
violence, and maintains itself by violence - that is by the threat of
death to apostates (or nowadays social rejection.)
Since very ancient times the Jews never waged war for the Holy Land;
when Israel was founded, the Muslim Arabs invaded it and the Israelis
successfully defended themselves. Every other war they have been
involved in was defensive.
Robert Houghton
A further reply to man06 April 22
You illustrate another common Muslim falsehood and misconception when you
mockingly write:
"did the deciples [sic] know your god was a god? did they worship the god
part or the god-man combo? ... is krishna [sic] a god? or he became [sic] a
god like your god?"
Your expression "god-man" and your reference to "the god part" show that you
are ignorant of the central Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. Jesus was
not a demigod - part man and part god - he was God and he was man. He had
two natures, that is. But this is too philosophical for Muslims, the Muslim
philosophical tradition having been killed off by Ghazzali in the early
middle ages as incompatible with Islamic faith.
Similarly you offend grossly against Christian doctrines when you suggest
that Jesus became a god. This of course is paganism, a charge which Muslims
in their ignorance constantly bring against Christianity. It is just the
reverse of the Christian doctrine, which is that man did not become a god,
but God became man, took on a human nature in the person of Jesus.
So you see, the Christianity which you so evidently hate and despise is not
Christianity at all but a common Muslim misrepresentation of it. If Muslims
had any disinterested acquaintance with the New Testament they would know
their mockeries of Christian belief are merely the invention of the mullahs.
Robert Houghton
I reply to asimmehm April 21
Whatever your world view to worship someone is to accord divine honours to
that person. That is a fact of language and anthropology and if you use the
word "worship" in a way that ignores the fact but suits you, you are abusing
language.
You seek to replace the concept of worship with the "practical manifestation
of extreme reverence." There can be no objection to this reverence if the
person is worthy of such reverence. Muslims express extreme reverence for
Muhammad; do you object to that? You must, by your argument; you must find
Muslims guilty of idolatry.
As I have said in practical terms, for Christians, a saint is someone
already enjoying the Beatific Vision because of his or her holiness of life
and who is asked TO PRAY FOR ONE. There can be no objection to this: one can
ask anyone to pray for one.
You say that for Muslims to follow people who declare things forbidden that
God allows is worship. In that case Islam is simply wrong and ought to
choose a word other than "worship"; in the English language and in religious
cultures across the world this is not worship. It's not a matter of world
view, it's a matter of conceptual confusion.
Christians are not deluded when they say they do not accord divine honours
to saints: it's a simple matter of fact that can be readily verified.
gord...@deleteswbell.net
<robe...@f2s.com> wrote:
>I reply to Proud Canadian March 26
>
>Your Muslim respondents are reticent - with reason.
>
>Muhammad died as the delayed result of being poisoned by a Jewish woman, the
>poisoning taking place immediately after the Muslim conquest of the Jewish
>oasis of Khaibar. Having failed in an attempt at Mecca, and having concluded
>with the Meccans the humiliating Treaty of Hudaybiyya, Muhammad delivered
>the victory and the booty his men had been frustrated of by attacking the
>Jews. It is notorious that Muhammad had several of the Jewish leaders
>beheaded, and he tortured one of them (he was later beheaded) to force him
>to disclose the whereabouts of buried treasure. He also 'married' a most
>beautiful Jewish woman whose husband he had had killed. Many of the women
>and children were enslaved. Other Jews offered to surrender to Muhammad half
>of the produce of the oasis annually in exchange for not being enslaved;
>this was agreed, it being stipulated that they had no property rights or
>rights of tenure, and they were in fact all expelled by Umar in later years.
>
>This is the background to Muhammad's being poisoned by a Jewish woman. She
>administered the poison in a piece of lamb. It took three years for the
>poison finally to kill him.
>
>Muhammad's dying words are remarkable; they are a curse on Christians and
>Jews. Here is the account in Ibn Sa'd's biography, "Kitab al-Tabaqat
>al-Kabir", vol 2, p322:
>
>"When the last moment of the prophet was near, he used to draw a sheet over
>his face, but when he felt uneasy, he removed it from his face and said
>'Allah's damnation on the Jews and Christians who made the graves of their
>prophets objects of worship.'"
>
>It is illuminating to compare this curse with the words of Jesus, also the
>victim of murder, in his case judicial murder. He prayed for those
>responsible for his death: "Father, forgive them; they know not what they
>do."
>
>There is a very full discussion of the whole issue, with extensive
>documentation by Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa'd, Tabari, and Sahih Muslim at
>the following link: http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Silas/mo-death.htm
>
Is any of this documented in writings that can be verified to
have been compiled during Muhammad's life time, or are these
stories based entirely upon oral tradition that was not
documented for some 135 years after Muhammad's death?
There was a lot of dissension among Muhammad's successors, and
this surely contributed to a lot of drift in their oral tradition
teachings. How may we know if a story such as this is reasonably
accurate, or if it is largely the collective outgrowth of the
wishful thinking of Muhammad's successors, over a span of several
generations?
I am increasingly convinced that Muhammad was indeed a very
honorable prophet, and that he was sent to the Arabic people as a
messenger of God. I am also increasingly convinced that there was
a LOT of drift in the oral traditions that were taught after
Muhammad's death, over the span of some 135 years, before any of
this was written down.
Muhammad's first wife, Khadijah al-Kubra, and many of her family
were Christians. Muhammad seems to have gotten along well with
these people. Why would Muhammad have proceeded to change the
Christian teachings and jeopardize the stability he enjoyed with
his wife's family and with the Christian people he traded with in
the Damascus area? Gordon
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Poisoned at the age of 63, by a Jewish Woman, who had a beef with him;
> > poisoned not instantly but over a period of a few years (which sounds to
> > me like the arsenic poisoning of Napoleon on St. Helena, many years
> > later).
> That Jewish woman was executed because her poisoining resulted in the
> death of one of the Prophet's Companions. How could the Prophet be
> poisoned over a series of a few years, if his contact with the woman
> was at most a few minutes?
> And how does death happen instantly for his Companion who tasted the
> same meat, and not for the Prophet? Arsenic does not cause death
> because of a taste. Napolean sustained exposure to arsenic over many
> years.
You are saying that Mohammed was not poisoned?
"he seriously believed that he was poisoned at Chaibar by the revenge of
a Jewish female. (150) During four years, the health of the prophet
declined; his infirmities increased;"
Sticking with sources:
http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap50.htm#Death
Sounds like arsenic and Napoleon to me.
DKleinecke
> But I cannot understand:-
> What is the rational of praying to a saint to intercede for them
> with God?
