Print Page | Close Window

Why would anyone believe him?

Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30031
Printed Date: 28 March 2024 at 5:28pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Why would anyone believe him?
Posted By: Ron Webb
Subject: Why would anyone believe him?
Date Posted: 29 June 2014 at 7:52am
Here is what it all comes down to for me:

A guy comes out of a cave and announces, "Guess what?  I've just been talking to God!  He says I am His prophet and everyone has to do exactly what I say."  (How convenient! Wink)

Why would anyone believe him?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.



Replies:
Posted By: Lachi
Date Posted: 29 June 2014 at 8:17am
Possibly because he wrote it down. Writing was a form of magic that few could achieve. Arabs were jealous of the 'books' that Christians and Jews had. Producing one of his own that claimed to be superior to them was a real coup. Even today the Muslims venerate every Quran as the written word of Allah - as an object in itself, even down to the very pages and words. Tearing a page from a Quran is sacrilege, although it is just a man made object. The book is imbued with a holiness much akin to idolatry.

Even the Quranic Arabic used is held as 'holy', hence Allah can only hear your prayers and submission if performed in proper Arabic (as if the Almighty God is unable to understand other languages or read the intent in the heart). It all smacks of pagan magic and Kabbalah to me.

Alternatively - Mohammed was a true Prophet of Allah, and Allah's truth was self evident to those who heard with an open heart and mind.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 29 June 2014 at 11:40am
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Here is what it all comes down to for me:

A guy comes out of a cave and announces, "Guess what?  I've just been talking to God!  He says I am His prophet and everyone has to do exactly what I say."  (How convenient! Wink)

Why would anyone believe him?


LOL What a brilliant analysis, Ron!

Of course, through your rather simplistic approach, you overlooked some important things to consider.

First, many people did believe him!  So, already your point is pointless.  Big%20smile

Second, you failed to consider what possible motive Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had to make up his experience.  Since you obviously don't believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was chosen by God, then please enlighten us as to what motivated him to make such an extraordinary claim.  What was he trying to achieve?  Wealth?  Power?  Influence?  And why, if he made everything up, did he choose to suffer for his convictions?  As we all know, the reaction of the pagan elites was one of persecution and eventually violence against Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers.  Can you explain why a supposed impostor decided to suffer for something he knew was false?  Do tell!   

And by the way, Ron, no one really cares if you don't believe the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)!  You are not doing us any favors by believing.  It's your loss, pal!


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 30 June 2014 at 3:50am
I've stopped engaging with this clown a long time ago. I lost count of the number of times I had to call him names I lost my temper and lost control.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 July 2014 at 7:05am
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

First, many people did believe him!  So, already your point is pointless.

Many people believed (the Christian version of) Jesus too.  And Buddha.  And Lao-Tzu.  And Joseph Smith.  And L. Ron Hubbard.  Why don't you believe any of them?
 
Quote Second, you failed to consider what possible motive Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had to make up his experience.  Since you obviously don't believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was chosen by God, then please enlighten us as to what motivated him to make such an extraordinary claim.  What was he trying to achieve?  Wealth?  Power?  Influence?

All of the above.  Or maybe he was just crazy.  I dunno, lots of people claim that God talks to them.  Should we believe all of them?

Quote And why, if he made everything up, did he choose to suffer for his convictions?  As we all know, the reaction of the pagan elites was one of persecution and eventually violence against Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers.  Can you explain why a supposed impostor decided to suffer for something he knew was false?  Do tell!

For any or all of the aforementioned reasons.  Plus, once he started down that road, what choice did he have?  How you think he would have been treated if he had recanted?


-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 July 2014 at 7:10am
Originally posted by Abu Loren Abu Loren wrote:

I've stopped engaging with this clown a long time ago. I lost count of the number of times I had to call him names I lost my temper and lost control.

(Not to mention, lost the argument. Tongue)


-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 01 July 2014 at 11:57am
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

� Or maybe he was just crazy.�


For someone so very adapt at mockery of religion, and displaying a proud embrace of rationalism, along with a heaping dose of hubris, what is to be gained by insulting our religion? You don't believe in our Prophet, ok fine, but to use such inflammatory language is truly unnecessary, and surely you're intelligent enough to know this. Did you start this thread intending to use this type of language as dialogue? "Why would anyone believe him" was obviously a rhetorical question having no intent for discussion, but an opportunity for further insult and polarization.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 01 July 2014 at 2:37pm
Originally posted by abuayisha abuayisha wrote:

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

  Or maybe he was just crazy. 


For someone so very adapt at mockery of religion, and displaying a proud embrace of rationalism, along with a heaping dose of hubris, what is to be gained by insulting our religion? You don't believe in our Prophet, ok fine, but to use such inflammatory language is truly unnecessary, and surely you're intelligent enough to know this. Did you start this thread intending to use this type of language as dialogue? "Why would anyone believe him" was obviously a rhetorical question having no intent for discussion, but an opportunity for further insult and polarization.

Greetings abuayisha,

I actually don't think Ron's comment was meant as a mockery or to be rude, but just a statement of one possible fact.

Even the opening question is legitimate for those of us who don't find Muhammad convincing as prophet...
just as muslims question why Christians believe in what they consider to be 'crazy'... the Trinity... the death and resurrection of Yshwe... the communion present in the bread and the wine...

It is no different than the same question Christians must pose to themselves regarding the things which Yshwe claimed...

"Jesus Christ has been called many things by many people, including a great man, a great teacher, a great prophet ... He was either telling the truth, He was crazy, or He was a liar."

Don't you question why others believe in what they believe?

asalaam,
Caringheart


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 July 2014 at 3:45pm
Originally posted by abuayisha abuayisha wrote:

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Or maybe he was just crazy.

For someone so very adapt at mockery of religion, and displaying a proud embrace of rationalism, along with a heaping dose of hubris, what is to be gained by insulting our religion? You don't believe in our Prophet, ok fine, but to use such inflammatory language is truly unnecessary, and surely you're intelligent enough to know this.

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

I actually don't think Ron's comment was meant as a mockery or to be rude, but just a statement of one possible fact.

Exactly.  I'm not saying it's true, but you have to admit that it is a possibility to be considered, at least a priori.  Many people who claim to talk to God are crazy, after all.

Originally posted by abuayisha abuayisha wrote:

Did you start this thread intending to use this type of language as dialogue? "Why would anyone believe him" was obviously a rhetorical question having no intent for discussion, but an opportunity for further insult and polarization.

It's not a rhetorical question.  I'd really like to know why you believe him.  And by the way, I see it as a unifying rather than a polarizing question.  It's one thing that all religions have in common: the decision to believe one set of religious tenets in preference to the many alternative faiths.  I ask the same question of every religious faith.

It's a simple question: why do you believe what you do?  I'm sorry if you find it offensive.  That's not how I intend it.


-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 July 2014 at 4:15pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Many people believed (the Christian version of) Jesus too.  And Buddha.  And Lao-Tzu.  And Joseph Smith.  And L. Ron Hubbard.  Why don't you believe any of them?


Now, now, don't change the subject.  You opened this thread, Ron.  You gave it the title "Why would anyone believe him?"  Well, people did believe him, Ron!  Your central question was absurd from the get-go! Do you acknowledge that?

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

All of the above.  Or maybe he was just crazy.  I dunno, lots of people claim that God talks to them.  Should we believe all of them?