I observe that Islam also prizes intercession and many hadiths
describe how the prophets, led by Muhammad, will intercede with Allah
on Doomsday. I believe that vulgar Islam is filled with people who
pray to one or another Islamic saint to intercede for them with
Muhammad. This is essentially identical to the vulgar Christian
approach with Muhammad playing the same role as the Virgin Mary plays.
However I hope nobody places much value on the vulgar beliefs of those
poorly-informed about their own religions.
I see the real question as being: WHAT DOES WORSHIP MEAN?
My answer to this question is approximately the same one that any
Protestant Christian would make.
>From where I sit, WORSHIP IS THE SAME PRAYER. That is, if I pray to a
saint, for any reason whatsoever, I am worshiping that saint. If I
pray to the Virgin Mary I am worshiping the Virgin Mary. Protestant
Christians pray only to the God the Father or, generally, to Christ
(they are, after all, generally Trinitarians) - I don't know why they
never pray to the Holy Spirit, but it isn't done.
A Unitarian Christian or a Muslim should only be praying to God. I
myself believe God is the only entity capable of being reached by
prayer. I think Muslim cosmology would allow for the possibility that
one might be able to reach Satan through prayer if one was so foolish
as to try.
But it is not just Muslims who think prayer to any entity except God
is a waste of time. The bit about honor and veneration is a classical
example of religious double-talk and can be ignored by anyone who does
not share the underlying ideology.
Robert Houghton
You point to what you claim as identical practices in "vulgar Christianity"
and Islam, namely praying to saints for their intercession. Since the
ancient devotion to Mary expressed in the prayer "Hail Mary" is part of the
liturgy of the Mass, it cannot be described as vulgar, but I do get the
impression that prayers for the intercession of saints is not part of Muslim
formal worship. Is that right? In fact Muslim prayer is strikingly different
from Christian prayer; reading through the guides to Muslim prayer on the
internet I found NO reference to personal prayer, or prayer in one's native
language, no petitions for one's personal needs to be met. Prayer, it seems,
is only acceptable to God in Arabic, a language that most Muslims do not
understand. This must prevent heartfelt participation in prayer and worship.
One gets the impression that prayer for Muslims is a formal obligation
expressed in a great deal of ceremonial detail, and is primarily for men.
You are right: the real question is "What does worship mean?" and you state
that "Worship is the same as prayer. That is, if I pray to a saint, for any
reason whatever, I am worshiping that saint." But you are not free to offer
your own definition of worship, the word and its foreign equivalents are
well established in the languages of the world, and if you consult a
dictionary or the Wikipedia, for instance, you will find that your
definition is erroneous. The latter gives a reasonable definition: "Worship
usually refers to specific acts of religious praise, honour or devotion,
typically directed to a supernatural being such as a god or goddess."
Catholics are perfectly clear with themselves that saints are human, not
gods or goddesses. Anyone who thinks otherwise is the victim of bigoted
prejudice. I imagine that Muslims who ask saints for intercession are
equally clear about this issue.
As regards the Trinity, prayers are usually addressed to the Father, through
the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, but may be addressed to the other
persons.St Paul says of prayer, "...but the Spirit himself asketh for us
with unspeakable groanings." (Romans 8:26). There is a great number or
prayers to the Holy Spirit including the famous hymn, "Come Holy Ghost,
Creator come." It is a pity that Protestants have forgotten them.
There is no double talk involved in the distinction between dulia and
latria; it's all a matter of whether you are according divine honours or
not.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> of blatant disregard of truth but fail to produce any candidates for
> the truth you allege I disregard.
You are blatantly disregarding the truth. That is the reality....
Did not Moses order the killing of the Israelites who partook in calf-
worship when he went to the top of Sinai to receive the Torah?
Why do I have to quote scripture, when what I state is a fact that
everybody knows? That is like asking me to quote scientific text to
prove that the sun is a ball of fire in the sky. Why should I waste
my time for something that is indisputable?
David did not fight wars? Solomon did not fight wars? Joshua did not
fight wars? Moses did not command the Israelites to expel the
idolaters? Gideon was not ordered by God to wage violent wars? The
Israelites did not request God to appoint for them a king so that they
might fight wars? God did not command the Israelites to not leave a
single, breathing being in Canaan? War is written all over the Olt
Testament, and the majority of these wars are offensive.
How can I be living in denial, when you later on say:
"The action of the Israelites in invading Canaan was not an act of
VIOLENTIA - it was just since God promised them the land."
An act does not become less violent because God ordered it. Violence
is still violence. Your argument does not stand a a single inch on
any solid ground whatsoever. Your more interested in arguing a
thoroughly baseless point, than the truth of the matter. What I
stated is indisputabnle, which you know is true. You tried to
convolute the argument by saying that it is not violent because God
ordered it. Guess what?
I can just as well say that Go ordered Muhammad to conquer Arabia, so
it was not an act of violentia...
>
> Of course, violence does not predicate injustice: the hangman's
> violence, the policeman's reasonable violence, and the violence of a
> just war are not unjust. That is the very point of my describing
> Muhammad's violence AS unjust: his political assassinations, his
> decapitation of 600 Jews at Medina, and his murder of his dozen
> personal enemies, includinn gold men and girls, in Mecca were unjust,
> and therefore in the strongest sence of the legal term VIOLENTIA - the
> opposite of justice.
>
God ordered Canaan to be cleansed from a single-living breathing
creature. I am sure there were more than 600 people in Canaan. If we
accept that Muhammad killedd 600 Jews, that still does not absolve
Moses of killing many of the Israelites from partaking in calf-
worship. Even if we assume what you say is true, Muhammad is no
different than other Prophets for being 'violent'. The real issue is
why was he violent? And it is obvious that the context of certain
events in the life of the Prophet do not concern you, because that
does not interest you. Your simply trying to prove Muhammad was not a
Prophet, even if that means that you ignore basic reality, and
willfully distort evidence.
>
> Where is your evidence concerning "the lying pens of the Pharisees"?
These are the words of Jeremiah, they are not my words. The fact that
the Old Testament has been altered is indisputable historical fact. I
am not going to get into a quotation match with you from various
authorities, because we all know how yolur not interested in fact.
The above is an example of your convoluted ways in which you deny
basic realities, such as God ordering Canaan to be cleansed of every
single, living being.
> What motive could they have for lying about the descent of the Messiah
> from David?
Isn't the Zionist claim for their supremacy, based upon the fact that
God chose them above all people? I already told you about the tribal
confilcts within Israel. Messiah connoted political power. Why would
not various tribes claim the Messiah would arise from their ranks?
How could they perpetrate a falsification of the
> Scriptures given that there were thousands of copies distributed
> across the Roman and Persian Empires. All the Scriptures would need to
> be collected and replaced. How could this extraordinary feat be
> performed while maintaining deceit and without becoming a fact of
> history?
Where is your evidence for the thousands of copies? Most jews could
not read, and the translation of the Torah as well as teh study of it
was confined to a certain elect.
>
> My argument is that because Muhammad's violence and teaching of
> violence were unjust he was not a prophet.
No, your argument was that because Muhammad was violent, that could
not make him a Prophet. Since you have been shown undoubtedly that
violence has been a way of life for many Prophets, you have changed
the argument. This is further proven by the fact that you tried to
negate violence for the OT Prophets in the beginning of your
response. Your wrong, and you need to get over the fact that your
wrong.
> Since very ancient times the Jews never waged war for the Holy Land;
> when Israel was founded, the Muslim Arabs invaded it and the Israelis
> successfully defended themselves. Every other war they have been
> involved in was defensive.
They were waging war all the time. This is a baseless assertion for
you. IOn fact, the Rabbinic scholars have all delineated the rules of
war as per Canaan and outside of Canaan. Deuteronomy explcitily
outlines the conditiosn of war for Canaan and outside of Canaan. The
details are so intricate, they establish whether one can take
prisoners of war and women as captives. And ironically, all of these
wars are specifically outlines as offensive wars.
gord...@deleteswbell.net
With no written records dating earlier than some 135 years after
Muhammad's death, how can this claim be substantiated. Does
anyone have any solid evidence that a defenseless Jewess murdered
him? Is it not possible that Abu Baker or some of his cronies
wanted Muhammad out of the way so they could take control? It is
easy to believe that they may have poisoned Muhammad, then placed
the blame on a Jewess whom no one would try to defend. Gordon
DKleinecke
> You point to what you claim as identical practices in "vulgar Christianity"
> and Islam, namely praying to saints for their intercession.
By vulgar Christianity and vulgar Islam I mean what the naive
believers actually do as opposed to what the theologians say they
should be doing. It is a very useful distinction.
> Since the ancient devotion to Mary expressed in the prayer "Hail Mary" is part of
> the liturgy of the Mass, it cannot be described as vulgar ...
I observe you just admitted praying to Mary. Perhaps as a Protestant I
have a distorted point of view. I read that to say you worship Mary.
The rest of this particular argument does not belong on SRI.
> but I do get the
> impression that prayers for the intercession of saints is not part of Muslim
> formal worship. Is that right? In fact Muslim prayer is strikingly different
> from Christian prayer; reading through the guides to Muslim prayer on the
> internet I found NO reference to personal prayer, or prayer in one's native
> language, no petitions for one's personal needs to be met. Prayer, it seems,
> is only acceptable to God in Arabic, a language that most Muslims do not
> understand. This must prevent heartfelt participation in prayer and worship.
> One gets the impression that prayer for Muslims is a formal obligation
> expressed in a great deal of ceremonial detail, and is primarily for men.
This is indeed the impression one could easily get from the
unfortunate Muslim presentation of Islam so common on the internet.
But it is highly misleading. It is, in fact, not even good vulgar
Islam. I leave it to someone who actually practices Islamic prayer to
explain what is really going on.
But I do not doubt that your description correctly describes what the
authors of these sites intended to say. One of the principles of Islam
is to avoid "backbiting", that is, saying about another Muslim what
that other Muslim does not want said.
This principle, which really belongs to the field of etiquette, has a
chilling effect on self-criticism within Islam. Muslims who know
better all too often allow these sub-vulgar explanations to go on
because they feel that denouncing them as the dross they are would
somehow be a betrayal of Islam.
I am shortening the rest of this. It is not a priori obvious what
worship means. The definition you offer "Worship usually refers to
specific acts of religious praise, honor or devotion, typically
directed to a supernatural being such as a god or goddess.", in my
opinion, does not differ from mine,
The operative word here is "typically". That is, as I see it, worship
offered to Mary implies that she is "a supernatural being such as a
god or goddess." Mary and, so far as I know, all the other Catholic
saints, are dead. Hence they have no existence except supernaturally.
Hence praying to any being implies they exist (unless one is simply
being cute) and that existence can only be supernatural and hence
worship is involved.
There is a question about existence after death in Islam. It seems
that most Muslims believe in what is called "punishment in the grave".
That is, they believe, so far as I can tell, that existence does not
stop (in the sense of being suspended until Doomsday) upon death but
is continuous through death. I have not detected any unanimity among
Muslims as to exactly what happens from now to Doomsday but existence
seems assured. But that existence is clearly not a physical existence.
Hence it must be existence as a supernatural being. Hence, by the same
argument I made before, praying to them, even to Muhammad, means
worshipping them.
Personally I read the Qur'an as to say that it flatly rejects all such
ideas as punishment in the grave. As I read the Qur'an, prayer to
Muhammad or any other saint is useless because they are not there to
hear you. Like every other person they will be resurrected on
Doomsday. I fear that most Muslims do not find the same message there
(and, I note, I read the Qur'an in Arabic).
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> The information that I supply, I supply in good faith. The information
> I supplied about Muhammad's death came from Answering Islam; they gave
> references to Bukhari, Ibn Sa'd, and Tabari. These cannot be dismissed
> as bogus. I do not LIKE Answering Islam because of their obtrusively
> Protestant theology, and quasi-fundamentalist approach to Scripture,
> but I have found them perfectly honest and an excellent source of
> information about Islam. There is nothing bogus about them. On the
> other hand Muslim anti-Christian sites are notably dishonest in line
> with the Islamic permission that Muslims have to lie to obtain a good
> end.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
How do you know that "Answering Islam" is acting in good faith? How do you
know its not disinformation or misinformation?
Does any organised missionary campaign have honest intentions, in an
altruistic context? For instance, do Catholics readily accept Protestant
proselytism of their Church members or the other way around? Don't both
sides of this "Christian" divide, in this proselytising situation, each
accuse one another of lying, deception and dissimulation? What are Muslims
then supposed to believe? Whose telling
the "Christian" truth? What about Orthodox Christians, Monophysites,
Unitarians, Fundamentalist Evangelicals, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and
Moonies their respective truths? Don't they all make bogus claims when
trying to convert Catholics or other denominations? Is this conversion
activity an excellent source of information about Catholicism?
Don't "Answering Islam", in fact, always give secondary or tertiary sources
that referenced Bukhari, Ibn Sa'd, and Tabari? Aren't those secondary
sources mainly 19th century 'missionary' Christian orientalists, for
example, Rodwell, Tisdall, Muir, and their ilk?
As I cited Rodwell elsewhere recently:-
"A line of argument to be adopted by a Christian missionary in dealing with
a Muhammadan should be, not to attack Islam as a mass of error, but to shew
that it contains fragments of disjointed truth -- that it is based upon
Christianity and Judaism partially understood -- especially upon the latter,
without any appreciation of its typical character pointing to Christianity
as a final dispensation."
Isn't this kind of casuistry your ethical idea of good faith? Is that what
you expect Muslims or other subscribers to believe in fact?