So you have no proof and no answers.  You're just throwing out all sorts of crackpot theories.  You know, you are a good candidate for the "Agnostic Code":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R66r_XMoDkk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R66r_XMoDkk

Now, let's deal with your theories.  Was Muhammad (peace be upon him) motivated by power, wealth and influence?  The short answer is no.  Here is the long answer:

He was already a well-respected merchant and married to a well-off woman, Hazrat Khadijah (may Allah be pleased with her), by the time he received the revelation.  So, the idea that he decided one day that in order to get power, wealth and influence, he had to pretend like he received God's revelation is just absurd.  But in case you are still not convinced, let us consider that once he had made his message public and the pagan elites of Mecca had initially reacted with anger and at times violence, they became frustrated with his persistence and hence made him an offer which any man who was seeking power and wealth would have been crazy to turn down.  They offered him those things.  They offered him influence and power, if only he would stop preaching against their idols.  Yet, he refused their offer!  Why would he have done that if his goal was the very things the pagans had just offered him? 

Let's look at it another way.  If Muhammad (peace be upon him) was an impostor, then why did he go above and beyond in the practice of his religion, doing more than what he required of his followers?  For example, in the matter of fasting, it is well known that he fasted longer than his followers and that when his followers asked to be allowed to fast as long as he did, he did not allow them to do so.  Why did he do that?  Why would he have deliberately placed more difficulties on himself if he was indeed an impostor? 

For more, read the following: http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-6.htm%20%20 - http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-6.htm 

As for your other crackpot theory, that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was "crazy", kindly enlighten us as to how a supposedly "crazy" person was able to so successfully change not just Arabia but the whole world?  If he was crazy, how was he able to make competent decisions in the heat of battle?  How was he able to negotiate peace treaties with various tribes?  How would a "crazy" person have accomplished so much? 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

For any or all of the aforementioned reasons.  Plus, once he started down that road, what choice did he have?  How you think he would have been treated if he had recanted?
 

LOL Well, for one thing, he could have accepted the Meccans offer in exchange for not preaching against their religion.  Having made his enemies desperate enough to give him all the things he wanted, why did he reject their offer?  Why did he choose to live a simple life, using only a leather bed?  Why did he deliberately do more religious acts than he required of his followers?  Why did he, when he died, have only a white mule, his swords and some land?  Imagine!  The most powerful man in Arabia had no wealth at the time he died?  Where did the wealth go?  Even the land he had left was given in charity. 

You see, Ron?  Your crackpot ideas are utterly ridiculous!  But don't worry.  You can still live in your own world and refuse to believe in Muhammad (peace be upon him).  No one cares!  But on the Day of Judgment, you might look back on these conversations and kick yourself! 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 July 2014 at 4:22pm
Originally posted by abuayisha abuayisha wrote:

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

  Or maybe he was just crazy. 


For someone so very adapt at mockery of religion, and displaying a proud embrace of rationalism, along with a heaping dose of hubris, what is to be gained by insulting our religion? You don't believe in our Prophet, ok fine, but to use such inflammatory language is truly unnecessary, and surely you're intelligent enough to know this. Did you start this thread intending to use this type of language as dialogue? "Why would anyone believe him" was obviously a rhetorical question having no intent for discussion, but an opportunity for further insult and polarization.


As-salaam alaikum.  Brother, we should not get upset when unbelievers make st**id statements.  Rather, we should respond to them.  We cannot be too uptight.  Otherwise, they may get the impression that we don't have any answers.


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 02 July 2014 at 12:42pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


As-salaam alaikum.  Brother, we should not get upset when unbelievers make st**id statements.  Rather, we should respond to them.  We cannot be too uptight.  Otherwise, they may get the impression that we don't have any answers.
With respect bro, this clown Ron Webb has been 'at it' for well over a year now. He just conterargues every point we make with nonsense and we shouldn't entertain clowns like him.
 
I agree with you that these kuffar have the right to make any statement that they wish however there is a limit. Once we know that they are out to mock us then we should stop engaging with that clown, in my humble opinion.
 
These jokers are here on forums like this for lurid entertainment only.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 July 2014 at 2:39pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Many people believed (the Christian version of) Jesus too.  And Buddha.  And Lao-Tzu.  And Joseph Smith.  And L. Ron Hubbard.  Why don't you believe any of them?

Now, now, don't change the subject.  You opened this thread, Ron.  You gave it the title "Why would anyone believe him?"  Well, people did believe him, Ron!  Your central question was absurd from the get-go! Do you acknowledge that?

Yes, I know they believed him.  My question is, why?

Quote So you have no proof and no answers.  You're just throwing out all sorts of crackpot theories.

No, I have no proof, but neither do you; and generally speaking when someone claims to hear God talking to them, the least likely possibility is that God is really talking to him.  So why in this case would anyone assume that the least likely possibility is the truth?

Quote Now, let's deal with your theories.  Was Muhammad (peace be upon him) motivated by power, wealth and influence?  The short answer is no.  Here is the long answer:

He was already a well-respected merchant and married to a well-off woman, Hazrat Khadijah (may Allah be pleased with her), by the time he received the revelation.  So, the idea that he decided one day that in order to get power, wealth and influence, he had to pretend like he received God's revelation is just absurd.

Personally, I think he probably sincerely believed it was God's voice, at least at first.  But IMHO it would still be plausible, even if it was a pretense from the beginning.  Surely that was L. Ron Hubbard's motivation in starting Scientology.  By the way, he was already a successful writer, so by your logic what he did was absurd. But it worked out pretty well for him, I'd say.

Quote But in case you are still not convinced, let us consider that once he had made his message public and the pagan elites of Mecca had initially reacted with anger and at times violence, they became frustrated with his persistence and hence made him an offer which any man who was seeking power and wealth would have been crazy to turn down.  They offered him those things.  They offered him influence and power, if only he would stop preaching against their idols.  Yet, he refused their offer!  Why would he have done that if his goal was the very things the pagans had just offered him?

Maybe because, as I said, if he had recanted, his followers might have killed him.  (That is what his own religion instructed, after all.)  Maybe because he still believed he was a true Prophet.  Maybe because the power and influence they were offering was nothing like what he already had as God's press agent.

Quote Let's look at it another way.  If Muhammad (peace be upon him) was an impostor, then why did he go above and beyond in the practice of his religion, doing more than what he required of his followers?  For example, in the matter of fasting, it is well known that he fasted longer than his followers and that when his followers asked to be allowed to fast as long as he did, he did not allow them to do so.  Why did he do that?  Why would he have deliberately placed more difficulties on himself if he was indeed an impostor?

Maybe because he really thought that's what God wanted.  Maybe because it would help convince people like you of his sincerity.  Maybe because he didn't want the Prophet (of all people) to be accused of being lax.

Quote As for your other crackpot theory, that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was "crazy", kindly enlighten us as to how a supposedly "crazy" person was able to so successfully change not just Arabia but the whole world?  If he was crazy, how was he able to make competent decisions in the heat of battle?  How was he able to negotiate peace treaties with various tribes?  How would a "crazy" person have accomplished so much?

I don't see why not.  Was Hitler crazy?  Lots of people thought so.  One of our own local historical notables, Louis Riel, also made competent decisions in battle, but he also (allegedly) talked to God.  For that matter, one of our prime ministers, William Lyon Mackenzie King, also had a lot of wacky spiritual experiences (including seances where he talked to his deceased dog), and yet he was a very competent leader.  It's not that surprising.

Quote LOL Well, for one thing, he could have accepted the Meccans offer in exchange for not preaching against their religion.  Having made his enemies desperate enough to give him all the things he wanted, why did he reject their offer?  Why did he choose to live a simple life, using only a leather bed?  Why did he deliberately do more religious acts than he required of his followers?  Why did he, when he died, have only a white mule, his swords and some land?  Imagine!  The most powerful man in Arabia had no wealth at the time he died?  Where did the wealth go?  Even the land he had left was given in charity.

Muhammad had a total of fifteen wives, as many as eleven at one time, plus several female slaves as concubines.  That in itself is a measure of wealth.  More to the point, why would he need a lot of tangible wealth?  As God's Prophet, who would/could refuse him anything he wanted?  

Quote You see, Ron?  Your crackpot ideas are utterly ridiculous!  But don't worry.  You can still live in your own world and refuse to believe in Muhammad (peace be upon him).  No one cares!  But on the Day of Judgment, you might look back on these conversations and kick yourself!

Unless of course it turns out that Gautama Buddha or Guru Nanak or any of a hundred other religious leaders had the true religion?  Again, why choose Muhammad instead of all those others?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: fatima
Date Posted: 05 July 2014 at 12:23am
Greetings,
Why they believed him? Well if some1 has seen a person getting to the age of 40 right infront of them n only seen the good things from that person. If u have known that person only to be an honest and truthful man and an upright member of an high esteemed household.
Another factor of every religion, no matter how many u associate with God, all of them believe in 'ONE TRUE POWERFUL, THE CREATOR OF EVERYTHING'. Not long back they themselves had seen Rab of kaaba saving this sacred house without any human help.
And lastly ron
have u ever read Holy Quran? Any person reading Holy Quran without any bias would know its something different.
He saw talked about sacial unjustice and told people that this wordly division is not what matters, He saw gave them a hope. He saw told them where and who u born does not matter as much as what u do with urself.
And yeah some other leaders mentioned did try to do somethings but they lacked in one way r other. In the book 100 most influential people, it is said that he was the only leader to achieve excellence on both wordly n religious fronts. Somebody who dint only preach equality but his prayer showed n put a master next to slave.
I know people who choose not to believe him r there but his companions saw miracles with being around him.


-------------
Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL


Posted By: fatima
Date Posted: 05 July 2014 at 12:58am
This uptil our Prophet saw was amongst his companion, now after him saw, his companions ruled on the principles brought by him saw. The best governing goverments world had ever seen.
With time more ayaat of Holy Quran showed what had been revealed was the truth, what was told by the Prophet saw was indeed the truth.
Our leaders n much of the commons have moved so much further away from their religion but people reverting r ever increasing.
Every few years science figures something out n then v learn v were told of that in Holy Quran.
Every human true to himself eventually figures out there has to be One Most Powerfull. Knowing our own capacity, v know there has to be some guidelines from Him.
Now if some1 does not want to believe its up to them. For abu jehl it was that they can compete with everything else but not this n believing meant belittling himself n his tribe to the tribe of bani hashim.
Today people who figure out the truth n only not follow it because it means giving up many pleasures they become use to.
Lastly miracle of Holy Quran, its challenge, bring only an ayah like this n u will never do. Over 1400 years have passed n still there!


-------------
Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL


Posted By: fatima
Date Posted: 05 July 2014 at 1:23am
Now the question why only him saw, there are so many others. Well the ones b4 him in their own time, if they were Prophets who came to their people should have been followed by those people they came to. Sayyidiba Muhammad saw came as a last Prophet to the whole world, every human living on this planet today is his ummah whether he believes in him r not. Previous generations were punished when they rejected a Prophet. But as Sayyidina Muhammad saw was last Prophet n that too to the whole world time limit is more.
As for gautam buddha, a scholar from pakistan dr israr mentions in his tafsir that according to few other scholars n him, buddha might have been a prophet whose teachings were lost with time.
And guru nanak never claimed to have divine revelation. In fact if u read history u will find out that a muslim scholar of the time shah waLi Allah wanted to give guru nanak a muslim burial. As he claimed that guru nanak had accepted islam before his death. Now if u look into guru nanak'S teaching u will c emphasis on one creator. This a fact a human being who truely is seeking the truth can get to on his own. Next is the divine revelation which stopped with Sayyidina Muhammad saw but been promised to be preserved till the last day.
ALLAHU Subhanahu Wataala alam

-------------
Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 05 July 2014 at 7:18am
Originally posted by fatima fatima wrote:

Why they believed him? Well if some1 has seen a person getting to the age of 40 right infront of them n only seen the good things from that person. If u have known that person only to be an honest and truthful man and an upright member of an high esteemed household.

Even such a person can be mistaken.  Even such a person can develop a mental or psychological issues at age 40.  Even such a person can have a change in personality.  These things may be unlikely, but they are still far more likely than anyone actually speaking to God.
 
Quote Another factor of every religion, no matter how many u associate with God, all of them believe in 'ONE TRUE POWERFUL, THE CREATOR OF EVERYTHING'.

Which is no reason to believe any one religion over another.

Quote Not long back they themselves had seen Rab of kaaba saving this sacred house without any human help.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are referring to.

Quote have u ever read Holy Quran? Any person reading Holy Quran without any bias would know its something different.

I have read the Quran -- not the whole thing, but enough to know what it is about.  I won't give you my opinion in detail, because I don't want to be unnecessarily offensive.  Let me just say that I found the Bhagavad Gita much more inspiring.

Have you read the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, the sayings of Confucius, the I Ching, the Tao Te Ching?  I have all these books and many more on my bookshelf, and have read much of them.  I wonder why you think the Quran is "something different".

Quote He saw talked about sacial unjustice and told people that this wordly division is not what matters, He saw gave them a hope. He saw told them where and who u born does not matter as much as what u do with urself.

No doubt, but so did all the other great religious leaders.  It's still no reason to choose one over the others.

Quote And yeah some other leaders mentioned did try to do somethings but they lacked in one way r other. In the book 100 most influential people, it is said that he was the only leader to achieve excellence on both wordly n religious fronts. Somebody who dint only preach equality but his prayer showed n put a master next to slave.

He also promoted slavery.  He captured and kept slaves himself.  He taught inequality of men and women.  He imposed horrendous punishments for minor offences.  He was a warlord who used intimidation ("convert or die") to spread his religion.  I won't go into details on any of this, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Quote I know people who choose not to believe him r there but his companions saw miracles with being around him.

Again, all religions and all religious leaders have various miracles associated with them.  Most of them are just made-up stories, mistaken observations or errors in transmission.  And if most of them are wrong, I see no reason to believe any of them.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 05 July 2014 at 11:20am
Originally posted by Abu Loren Abu Loren wrote:

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


As-salaam alaikum.  Brother, we should not get upset when unbelievers make st**id statements.  Rather, we should respond to them.  We cannot be too uptight.  Otherwise, they may get the impression that we don't have any answers.
With respect bro, this clown Ron Webb has been 'at it' for well over a year now. He just conterargues every point we make with nonsense and we shouldn't entertain clowns like him.
 
I agree with you that these kuffar have the right to make any statement that they wish however there is a limit. Once we know that they are out to mock us then we should stop engaging with that clown, in my humble opinion.
 