Haven't you also noticed "Answering Islam" seldom , if ever, cite any
authoritative present-day non-Muslim sources - and there are many - that
balance out their frequently specious "Christian" claims against Islam. For
instance, do they ever cite, Cantwell -Smith, Henninger, Kung, Neuwirth,
O'Shaughnessy, Oxtoby, Paret, Parrinder, Raisanen, Schimmel, and Van Ess?
Couldn't one then argue in these highly selective or dubious circumstances,
paraphrasing yourself, "On the other hand Christian anti-Muslim sites are
notably dishonest in their line in accordance with traditional Christian
dissimulative propaganda." As you conceded elsewhere, Jesuit missionaries
are notorious for their use of the lying 'Doctrine of Mental Reservation'.
Is that why "Answering Islam" only infrequently cite Henri Lammens as a
source?
"Perfect honesty", under this phoney guise, is simply nothing but humbug.
Saqib Virk
"Robert Houghton" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:000101c78a5e$5e0d5740$4101a8c0@rhdt...
>
> Similarly you offend grossly against Christian doctrines when you suggest
> that Jesus became a god. This of course is paganism, a charge which
> Muslims
> in their ignorance constantly bring against Christianity. It is just the
> reverse of the Christian doctrine, which is that man did not become a god,
> but God became man, took on a human nature in the person of Jesus.
SV
All you do is exchange one blasphemy for another. Whether you have the
audacity to imagine God became a man or a man became God it really makes no
difference. Jesus was a humble servant and prophet of God. Nothing more than
that and that is the Islamic position; the correct position.
> So you see, the Christianity which you so evidently hate and despise is
> not
> Christianity at all but a common Muslim misrepresentation of it.
SV
You are in no position to preach about hatred. You are obsessed with Islam
and are completely blinded by your hatred.
--
Saqib Virk
Saqib Virk
>
> In fact Muslim prayer is strikingly different from Christian prayer;
> reading through the guides to Muslim prayer on the internet I found
> NO reference to personal prayer, or prayer in one's native
> language, no petitions for one's personal needs to be met. Prayer, it
> seems, is only acceptable to God in Arabic, a language that most
> Muslims do not understand.
SV
Why are you making up stories? You never read through any guides and you are
merely repeating underhanded nonsense you are fed by Islamophobic propaganda
mongers. Informal prayer is highly encouraged and practiced by all Muslims
in their native tongue. To suggest otherwise is to lie. The formal prayer is
obligatory which every Muslim must memorize, understand and recite in
Arabic.
> As regards the Trinity, prayers are usually addressed to the Father,
> through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, but may be addressed to the other
> persons.
SV
What blasphemy you speak in your ignorance. Perhaps you will be forgiven.
Muslims pray directly to God.
--
Saqib Virk
asimm...@yahoo.com
> of extreme reverence." There can be no objection to this reverence if the
> person is worthy of such reverence. Muslims express extreme reverence for
> Muhammad; do you object to that? You must, by your argument; you must find
> Muslims guilty of idolatry.
1.
Yes, I object to Muslims who pray to Muhammad, asking him to benefit
them. Our Prophet (S) hated that his Companions even stand for him
when he came. He explicitly warned his followers not to turn his
grave into a place of worship.
2.
Where did I seek to replace the word worship with 'extreme reverence
for a particular person"? What I stated is that worship is a RESULT
of EXTREME reverance for a particular person. It is the PRACTICAL
MANIFESTATION of this EXTREME reverance that a person hold's in his
heart for that personality. One does not pray to dead figures unless
you believe that person to be HOLY. And when one does such things,
one also comes forth with humility to that being. And once that
humility is there for another being, than idol-worship is the
necessary result. One begins to serve that person, i.e. worship
them. One begins to pray to them. Whether you deny it or not, the
reality is still present. It is God that is neglected, and the saint
is not. And it is God, in whose hands is ALL GOOD.
What is ironical is that the majority of these types of situations,
the saints that an ignorant person turns to has no affiliation with
the person praying to them. While a person directly experiences the
manifestation of God's mercy in his life everyday, the only relation a
person has to a saint is social conditioning. Saint Augustine or Sufi
Muinudeen Chisti have not done anything for you and me to deserve that
we call upon them to 'intercede' with God, as if they can somehow
influence the decisions of God to benefit us. It is the result a mere
condition that a person does so.
We experience God's hand everyday in our lives, and by common sense
and reason, it is only logical we turn our hands to him in prayer and
ASK HIM directly. Nobody has any reason to deny the connection
between God and man, while everybody has reason to deny man's
connection to another saint.
> As I have said in practical terms, for Christians, a saint is someone
> already enjoying the Beatific Vision because of his or her holiness of life
> and who is asked TO PRAY FOR ONE. There can be no objection to this: one can
> ask anyone to pray for one.
How do you measure the 'sainthood' of a person? The only reason one
asks a dead saint is because one ASSUMES, i.e. one lives in
conjecture. One assumes the dead person can hear, i.e. has access to
absolute knowledge. People who pray to Saints, they in reality do not
recognize that God's bounty extends over everyone, even though they
experience it everyday in their lives
>
> You say that for Muslims to follow people who declare things forbidden that
> God allows is worship. In that case Islam is simply wrong and ought to
> choose a word other than "worship"; in the English language and in religious
> cultures across the world this is not worship. It's not a matter of world
> view, it's a matter of conceptual confusion.
The conceptual confusion is really on your side. A person does not
choose to follow another being, unless he holds that person holy, i.e.
has exterem reverence for him. He begins to live his life in
accordance with the dictates of that being he reverences. He begins
to STOP THINKING for himself, and start obeying, i.e. worshipping,
that ther being.
WORSHIP, once again, is the PRACTICAL MANIFESTATION of an extreme
reverence a person has for another being. IT IS PRACTICAL through and
through.
>
> Christians are not deluded when they say they do not accord divine honours
> to saints: it's a simple matter of fact that can be readily verified.
They are deluded, just as Muslims are deluded, and followers of other
religions are. Even the OT affirms that God is zealous and proud over
His RIGHT that he be worshipped. He does not accept that his worship
be mixed with false adulation for other beings.
asimm...@yahoo.com
>
> Sticking with sources:
>
> http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap50.htm#Death
>
> Sounds like arsenic and Napoleon to me.
1.
Your source just says Muhammad thought he was poisoned. How do you
derive arsenic and Napolean from such a simple statement? Since when
was Gibbon a source?
2.
Gibbon draws from a series of sources, and what you quote is nothing
but his own words, not the actually sources he uses to derive his
baseless opinion.
Robert
You use your usual trick of insinuation by means of a rhetorical
question, asking, "How do you know that 'Answering Islam is acting in
good faith? How do you know its not disinformation or misinformation?"