These jokers are here on forums like this for lurid entertainment only.


As-salaam alaikum brother.  Even so, I think we should not get upset.  Rather, we should respond to them and use humor while we are it.  These people might not want to listen, but what if someone else who is interested in Islam was reading these threads?  If they see that Muslims simply get upset and don't actually answer the false claims of the unbelievers, what will they think?  They might get the wrong idea and abandon their journey to Islam.


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 05 July 2014 at 12:08pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Yes, I know they believed him.  My question is, why?


That is not what you originally asked.  You asked why would "anyone" believe him?  As I and others have pointed out, many people did believe him.  So your question was absurd from the get-go. 

As to why they actually believed him, there are many reasons.  First of all, as sister Fatima pointed out, he was known to be a truthful and trustworthy person.  People saw no reason why he would have decided one day that he had been chosen by Allah (swt) to deliver His revelation to mankind.  Moreover, his message of social justice and fairness appealed to the weak and oppressed people in Arabian society.  That is why most of his early followers were among the poor.  Most of the elites rejected his message. 

Other reasons for why they believed are his miracles, his prophecies and of course his undeniable success against innumerable odds.  Logically speaking, there is no way he should have succeeded the way he did.  Unbelievers like you are at a loss to explain how he managed to defeat his enemies and become the most influential person in human history, despite having the odds piled up against him for most of his prophetic life. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

No, I have no proof, but neither do you; and generally speaking when someone claims to hear God talking to them, the least likely possibility is that God is really talking to him.  So why in this case would anyone assume that the least likely possibility is the truth?
      
LOL I have plenty of proof.  You simply reject it by positing your unprovable crackpot theories.  Tell me how Muhammad (peace be upon him) was able to succeed like he did?  How was he able to defeat his enemies and start a global movement which transformed the world?  And why was he willing to undergo severe hardships in the process?  Try to answer the question with logic and reason.  No more of your "I don't know" and "Maybe this" or "Maybe that" nonsense. Wink

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Personally, I think he probably sincerely believed it was God's voice, at least at first.  But IMHO it would still be plausible, even if it was a pretense from the beginning.  Surely that was L. Ron Hubbard's motivation in starting Scientology.  By the way, he was already a successful writer, so by your logic what he did was absurd. But it worked out pretty well for him, I'd say.


First of all, your "humble opinions" are irrelevant to the discussion.  And by the way, Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not claim to hear "God's voice".  He claimed that the Angel Gabriel (as) appeared to him and brought the first ayats of the Quran, which was God's word.     

Second, it does not go unnoticed that, as usual, you didn't answer the question and instead went off on tangents.  What is your explanation for why a well-to-do and respected merchant would one day decide to make up a spiritual encounter, and then start a religious revolution and undergo severe hardships in the process, all in the name of that supposed made-up encounter?  If anything, he would have made up an encounter with one of the pagan gods and then pretend that he was that god's agent.  He would not have picked a fight with the ruling pagan elites but instead would have used their sensibilities to his advantage.  Why would he have decided to challenge the status quo instead?  Try to answer the question.  Don't go off on tangents again! Big%20smile

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Maybe because, as I said, if he had recanted, his followers might have killed him.  (That is what his own religion instructed, after all.)  Maybe because he still believed he was a true Prophet.  Maybe because the power and influence they were offering was nothing like what he already had as God's press agent.


LOL Again, no answers...just a whole bunch of "maybe this" and "maybe that" nonsense. 

The fact is that at the time this offer was made, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was in no position to reject it.  Most of his followers were poor and defenseless.  They were not in a position to kill him if he had recanted and accepted the pagans' offer.  And if he had rejected the offer, which he did, he would have known that the pagans would try to kill him. 

Now use your head, Ron.  Which scenario would have been more advantageous for a supposed impostor: 

A.  Accept the lucrative offer from the powerful elites and risk facing the wrath of his poor and defenseless followers,

OR    

B.  Reject the lucrative offer from the powerful elites and risk facing their wrath.

Which scenario, do you think, provided the most security for Muhammad (peace be upon him)?  Que the Jeopardy music...

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Maybe because he really thought that's what God wanted.  Maybe because it would help convince people like you of his sincerity.  Maybe because he didn't want the Prophet (of all people) to be accused of being lax.
 

And maybe you are just a tongue-tied unbeliever who is at a loss to explain Muhammad's sincerity, patience, personal sacrifice and ultimate success against immeasurable odds.  Maybe you are just afraid of the truth.  Maybe you just don't want to accept that you have been deceived.  Maybe this and maybe that.  Maybe, maybe, maybe...LOL

You have yet to explain why a supposed impostor would undergo severe hardships for something he knew to be false.  You have yet to explain why such a person would forgo even the basic comforts of life (let alone wealth beyond his wildest dreams) all for a lie.  What a shock...Wink

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I don't see why not.  Was Hitler crazy?  Lots of people thought so.  One of our own local historical notables, Louis Riel, also made competent decisions in battle, but he also (allegedly) talked to God.  For that matter, one of our prime ministers, William Lyon Mackenzie King, also had a lot of wacky spiritual experiences (including seances where he talked to his deceased dog), and yet he was a very competent leader.  It's not that surprising.
 

LOL None of these people were nearly as influential as Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)!  Nor were any of them diagnosed with any psychiatric disorder (though there have been various theories about Hitler).  They were all competent people.  But which of them was as successful as Muhammad (peace be upon him)?  Which of them was willing to undergo hardships for his cause?  Hitler lived a luxurious lifestyle as ruler of Germany and it was only once the Allied armies were advancing on Berlin that he was forced to hide in bunkers.

Sorry Ron.  Try again!  What other crackpot theory do you have?

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Muhammad had a total of fifteen wives, as many as eleven at one time, plus several female slaves as concubines.  That in itself is a measure of wealth.  More to the point, why would he need a lot of tangible wealth?  As God's Prophet, who would/could refuse him anything he wanted?
 

LOL There you go again, showing how much of an illogical ignoramus you really are!  Polygamy was a common occurrence in Arabia and was an accepted practice.  Why would he need to invent a religion in order to get more wives when he could have done that from the start?     

As for your other crackpot theory, that he didn't need "tangible wealth" because he could simply ask for anything from his followers, the fact is that he didn't do that!  In fact, whenever he was given any gifts, food or anything else, he gave it away to others!  Here is a perfect example:

"Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a person came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, I am undone. He (the Holy Prophet) said: What has brought about your ruin? He said: I have had intercourse with my wife during the month of Ramadan. Upon this he (the Holy prophet) said: Can you find a slave to set him free? He said: No.  He (the Holy Prophet again) said: Can you observe fast for two consecutive months? He said: No. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Can you provide food to sixty poor people?, He said: No. He then sat down and (in the meanwhile) there was brought to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) a basket which contained dates. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Give these (dates) in charity. He (the man) said: Am I to give to one who is poorer than I? There is no family poorer than mine between the two lava plains of Medina. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) laughed so that his molar teeth became visible and said: Go and give it to your family to eat." (Sahih Muslim, Book 6, Number 2457)

So in this incident, the Prophet was given dates as a gift, and he gave it away to someone else in need.  If we go by your crackpot theory, he would have kept the dates for himself (especially since ample food was a luxury in those days) and simply pretend to the person that God had forgiven his sin.

Moreover, as I said before, most of Muhammad's followers were poor and downtrodden.  There were some who were wealthy, such as Abu Bakr (ra), but the vast majority were poor.  They did not have much to give to him, even if he had demanded anything from them, which he didn't. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Unless of course it turns out that Gautama Buddha or Guru Nanak or any of a hundred other religious leaders had the true religion?  Again, why choose Muhammad instead of all those others?


For all the reasons given above.  None of the people you have mentioned have had the kind of impact and influence on human history as Muhammad (peace be upon him).

You still yet have to offer a reasoned and logical explanation for why you believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a supposed impostor!  Your foolishness and desperate attempts to go off on tangents whenever you can't answer a question are on display for all to see.  LOL   


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: fatima
Date Posted: 06 July 2014 at 1:54am
May Allah subhanahu wataala have mercy on u.
U c dear sir u r not even understanding the basic of our deen. We believe in all the prophets as before Sayyidina Muhammad saw. They were true n did speak to angels to recieve a message except Musa as who spoke to Allah Subhanahu wataala directly. All of them had miracles biggest of which the ability of Isa as to bring the dead back to life. All of the Prophets as came to a specific nation for a specific time. Sayyidina Muhammad saw came for the whole of the world and he saw is the last prophet. So there is no choosing of one over the other. Holy Quran is the latest and last version of Allah Subhanahu Wataala's instructions.
Now the so many others showing miracles after Sayyidina Muhammad saw, can I hear abiut them. I cant really explain something which I have no clue about.

-------------
Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL


Posted By: fatima
Date Posted: 06 July 2014 at 3:19am
Now about Sayyidina Muhammad saw promoting slavery! Really! Are you kidding me? Slavery was common in thos days and islam brought a rule that slaves can fix a time period and amount with the master to be free. They will be free as soon as the contract is drawn and would pay instalments in the agreed time limit but would be free to do whatever with themselves in that time. Reforms like donot force the slaves for prostitution and get them married off to some1 were brought.
People make me laugh on this one, a poor lower status second class muslimah. So how would I be free? Getting almost naked on the big billboards or wearing less n sleeping around on hearing the rant of freedom and then being labeled a slut? No no maybe by mixing freely and giving every thing on a plate and then being abandoned on getting pregnant! Well even now in this free and equal society in city like london a woman is paid less than a man doing the same job. A sports woman is paid less playing same sport same event. WHY IS THERE THREE SETS FOR WOMEN TENNIS AND FIVE FOR MEN? Because we are differently structured, thats why. How convenient is it for this man made, man dominated and man ruled siciety to cry 'poor muslimah'. How convenient it for them when she is free, she wears what pleases their eyes, she gives them what THEY require without the burden of responsibility.
Now Allah subhanahu wataala has given both genders equal rights but different roles and responsibilities. Apart from a husband and wife where husband is given one degree above because he is made responsible for provision and protection. Another reason is administrative, to run a peaceful and smooth household, one has to take the role of decision making and Allah Subhanahu wataala gives it to the man. Allah Subhanahu wataala has absolute authority over everything and as muslims we donot ask why? But with time and science we are learning about the wisdom behind. It is recently been discovered that brain connectivity is different amongst female and male gender, in females parts of the brain are inter connected while in men they are not. This means when making a decision a man can totaly cut his emotions for the situation and people out but not a woman. This is her positive when she is a mother, her emotions are there for her kids and others and she forgives which bonds a family system.
I will explain your last point before the third as that needs more explaining. Convert or die, not really. As in the previous ummahs whenever a Messenger as came, the whole nation was destroyed on disbelief. So this is sunnah of our Supreme Lord. Now Sayyidina Muhammad saw came to the whole world generaly but specially to arabs. So the ruling after Makkah mukarrama was conquered was either accept islam or leave arab peninsula or ready to die. So Allah Subhanahu wataala did give them an option out of His rehma. This too was only for arabs at his saw's time as they had seen the whole message right infront of their own eyes and experienced it themselves.
Now lastly islamic punishments, two of the capital punishments for foresaking the deen and adultery were kept same as they were in previous ummah of Musa as. These punishments and all others are there as deterents. If you know you are going to be free again in next 7 years after killing r raping some innocent than be hanged, criminal mind is likely to do it.
Lastly I possed a question about Holy Quran that no one ever produced or could ever produce something like this. If you sincerely want to know then search scientific miracles of Holy Quran. These facts were there for past 1400 years and reality of them has only come to light within last century. How could a person describe exact stages of pregnancy 1400 years ago. How could some one say that sun, moon and earth are moving on their own pathway when it was recently discovered that even sun has movements. Why would Allah subhanahu wataala specifically say to those in refute of resurrection that He has ability to create the very top of the finger tips. What is so special about top of finger tips? In the last century we have learnt its the finger prints which are one thing different amongst identical twins. I can go on and on but that is not the purpose of Holy Quran so neither should it be mine. With time human race has developed so much in intellect that if you are sincere you know the truth when it is infront of you.
And you claim to have read some part of Holy Quran and still completely oblivious of what I meant by Lord saving Kaaba. If you want to refute, (I neither like this term nor agree with the concept because a wise person would want to know and learn about the truth with open heart) because I see the pattern and what is in the heart only our Creator knows, then I suggest you have better knowledge of our deen.

And to Allah subhanahu wataala we all will return

-------------
Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 06 July 2014 at 3:35pm
 
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Yes, I know they believed him.  My question is, why?

That is not what you originally asked.  You asked why would "anyone" believe him?

Do I need to explain what "anyone" means?

Quote As to why they actually believed him, there are many reasons.  First of all, as sister Fatima pointed out, he was known to be a truthful and trustworthy person.  People saw no reason why he would have decided one day that he had been chosen by Allah (swt) to deliver His revelation to mankind.

Even truthful and trustworthy people can think they hear voices.  It's called http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrenia - paraphrenia .  It's rare, but it's still more frequent than actual voices from God or his angels, which I think even by your reckoning hasn't happened once in more than a thousand years.

Quote Moreover, his message of social justice and fairness appealed to the weak and oppressed people in Arabian society.  That is why most of his early followers were among the poor.  Most of the elites rejected his message.

That may be so.  Perhaps they believed because they wanted to believe.  They didn't much care whether it was true or not.  Perhaps that's why you believe him too.

Quote Other reasons for why they believed are his miracles, his prophecies and of course his undeniable success against innumerable odds.  Logically speaking, there is no way he should have succeeded the way he did.  Unbelievers like you are at a loss to explain how he managed to defeat his enemies and become the most influential person in human history, despite having the odds piled up against him for most of his prophetic life.

Winning battles against superior forces is not exactly a miracle.

Quote LOL I have plenty of proof.  You simply reject it by positing your unprovable crackpot theories.

Surely the God Hypothesis is the ultimate "crackpot theory".  It is by definition unprovable.  Your only "proof" is to argue that There Is No Alternative (TINA) explanation.  But there are plenty, and I keep offering them.  They are not "tangents".  They are refutations of your TINA argument.

Quote What is your explanation for why a well-to-do and respected merchant would one day decide to make up a spiritual encounter, and then start a religious revolution and undergo severe hardships in the process, all in the name of that supposed made-up encounter?  If anything, he would have made up an encounter with one of the pagan gods and then pretend that he was that god's agent.  He would not have picked a fight with the ruling pagan elites but instead would have used their sensibilities to his advantage.  Why would he have decided to challenge the status quo instead?