The onus is upon YOU to produce evidence of this. The evidence from
'Answering Islam' that I used was from impeccable Muslim authorities
quoted by that website. But since you ask how I know that 'Answering
Islam' is acting in good faith: this is my judgment after extensive
reading of the site, reading checked against further reading. Of
course, I am not committed to every piece that they publish being
estimable.
You claim that 'Answering Islam" doesn't refer to certain non-Muslim
authors. Your objection is neither here nor there; such an objection
could be made against any argument, valid or invalid.
You say that I concede "elsewhere" that "Jesuit missionaries are
notorious for their use of the lying 'Doctrine of Mental Reservation".
This is a gross falsehood. To clear yourself of blackguarding me,
produce a quotation from me supporting your claim. In fact, I have
repeatedly demonstrated that your claim that Mental Reservation is a
doctrine taught by the Catholic Church is utterly false. However, in
the face of simple refutation your strategy is to keep on repeating
the falsehood. I have, on the other hand, repeatedly come across lying
dissimulation in Muslim propagandizing: reference to the Tree of
Knowledge rather than the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; false
translations of the Koran verses about wife-beating; the equivocating
claim that 'jihad' has a spiritual meaning; the claim that "there is
no compulsion in religion" guarantees religious freedom under Islam
etc
gord...@deleteswbell.net
wrote:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>On Apr 10, 8:19 am, "Robert" <rober...@f2s.com> wrote:
>
>> ... I am showing that Muhammad was not a Prophet
>
>This is largely a subjective exercise, and you only convince your own
>self.
>
>We accept him as a true prophet and a messenger of God but do not
>worship him, but adore him dearly. Apparently, you worship a prophet
>of God.
>
>IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE MOST GRACIOUS, THE DISPENSER OF GRACE:
>
>SAY: "O you who deny the truth!
>
>"I do not worship that which you worship,
>
>and neither do you worship that which I worship!
>
>"And I will not worship that which you have [ever] worshipped,
>
>and neither will you [ever] worship that which I worship.
>
>Unto you, your moral law, and unto me, mine !"
>
Anjum, I have no quarrel with this, but I am still curious as to
how you or for that matter, anyone can have much confidence in
the "messages" that were supposedly given to Muhammad, as they
are now written in the Koran.
>From the sources I've read, Khadijah had six children...four
daughters and two sons. Neither of the sons lived beyond infancy
and no one knows for sure if Muhammad was the father of Ruqayyah,
Umm Kulthum, Zainab or Fatima.
If the paternity of these children can not be determined from the
oral teachings of Muhammad and Abu Bakr, how can anyone be
confident that the Koran is exactly and precisely the way it was
handed to Muhammad by the angel, Gabriel?
Muhammad had no other children. Was he unable to father children,
or did he not copulate with his numerous wives? I tend to think
that Muhammad never married anyone other than Khadijah, and he
was true to her in the Christian sense...monogamous.
Don't get me wrong. I have a high level of respect for Muhammad,
but I think he was a Christian prophet to the Arabs, not a Muslim
prophet. Were his Christian teachings changed into the Muslim
format by Abu Bakr and his cronies, after Muhammad's death? I
think this is what happened.
Gordon
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> You use your usual trick of insinuation by means of a rhetorical
> question, asking, "How do you know that 'Answering Islam is acting in
> good faith? ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Any subscriber can check what I previously wrote at this link and can gauge
your diversionary reply accordingly:-
news:464162c4$0$14915$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Diligently following on from this previous post:-
Do you then concede that organised missionary campaigns do not have honest
intentions?
Do you then concede that "Answering Islam", in fact, always give secondary
or tertiary sources that reference Bukhari, Ibn Sa'd, and Tabari?
Do you then concede that frequently those secondary sources, are mainly 19th
century 'missionary' Christian orientalists, for example, Rodwell, Tisdall,
Muir, and their ilk?
What is a rhetorical question? Isn't a rhetorical question a figure of
speech in the form of a question posed for rhetorical effect rather than for
the purpose of getting an answer. So, one might ask, why did you attempt to
answer it if you really believed is was a rhetorical question - that is the
answer was obvious?
My intention wasn't rhetorical, as you crudely suggest, it was a legitimate
inquiry into how you arrived at your 'claim to knowledge'. Perhaps, you
don't know the difference between "knowledge" and "opinion" in an
epistemological context? Do you want me to explain it for you or will you
research it fully for yourself? Here are some helpful hints:- "Epistemology
is the study of the validity of knowledge. It is especially interested in
formulating norms for evaluating claims people make that they "know"
something. It considers: What is the difference between knowledge, opinion
and belief? If you know something, does that mean that you are certain about
it?"
You have repeatedly said your religious ideas are solely based on
rationalist "reason". It is then quite legitimate to ask how you or any
other respondent comes to "know" something. In other words, in this case,
isn't your dogmatic claim to knowledge (as opposed to opinion) about this,
"How did Muhammad die and at what age?" subject, not exclusively derived
from the "Answering Islam" website? Isn't this the single authority you have
used to make your claim to knowledge? Did you reference any other? Did you
bother to corroborate their views with, one or more, independent or opposing
sources? What, if any, counterbalance did you use? As you said, it's a
"neither here nor there" claim to knowledge!
Now, discerning subscribers, to this forum, all recognise that every
"missionary" polemic that appears on the "Answering Islam" website is hotly
contested by many other internet websites. You have previously referenced,
for example, the "Islamic Awakening" website have you not?
So I repeat:- "How do you know that "Answering Islam" is acting in good
faith? How do you know its not disinformation or misinformation?", in such
hotly contested apologetic circumstances. The simple answer is you don't
know, you only opine - expect or suppose - but you don't know,
epistemologically speaking. Isn't that the "proof" that has been clearly
established?
<snip> ...
> The onus is upon YOU to produce evidence of this.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Didn't my posts already demonstrate this? Aren't they sufficient grounds to
offset your subsequent puerile challenge?
<snip> ...
> The evidence from 'Answering Islam' that I used was from impeccable
> Muslim authorities quoted by that website.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Is hearsay valid in these "claim to knowledge" circumstances? One could say
that such "hearsay" is just gossip and rumours floating around on the
unreliable "Apocalyptic Blogosphere". You know the type, "Add a few drops of
malice to a half truth and you have an absolute truth." [Eric Hoffer].
Impeccable hokum then just becomes another name for humbug, one could
cogently argue.
I'll also repeat what Todd Leventhal, Chief of the Counter-Information Team,
U.S. Department of State had to say in case it slipped your mind:-
"But some of the methods that some blogs use aren't so good. And some of
them are basically used to float false data -- false information, they want
to put false information out there, they're funded by people and their whole
mission is to kind of put bad information out there. And then once it gets
out there into the "blogosphere" it's kind of an echo chamber, stuff just
starts bouncing around and it appears on one site, it appears on another
site. ..."