Because those gods already had their agents.  This is Marketing 101: you need to differentiate your product, carve out your own niche in the marketplace.  You can't win market share by being just like all the others.

Quote The fact is that at the time this offer was made, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was in no position to reject it.  Most of his followers were poor and defenseless.  They were not in a position to kill him if he had recanted and accepted the pagans' offer.  And if he had rejected the offer, which he did, he would have known that the pagans would try to kill him.

His companions were in the ideal position to kill him.  All it takes is a sword in the middle of the night.

Quote You have yet to explain why a supposed impostor would undergo severe hardships for something he knew to be false.  You have yet to explain why such a person would forgo even the basic comforts of life (let alone wealth beyond his wildest dreams) all for a lie.

I'm not sure he even knew it was a lie.  He may have dreamed his encounters with Gabriel, and confused them with reality.  I don't know.  All I'm saying is that there are dozens of hypotheses that are much more plausible than yours.  I don't understand why you would so easily accept the least likely one.  Unless, as I said above, you believe simply because you want to believe.

Quote LOL There you go again, showing how much of an illogical ignoramus you really are!  Polygamy was a common occurrence in Arabia and was an accepted practice.  Why would he need to invent a religion in order to get more wives when he could have done that from the start?

In the first place, the concubines were his property, which refutes your claim that when he died he had "only a white mule, his swords and some land."  But more importantly, the main limiting factor in the number of wives you can maintain is wealth.  A poor man cannot support multiple wives.

Islam limits a man to four wives -- except for Muhammad, who received a special "revelation" just for his benefit, allowing him as many wives as he wanted.  How convenient.  Apparently being a Prophet does have its privileges after all.

Quote As for your other crackpot theory, that he didn't need "tangible wealth" because he could simply ask for anything from his followers, the fact is that he didn't do that!  In fact, whenever he was given any gifts, food or anything else, he gave it away to others!  Here is a perfect example:
...

So in this incident, the Prophet was given dates as a gift, and he gave it away to someone else in need.  If we go by your crackpot theory, he would have kept the dates for himself (especially since ample food was a luxury in those days) and simply pretend to the person that God had forgiven his sin.

I think you have it backwards.  It's only because he had access to so much wealth that he was able to give away those dates.  Had he been a poor man, he might have been inclined to keep the dates to feed himself and his eleven wives.

Quote Moreover, as I said before, most of Muhammad's followers were poor and downtrodden.  There were some who were wealthy, such as Abu Bakr (ra), but the vast majority were poor.  They did not have much to give to him, even if he had demanded anything from them, which he didn't.

They were initially poor, but after having raided enough caravans there would have been more than enough wealth to go around.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 06 July 2014 at 5:16pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:


Islam limits a man to four wives -- except for Muhammad, who received a special "revelation" just for his benefit, allowing him as many wives as he wanted.  How convenient.  Apparently being a Prophet does have its privileges after all.

Hey Ron,

I had to lol, when I got to that last line. LOL


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 06 July 2014 at 5:21pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:


I think you have it backwards.  It's only because he had access to so much wealth that he was able to give away those dates.  Had he been a poor man, he might have been inclined to keep the dates to feed himself and his eleven wives.


They were initially poor, but after having raided enough caravans there would have been more than enough wealth to go around.

I have to agree with you about the wealth.
Wealth is measured in many ways.
I want to say that at least Muhammad was not building palaces... but who knows... he had to house all those wives somehow, somewhere... and there had to be cooking facilities to feed them all... and I suppose servants to do the cooking, the washing, the cleaning (?)... I don't know...

I mean he was used to wealth from the time he was a boy, traveling with his uncle the merchant, wasn't he?  To the time he became wed to the wealthy Khadija... so he was used to wealth... kind of like how the politicians of our day are out of touch... the Clinton's think they are 'broke' with income in the millions...
Every one has their measure, and the stories of Muhammad may be a nice myth about someone that was raised to the level of prophet in the eyes of people who didn't know any better and only knew how to depend on leaders...
there were lots of myths about the Pharaoh's who were considered gods too...


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 07 July 2014 at 9:36am
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:


Islam limits a man to four wives -- except for Muhammad, who received a special "revelation" just for his benefit, allowing him as many wives as he wanted.  How convenient.  Apparently being a Prophet does have its privileges after all.

Hey Ron,

I had to lol, when I got to that last line. LOL


But of course, Biblical figures like David and Solomon had it much better apparently!  I mean 300 concubines???  My goodness!  Solomon was swimming in women quite literally! Big%20smile

And as for David, well, sleeping with Bathsheba was just another perk for the king of Israel (as well as committing adultery and the murder of Uriah the Hittite).  The king even got away from being stoned to death as the law required.  Instead, God decided to kill his son.  Makes sense, doesn't it? Wink

But hey, being the ancestor of an alleged man-god must surely have its advantages! 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 07 July 2014 at 11:01am
My few comments...

Yes, but David and Solomon didn't receive special dispensations from 'God' while the rest of the people were given a limiting law...

and truly I think anyone who reads the old testament stories has an understanding that these were quite likely exaggerations to make a point... a technique not uncommon among the Hebrews... the use of exaggeration.

As far as David's transgression with Bathsheba, it is included in the Hebrew writings as an illustration of sin.   David is convicted by the scriptures, not excused, of his sin.  I need to revisit the story to see if it tells of David's repentance or not.

asalaam.


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: fatima
Date Posted: 07 July 2014 at 12:59pm
I was not going to post in this thread any more as it seems writing and point scoring for the sake of it and not the will of understanding. But brother islamispeace no matter what you trying to achieve with your arguments, you donot put a blame on a Prophet as of Allah subhanahu wataala.
As a muslim it is required of us to respect each and every single Prophet as in utmost esteem.

-------------
Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 07 July 2014 at 3:05pm
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Yes, but David and Solomon didn't receive special dispensations from 'God' while the rest of the people were given a limiting law...


Oh really?  Who else during their respective reigns had as many wives and concubines?  Please, enlighten me!  Look in your Bible and let me know.

If David didn't receive "special dispensations from God", then why was he not stoned to death for adultery, as the law required?  Why was his son killed instead, in contradiction of the law?  That sounds like "special dispensations" to me!  LOL

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

and truly I think anyone who reads the old testament stories has an understanding that these were quite likely exaggerations to make a point... a technique not uncommon among the Hebrews... the use of exaggeration.


Wow, so the Bible is exaggerating when it states that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines?  But if the Bible is exaggerating, then why would we rely on it for any information?  And why does Proverbs 30:5 state:

�Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.


And why did Paul say:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:15-17)

If the Bible is full of exaggerations, then it cannot be the word of God. 

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

As far as David's transgression with Bathsheba, it is included in the Hebrew writings as an illustration of sin.   David is convicted by the scriptures, not excused, of his sin.  I need to revisit the story to see if it tells of David's repentance or not.


Except that David was not executed for adultery as the law required.  Instead, his innocent son was killed.  This is not justice.  God would not have made such a judgment.  It contradicts Biblical law and common sense.  How many other people were punished the way he was for adultery?  Why did the law say that the adulterer is to be stoned?


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 07 July 2014 at 3:13pm
Originally posted by fatima fatima wrote:

I was not going to post in this thread any more as it seems writing and point scoring for the sake of it and not the will of understanding. But brother islamispeace no matter what you trying to achieve with your arguments, you donot put a blame on a Prophet as of Allah subhanahu wataala.
As a muslim it is required of us to respect each and every single Prophet as in utmost esteem.