--
Peace
--
No man likes to have his intelligence or good faith questioned, especially
if he has doubts about it himself. [Henry B. Adams]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip>...
Oops, reference to "Islamic Awakening" should be read as the "Islamic
Awareness" website. My mistake. Sorry for any confusion.
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot explain
to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves. [Anon]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
A Hirsi
> was true to her in the Christian sense...monogamous.
Where in the Bible is Monogamy advocated?
>
> Don't get me wrong. I have a high level of respect for Muhammad,
Whether you have a high level of respect for our Blessed and Beloved
Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings of Allah) will neither add nor
take away His Blessed mission of conveying Allah's Religion to the
Alamiin (mankind and jinns).
Do you take and accept Islam? It is that simple. If Islam is not for
you then move along and wait
when you will meet your creator with whatever you think is the True
and final Religion.
Merely debating about things you have no clue about will do you no
good.
> but I think he was a Christian prophet to the Arabs, not a Muslim
> prophet.
What is a Christian Prophet? Where is your proof? What part of the
Quran accepts the man made concept of trinity?
>Were his Christian teachings changed into the Muslim
> format by Abu Bakr and his cronies, after Muhammad's death? I
> think this is what happened.
What was changed? The Quran or the Sunnah? Do you even know what you
are talking about?
Get some knowledge before parading ignorance and propaganda.
A HIrsi
Robert
I didn't "argue" that because Muhammad was murdered "that predicates
[sic] that [if] one lives by the sword one dies by the sword."
It doesn't follow that I imply that if one dies by the sword (like
Jesus) then one lived by the sword. This is an elementary, and very
common, logical fallacy: p implies q does not imply that q implies p.
I have no respect for Muhammad because, among many other things, of
the treatment that he dealt out to the Jews of Khaibar - pillage,
murder, torture, enslavement - which I described. My point is that he
invited a violent death by the monstrous and violent injustices that
he imposed upon many people: the 80 people that he had assassinated
for political reasons (according to the early Muslim historians), the
600 Jewish men he had decapitated in Medina, the dozen people who had
offended him when he victoriously entered Mecca whom he had killed -
one for mocking him! ... People who behave in this way will generate
such hostility that they can be expected to be assassinated in turn:
as Jesus said, those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.
Jesus did not live by the sword: when he was arrested he rebuked Peter
for offering violence; he refused to offer himself as a 'king' leading
resistance to the Roman colonization of Israel. Jesus warned the Jews
that if they continued in violent opposition to Roman rule this would
result in the destruction of the Temple and Judaea - his prophecy,
unlike Muhammad's, was fullfilled. Jesus's violent death was not due
to a build up of hatred due to his espousing violence (as Muhammad's
was), it was due to the political calculation of the High Priest and
his party that the continued existence of the Temple state required
his elimination: it was better for one (innocent) person to die for
the good of the people. Jesus died a violent death because of the
wickedness of the High Priest and the Sanhedrin (the internal
government of Judaea) in sending an innocent man to his death out of
what they judged was political expediency.
Jesus was entirely innocent: Muhammad had much blood on his hands. Is
it surprising that the history of Islam is drenched in blood?
Can YOU take this seriously, or are you going to practise Muslim
denial?
man06
pray to Him directly, therefore, I do not consider seeking the
intercession of pious people in prayers to be correct. The Qur'an
tells us that God is closer to us than even our life veins and that He
hears the call of suppliant heart, when it calls upon Him with
sincerity and in submission. Why, then, would we need the intercession
of others in delivering our requests and supplications to the
Merciful, when, in fact, we have a direct and unhindered relationship
with Him?"
source :
asimm...@yahoo.com
> I reply to asimmehm April 29
>
> I didn't "argue" that because Muhammad was murdered "that predicates
> [sic] that [if] one lives by the sword one dies by the sword."
>
Actually, you did argue this point. Considering that you have been
shown the fallaciousness of the claim from many perspective, you have
now modified your stance to the CONTEXT of Jesus' mission versus the
CONTEXT of Muhammad's message.
To sum up the original argument according to you:
Because Muhammad was 'poisoned', it predicates that he was a violent
man and could not be a Prophet.
To repeat one more time your argument suffers from serious flaws in
that:
1.
Just because a person has faced an assassination attempt does not
predicate that he is the one who is unjust. In fact, it may be the
other way around.
2.
Violence does not predicate that a person is not a Prophet, or that
person is necessarily bad. The OT is full of stories about Prophets,
including Moses and David, waging offensive wars, and cleansing the
Holy Land from idol-worshippers. These wars were bloody and violent.
Even if we were to assume that the ALLEGED difference between the
mission of Jesus and the mission of Muhammad exists, which is teh
argument you are now stating, this does not mean that the mission of
Muhammad differed in any way from the mission of the majority of OT
MAJOR Prophets. You can continue to talk about Jesus and what you
believe his mission was, which is totally INCORRECT BTW, but that does
not prove your point at all.
What makes the credibility of the mission of a Prophet contingent on
following the same pattern as that of Jesus, i.e. that of not waging
wars? If that were the case, one would have to deny the prophethood
of the majority of the major Prophets of the OT.
> It doesn't follow that I imply that if one dies by the sword (like
> Jesus) then one lived by the sword. This is an elementary, and very
> common, logical fallacy: p implies q does not imply that q implies p.
>
P = one lives by the sword
Q = one dies by the sword
So now your admitting that because one dies by the sword, in this case
your claim is that the sword was poisoned, does not predicate that
Muhammad necessarily lived by the sword. What defines the actual
foundation of the argument is the context of the assassination
attempt, and in this case it is:
"Why did the Jews of Khaibar try and assassinate Muhammad?"
But than again, you don't want to deal with context.
> I have no respect for Muhammad because, among many other things, of
> the treatment that he dealt out to the Jews of Khaibar - pillage,
> murder, torture, enslavement - which I described.
So because Robert does not respect Muhammad, does not make Muhammad a
Prophet? Should we abandon faith because of your 'arguments' that
have no basis in reality?
Guess what also?
I have no respect for the Jews of Khaibar. As far as the Jews of
Khaibar, they committed treachery trying to de-stabilize the very
foundations of the city-state of Medina, despite signing treaties.
They knew the situation at hand, and the enmity that was already in
force all around the Arabian peninsula regarding this city-state.
They got what was coming to them. Too bad for them. They lost, and
the mission of Muhammad succeeded, and Islam stabilized itself, and
further expanded all over the world in unprecedented time, which led
to my forefathers converting to the religion of Muhammad. Whatever
Muhammad predicted, TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE. Whatever the OT predicted
regarding the awaited Prophet, turned out to be true. Not only were
the Jews of Khaibar defeated, but multitudes upon multitudes that
tried to reject the power of what was once such a small state were
humbled to their knees. Do you expect me to feel sorry for those that
were defeated?