As-salaam alaikum.  Sister, you misunderstand.  I was not disrespecting Prophet Dawud or Suleiman (peace be upon them both).  I was responding to Caringheart's hypocrisy in attacking Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for having multiple wives. 

The stories in the Bible are not true.  They are vicious lies.  You don't actually believe that Prophet Dawud committed adultery, do you?  I certainly don't.  That story in the Bible is a myth, invented by Jewish scribes.  It is an insult to the noble Prophet of Allah (swt). 

As far as how many wives they had, I don't know.  Even if Suleiman (peace be upon him) had hundreds of wives and concubines, it was a common practice in those days.  Certainly, as a head of state, Suleiman (peace be upon him) could have used his marriages to build alliances, just like Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did.  My point was simply to out Caringheart in her place.  I think I have done that. 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 07 July 2014 at 5:08pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

The stories in the Bible are not true.  They are vicious lies.  You don't actually believe that Prophet Dawud committed adultery, do you?  I certainly don't.  That story in the Bible is a myth, invented by Jewish scribes.  It is an insult to the noble Prophet of Allah (swt).

You don't see a certain amount of circular reasoning going on here?  You reject any scripture that is inconsistent with your ideology -- but you also reject any ideology that is inconsistent with your scripture. Ermm


-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 07 July 2014 at 5:17pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Do I need to explain what "anyone" means?


You still cannot admit that your question was absurd from the start.  It's not my fault that you were not clear and concise in asking your question!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Even truthful and trustworthy people can think they hear voices.  It's called http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrenia - paraphrenia .  It's rare, but it's still more frequent than actual voices from God or his angels, which I think even by your reckoning hasn't happened once in more than a thousand years.


LOL Well, well, well...Dr. Ron wants to offer a diagnosis?  Unfortunately, there are several problems which the good doctor overlooked.  According to the article:

"Onset of symptoms generally occurs later in life, near the age of 60. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrenia#cite_note-Roth.2C_1955-2 -

Muhammad (peace be upon him) had his encounter at the age of 40, but paraphrenia generally effects older people. 

The article also states:

"The main symptoms of paraphrenia are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_delusions - paranoid delusions and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinations - hallucinations . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrenia#cite_note-Almeida-1 - [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrenia#cite_note-Kayroth.2C_1961-6 - [6] The delusions often involve the individual being the subject of persecution, although they can also be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroticism - erotic , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypochondriasis - hypochondriacal , or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiosity - grandiose in nature. The majority of hallucinations associated with paraphrenia are auditory, with 75% of patients reporting such an experience; however, visual, tactile, and olfactory hallucinations have also been reported. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrenia#cite_note-Almeida-1 - [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrenia#cite_note-Kayroth.2C_1961-6 - [6] The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia - paranoia and hallucinations can combine in the form of �threatening or accusatory voices coming from neighbouring houses [and] are frequently reported by the patients as disturbing and undeserved"."

None of these symptoms can be applied to Muhammad (peace be upon him).  He never claimed to be hearing "voices" which were threatening in manner.  Nor did he hear voices coming from "neighbouring houses". 

So as you see, your crackpot diagnosis utterly fails.  The evidence simply does not line up.  What a shock...Shocked

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

That may be so.  Perhaps they believed because they wanted to believe.  They didn't much care whether it was true or not.  Perhaps that's why you believe him too.


And perhaps you just cannot admit that your crackpot theories don't work.  Perhaps you are afraid of the truth.  Perhaps this and perhaps that.  Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Winning battles against superior forces is not exactly a miracle.


LOL I was referring to his literal miracles such as providing water for his followers when there was none. 

As far winning battles against superior forces, I would argue that one or two victories would not serve as a "miracle", but surely the fact that Muhammad (peace be upon him) ultimately emerged victorious despite incessant persecution and war from his enemies, is a miracle.  If Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not who he said he was, I see no reason why he would have succeeded.  Instead, I think his mission would have failed and he would have either been killed or forced to recant.  But that's not what happened.  Somehow, he succeeded.  Unbelievers such as your yourself are at a loss to explain it.  All you can do is say "maybe this" or "perhaps that", all in an effort to satisfy your ego. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Surely the God Hypothesis is the ultimate "crackpot theory".  It is by definition unprovable.  Your only "proof" is to argue that There Is No Alternative (TINA) explanation.  But there are plenty, and I keep offering them.  They are not "tangents".  They are refutations of your TINA argument.


What you have "offered" are merely conjectures with no proof.  In most cases, your *****ic theories can be easily refuted.  You seem to think that just because you can come up with crackpot theories, this is somehow proof that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not a prophet.  It is based on your a priori assumption that God does not exist and there is no such thing as the supernatural.  Bravo!  Clap

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Because those gods already had their agents.  This is Marketing 101: you need to differentiate your product, carve out your own niche in the marketplace.  You can't win market share by being just like all the others.
 

Huh?! Confused

Um, I think if you wanted to sell a product, you would take advantage of current trends.  You wouldn't make the product hard to swallow.  If I wanted to come out with an alternative to Coke or Pepsi, I wouldn't make something that tastes awful.  Rather, I would try to offer a similar tasting product, but perhaps for less money. 

Similarly, if Muhammad (peace be upon him) wanted to pretend that he was the recipient of a divine message, he would have kept pagan sensitivities in mind, to make it easier for them to believe him.  He wouldn't have decided to attack their beliefs and criticize their materialism.  That makes a lot more sense than your "Marketing 101" nonsense.  It is obvious that you are just pulling ideas of thin air to satisfy your skeptical mindset.  Anything is preferable to your confused mind (no matter how nonsensical) than accepting that perhaps Muhammad (peace be upon him) was indeed who he said he was. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

His companions were in the ideal position to kill him.  All it takes is a sword in the middle of the night.


Now, now...don't ignore what you cannot explain.  It is better to admit that you are wrong than to make up another crackpot theory.  As I said in my previous response:

Now use your head, Ron.  Which scenario would have been more advantageous for a supposed impostor: 

A.  Accept the lucrative offer from the powerful elites and risk facing the wrath of his poor and defenseless followers,

OR    

B.  Reject the lucrative offer from the powerful elites and risk facing their wrath.

Which scenario, do you think, provided the most security for Muhammad (peace be upon him)?  Que the Jeopardy music...

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I'm not sure he even knew it was a lie.  He may have dreamed his encounters with Gabriel, and confused them with reality.  I don't know.  All I'm saying is that there are dozens of hypotheses that are much more plausible than yours.  I don't understand why you would so easily accept the least likely one.  Unless, as I said above, you believe simply because you want to believe.


So now he "dreamed" it, huh? 

No, Ron.  Your absurd theories are not "more plausible".  Just because you don't believe in the supernatural does not make your laughable theories more "plausible".  Your theories, when analyzed with the evidence, are implausible.  I don't understand why you would so easily accept the most nonsensical arguments, unless you simply believe them because you want to believe.  Eh? Wink

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

In the first place, the concubines were his property, which refutes your claim that when he died he had "only a white mule, his swords and some land."  But more importantly, the main limiting factor in the number of wives you can maintain is wealth.  A poor man cannot support multiple wives.


LOL You are such an ignoramus.  It's amazing how fools who have no idea what the hell they are talking about can make themselves out to be experts and convince themselves of their inaccurate claims.