If Jesus stated that the punishment would descend on the Children of
Israel that rejected him, than there is no difference between him and
Muhammad. Both these promises were fulfilled, with the exception that
the punishment of the rejectors of Jesus were expelled by a pagan
nation. A monotheistic nation that was descended from Abraham was
humiliated by a PAGAN nation, and prior to this humiliation had become
thoroughly dependent on a pagan nation to sustain itself.
My point is that he
> invited a violent death by the monstrous and violent injustices that
> he imposed upon many people: the 80 people that he had assassinated
> for political reasons (according to the early Muslim historians), the
> 600 Jewish men he had decapitated in Medina, the dozen people who had
> offended him when he victoriously entered Mecca whom he had killed -
> one for mocking him! ...
But Moses commanded the killing of the Israelites after he returned to
Sinai. In fact, he ordered that they would be killed by the hands of
their own relatives. The numbers killed were enormous. There were
more than 80 people in the Exodus, according to the OT. In fact, the
numbers exceed well in the thousands.
Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says:
'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the
camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend
and neighbor.' The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about
THREE THOUSAND of the people died. (Exodus, 32:7-28)
You keep ignoring these facts. Assassination attempts?
So how many people were in Mecca? Even if we were to assume the truth
of your numbers, which they are nothing but unsubstantied absurdities
as well as statements devoid of context, that is a total of TWELVE
people. Were there only 12 people in the whole of Mecca? Wasn't
Mecca the city that rejected him as well as MOCKED him? So why is the
number only 12, if Muhammad allegedly killed people just for mocking
him?
I am sure 'mocking' is not the only reason. Let us just continue to
make such absurd statements as well as conveniently ignore such facts
such as 'poetry' was the defining feature of Arabian civilization, and
it was not only a literary past-time, but it was also used to incite
tribes to war.
12 is a lot less than three thousand BTW, just in case you didn't do
to well in math.
People who behave in this way will generate
> such hostility that they can be expected to be assassinated in turn:
> as Jesus said, those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.
>
But Jesus' mission was 3 years, and in this 3 years amount in time,
not only did the Rabbis and Pharisees try and stone him, they tried to
have him executed. Why would they do this if all he was doing was
saying "turn the other cheek"? If all he was doing was pleading with
them not to revolt from Roman authority?
> Jesus did not live by the sword: when he was arrested he rebuked Peter
> for offering violence; he refused to offer himself as a 'king' leading
> resistance to the Roman colonization of Israel.
Is that why the Gospel records the disciples as running away scared
when Jesus was arrested? Do you think Jesus was in any way, shape or
form in any position to offer any resistance to the Roman Empire?
Since when do you even find Jesus' in the Gospels preaching against
Roman rule? Jesus' mission wasn't even aimed at Roman rule. At
least 90 percent of his passages threatening the wrath of God are
directed to the Rabbis and Pharisees of Israel. As he himself stated,
"I have been sent to the Lost Sheep of Israel." His last parable of
the King and his murdered son clearly allude to the role of his
mission, and in this very parable, he pretty much stated that the
rejectors of God from among the Children of Israel would be severely
punished. Why do you think the Rabbis and Pharisees conspired
against him? He wasn't telling the Rabbis and Pharisees how much he
loved them. He was exposing their hypocrisy, as well as performing
miracles which proved his authority from God. This is why one finds
him saying such thins as 'Wolves in sheep's clothing', as well as
calling them 'hypocrites'.
Jesus warned the Jews
> that if they continued in violent opposition to Roman rule this would
> result in the destruction of the Temple and Judaea - his prophecy,
> unlike Muhammad's, was fullfilled.
1. Trying to push Jesus against Muhammad does not work for a Muslim.
We know Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled. Further, how can your argue
Muhammad's prophecy wasn't fulfilled? He was granted victory in the
Arabian peninsula, died in the lap of his wife, his followers pushed
the message in every corner of the world, and the Quran is the most
memorized, as well as recited book in the history of humanity. If
this isn't success, what is? Is this the rational basis for your
rejection?
2. Your assertion regarding Jesus is absolutely incorrect. Jesus
warned the Jews that their persistent transgression of the
commandments of God, including their REJECTION OF HIM. He mission
spoke nothing of the sort regarding 'rebellion' against Rome. He was
exposing the hypocrites among the elite of Israel for what they were
worth, as well as was foretelling the removal of the kingdom of God
from them because of their slaying of the Prophets and hypocrisy.
3. Further, even if we were to assume that what you are saying is
true, how difficult would it be to prophesize that a few thousand ill-
equipped people revolted against Roman rule and that massive military
might, they would be defeated and expelled and mercilessly crushed?
Jesus's violent death was not due
> to a build up of hatred due to his espousing violence (as Muhammad's
> was), it was due to the political calculation of the High Priest and
> his party that the continued existence of the Temple state required
> his elimination:
What did the Temple have to do with Rome? According to you, Jesus was
telling the people not to revolt otherwise their Temple would be
destroyed. Now your saying that the continuation of the existenec of
Temple was predicated upon the High Priest attempting to have executed
the man who was telling them not to revolt and put themselves in
danger of having the Temple being destroyed? Wow... Keep coming up
with new arguments...
it was better for one (innocent) person to die for
> the good of the people. Jesus died a violent death because of the
> wickedness of the High Priest and the Sanhedrin (the internal
> government of Judaea) in sending an innocent man to his death out of
> what they judged was political expediency.
1.
It is better that the good people attain political power and establish
rule so that justice will prevail.
2.
What did the High Priest and the Sanhedrin have to do with Rome? And
what was the political expedience, considering Jesus was telling the
High Priest and Sanhedrin not to revolt at put themselves in danger?
3.
Further, who said Jesus' wanted to die?
>
> Jesus was entirely innocent: Muhammad had much blood on his hands. Is
> it surprising that the history of Islam is drenched in blood?
>
No doubt the history of Islam is drenched in bood... That blood is
the blood of the martyrs, who held their heads high and faced death
bravely. May God reward those 313 men that stood against a thousand,
despite beind ill-equipped. That blood bears the scent of perfume.
It is the blood and sweat of an Abyssinian slave, a captured Roman, a
Persian without a home, and many other poor and noble men. It is the
blood and sweat of the greatest among the wealthy men as well.
It is the blood and sweat that ushered in what Jesus proclaimed would
be ushered in:
The Kingdom of Heaven and Earth...
You should enter it.
> Can YOU take this seriously, or are you going to practise Muslim
> denial?
Who is living in denial other than you?
Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says:
'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the
camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend
and neighbor.' The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about
THREE THOUSAND OF THE PEOPLE DIED. (Exodus, 32:7-28)
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> If you check out the Wikipedia you will find confirmation of what I
> have said about the Koran's allegation that Christians worship saints.
> Christians give honour and respect to Saints and ask them to intercede
> and pray to God for them; Divine worship is offered only to God and
> NEVER to saints. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What is the substance of your foregoing allegations against the Qur'an and
Islamic beliefs? Can your ill-informed remarks be refuted from non-Muslim
sources? What does the Catholic Church, on its official website have to say
about "saint" or, as you say, "Divine worship is offered only to God"
assertion?
If you check this other Wikipedia article doesn't it confirm exactly what
the Qur'an says about (Catholic) Christians worshipping "saints"? (Which any
subscriber can verify in an unbiased manner for themselves).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_devotions
Extract:-
In the past, it was common for Catholic theologians to use the term
"worship" in relation to Mary and the saints as documented here in the
Catholic Encyclopaedia. Worship is considered the genus to which latria
(worship of God as the supreme being), dulia (worship of saints), and
hyperdulia (worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary) all belong as distinct
species. The Catholic Encyclopaedia describes these as "three degrees of
worship". A few tradition-minded Catholic theologians still persist in using
the term "worship" in this way.
... However, the official website of the Holy See contains 18 uses of the
specific phrase "pray to Mary", including by the current Pope Benedict
XVI Thus the official posture of the Roman Catholic Church would seem to
indicate that it is correct Catholic theology and terminology.
End extract.
Isn't this independent Wikipedia, "Catholic Devotions", article a complete
refutation of your blatant denial above? Certainly, this unbiased "Catholic
Devotions" article wasn't fostered by Muslims or Islam? Does this "Catholic
Devotions" article conflict with or confirm the truth that is written in
the Qur'an, as "asimmehmood" clearly indicated in his earlier post?
Hasn't your opening "Divine worship is offered only to God and NEVER to
saints." claim, against Islam's teachings, now been thoroughly demolished,
even by the Holy See itself?
--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
High_...@circus.com
<snip>
You reply every point Robert makes, except the most important, Islamic
tendency towards waffle, dissimulation and dishonesty.
So let me ask you some really straightforward questions. Please give
equally straightforward answers, based not on what other authors
believe, but on what YOU believe.
*Why does the Koran only refer to reference to the Tree of
Knowledge rather than the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil;
* Why do you deny that the Koran permits wife-beating?
* Explain how 'jihad' has a spiritual meaning, when it is obvious that
it's original intention is a call to arms?
* Explain please how "there is no compulsion in religion" is a guarantee
of religious freedom under Islam, when the evidence shows the exact
opposite to be the case?
Most importantly of all, please explain how you can support a policy
of lying in religious matters to gain Islamic goals? Surely this lying
has the effect of showing Islam to be dishonest and not to be trusted.
the result is that when Islam conquers a population those who convert do
so unwilling, out of fear, not of God, but of torture and death.
The reason Islam is growing in the world is not because of it's superior
truth, but because so many people are dissatisfied with their lives.
they feel lost and angry. Therefore they will reach for anything that
appears to offer a solution, especially if rather than being taught the
hard but spiritually real road of forgiveness they instead find a
philosophy that allows vent for their rage. This is done by teaching
Muslims they are superior to all others, that they must be intolerant of
non-Muslims, and they must strive to make the world Islamic through
jihad. That Islam, by propagating Arabian values as supreme, [a Koran is
only a Koran in Arabic, Muslims must adopt Arabic dress codes, pray
facing Mecca], represents more a political manifesto for pan-Arabism is
lost on them, even in something as obvious a what way you face to pray.
Since God is universal the direction you face is of no consequence. In
fact IIRC the Koran says *exactly* that, "whatever direction you face
there is Allah".
Transferring my anger onto you only satisfies in the short term. The
problems that make me angry still exist, and unless I get rid of them
they will return. Common sense shows displacing rage onto others, [Jews
and Christians for Muslims, or Muslims in the case of angry Christians],
does not reduce the sum total of hate in the world, but adds to it.
Can you not see that buying into *any* belief that teaches hostility
towards others buys into Satan's plan for discord and pain in the world.
In this respect the Armaggedon Christians are the mirror image of
Islamists. Both blame each other, both add to the total suffering on
earth, thereby rejecting God's plan for humanity, which is not to
suffer, but to live in peace happliy within his creation, honouring Him
as the divine source of all things.
Those who reject that simple truth do not need to be coerced into
submission, since they find their fill of pain merely from being without
God. God remains eternal, and will be there when they are ready for Him.
On the other hand the process of coercing others into *any* belief
causes great evil to be unleashed in the world. If you don't believe
that look at the history of communism, where millions died through a
desire to force-feed others secular ideology, and punish those who
appeared not to get with the programme.
So even though Islam talks about God it's net result unfortunately,
through it's command to force others onto the supposed "right path",
whether they want that path or not, is to create havoc and misery. That
is amply demonstrated in Iraq every day where hundreds of thousands die
for being the "wrong" sort of Muslims, not as so many like to think
because of Western influence. In fact if the West was to withdraw from
Iraq the bloodbath would be unprecedented in it's savagery.
Think about it. It is only through tolerance, forgiveness, and loving
the sinner not the sin that we will reduce the pain in the world. It is
not enough to merely sit back and await rescue by a Redeeming God, this
is the mental equivalent to a cargo cult. What is required is to go out
and actively work for peace and tolerance in the world. Let me explain
one of Jesus' sayings, and it's relevance today. He instructed people to
"Go the extra mile". The meaning of that is this. The Roman army had a
policy of forcing local people to act as porters for their equipment,
and stores for no pay. These people had to carry Roman military Goods
for a Set distance only, then they were free to return home.
Naturally this was something that did not make those doing the unpaid
portering very happy. The obvious response is to meet injustice with
anger, which would result in more anger, leading to revolt and death.
Jesus' teaching was that people should take the burden not only the set
distance, but the extra mile. The result would be that the Romans, [or
any other that takes advantage of people], would be shamed it
concessions. Meeting oppression with violence merely leads to more
oppression, meeting it with humility and forebearance overturns
mountains. This is most clearly shown by Indian independance, where
Hindu and Muslim stood shoulder to shoulder in *non-violent* protest,
often letting themseleves be beaten unconcious, and humbled the most
mighty Imperial power into conceeding their most valued possession in a
mere thirty years. How long, and how much pain would have been caused if
India had followed the standard pattern of attempting to overthrow the
colonial government by force.
Aggression and violence in any context except self-defense is *always*
wrong. Only Islam teaches violence to gain religious ends, and this is
without doubt wrong and evil, and must be resisted peacefully at every
opportunity.
Peace to all.