First of all, as usual, you completely ignored my refutation of your suggestion that Muhammad's motive was to gain more wives.  Polygamy was an accepted practice in Arabia and it would make no sense to suggest that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had to claim to be the recipient of a divine revelation in order to gain more wives!  LOL  In the same way, if he had wanted concubines, he could have gotten them some other way.  Claiming divine revelation was not needed to acquire concubines. 

Second, in his life, he only had at most two concubines (and that is a matter of disagreement).  Some scholars are of the view that Mariyah the Copt became his wife after she gave birth to their son, Ibrahim, who sadly died in infancy.  There is also disagreement over whether Rayhana bint Zayd eventually became his wife or remained his concubine.  It is likely that he married them for the purpose of forging political alliances.  As Reza Aslan states:

"His marriage to Rayhana, a Jew, linked him with the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayza, while his marriage to Mariyah, a Christian and a Copt, created a significant political alliance with the Christian ruler of Egypt." ("No God but God", p. 64).

As far as whether a "poor man" can "support multiple wives", the fact is that Muhammad's poverty was a point of contention among some of his wives.  That is why the following verses were revealed:

"O Prophet! Say to thy Consorts: "If it be that ye desire the life of this World, and its glitter,- then come! I will provide for your enjoyment and set you free in a handsome manner.  But if ye seek Allah and His Messenger, and the Home of the Hereafter, verily Allah has prepared for the well-doers amongst you a great reward" (Surah Al-Ahzab, 33:28-29) 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Islam limits a man to four wives -- except for Muhammad, who received a special "revelation" just for his benefit, allowing him as many wives as he wanted.  How convenient.  Apparently being a Prophet does have its privileges after all.


Clap Brilliant, Ron.  Absolutely brilliant.  Oh but wait, you missed some important points.  How convenient. 

So, if Muhammad (peace be upon him) had decided to forge the revelation to give himself the benefit of having more than 4 wives, and if the motive was purely for sexual benefits, then why did he mostly marry widows and elderly women?  One of his wives, Sawdah (may Allah be pleased with her) was an elderly widow who, as Aslan describes her, was "long past the age of marriage". 

Moreover, what ignoramuses such as yourself don't realize, which is no surprise, is that a later revelation actually did command Muhammad (peace be upon him) to not anymore women:

"It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things" (Surah Al-Ahzab, 33:52).

Notice that this is the same surah mentioned above, where Muhammad (peace be upon him) was instructed to offer his wives divorce if they desired worldly riches.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I think you have it backwards.  It's only because he had access to so much wealth that he was able to give away those dates.  Had he been a poor man, he might have been inclined to keep the dates to feed himself and his eleven wives.


LOL I think your head in on backwards.  You have failed to provide any proof that he had "access to so much wealth".  All you have are your crackpot theories.  Everything you have been refuted, you changed gears and just posited another *****ic theory.  But where is the proof?  Oh right, there is none! 

According to Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), food was a luxury in the prophet's household.  This was part of his self-imposed poverty, which some of his wives were unhappy about and for which he offered to divorce them (they elected to stay with him, by the way). 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

They were initially poor, but after having raided enough caravans there would have been more than enough wealth to go around.


More mindless theorizing, with no proof.  For sure, as a result of the various battles and raids on the Meccans, there were spoils.  But if wealth was Muhammad's ultimate motive, then we have to return to the incident where he was offered the very things he allegedly wanted, but turned down, as the risk of his life. 

Moreover, if he was raiding these caravans for the purposes of looting, then one would think that he would have kept most of the spoils for himself, and wouldn't give most if it away in charity.  Yet, the evidence shows otherwise.  So there goes another one of your crackpot theories down the drain!  This must be getting frustrating for you! LOL

 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 07 July 2014 at 5:23pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

The stories in the Bible are not true.  They are vicious lies.  You don't actually believe that Prophet Dawud committed adultery, do you?  I certainly don't.  That story in the Bible is a myth, invented by Jewish scribes.  It is an insult to the noble Prophet of Allah (swt).

You don't see a certain amount of circular reasoning going on here?  You reject any scripture that is inconsistent with your ideology -- but you also reject any ideology that is inconsistent with your scripture. Ermm


Not quite.  I reject any "scripture" or "ideology" that is self-contradictory and logically absurd.  I use my common sense.  It is self-contradictory to claim that God states that children cannot be punished for their father's sins, yet also claim that God killed David's son for David's sin.  It is also self-contradictory to claim that a noble prophet committed adultery and murder and was spared the death penalty, as the law required.  You see, Ron?  Common sense...Big%20smile 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 07 July 2014 at 5:27pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

[/QUOTE]

Greetings islamispeace,

Key words to note:
' useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training '

As far as David and his adultery goes... someone would have to have accused him, wouldn't they?  and as far as I know no one ever did... it is not written that he was ever accused... so I have to assume that the facts were written after his death.

asalaam.



-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 07 July 2014 at 5:32pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

You have failed to provide any proof that he had "access to so much wealth". 

Greetings islamispeace,

I guess you missed my post on the matter of wealth.
asalaam. Smile


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 07 July 2014 at 5:37pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

  God killed David's son for David's sin.

Hello islamispeace,

Can you please share what scripture you are referring to?

Shukran and salaam.


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 08 July 2014 at 3:28pm
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Key words to note:
' useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training '


You completely ignored Proverbs 30:5 and the rest of Paul's statement.  If the "word of God is flawless" and all "scripture is God-breathed", then there is no possibility of mistakes or exaggeration in the text.  Tell me.  What exactly was the point of "exaggerating" how many wives and concubines David and Solomon had?  How was that "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training"?  Wouldn't it have been better to just mention the correct number rather than inflating it?  Clearly, either both had many wives and concubines, or they didn't.  So either the Bible is wrong, or it severely overestimated the exact number.

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

As far as David and his adultery goes... someone would have to have accused him, wouldn't they?  and as far as I know no one ever did... it is not written that he was ever accused... so I have to assume that the facts were written after his death.


So wait, are you saying that he didn't commit adultery and that the story is a later addition?

In any case, David was directly accused of adultery by Nathan, and he confessed to it.  Also, according to the account, when David first saw Bathsheba, he sent his men to inquire about her.  They had told him who she was, and who her husband was.  He then told his men to bring Bathsheba to him, after which he committed adultery with her.  So, in fact, there were witnesses.  They would have known exactly what David was trying to do.  He hadn't brought her to him to play checkers.

Oh and by the way, according to the law, a king was not allowed to have many wives.  I bring this up because of your claim that David and Solomon had not been given "special dispensations" from God.  Deuteronomy 17:17 states that the king:

"...must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold."


If the king of Israel was not allowed to take "many wives", then why were David and Solomon allowed to have as many wives as they had?

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

I guess you missed my post on the matter of wealth.


LOL I don't know what's funnier, the post you are referring to or the fact that you think that you actually "proved" something.  All you did was more mindless theorizing, a la Ron, with no proof, all in an attempt to satisfy your ego and prejudices.  I have refuted the crackpot theories that have been proposed on this thread.  You ignore the evidence and just make up your own theories.

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Can you please share what scripture you are referring to?
    

Well, what are you asking me for?!  Haven't you read your Bible?!  Isn't it your "scripture"?! Shocked 

No, I am going to tell you what "scripture" I am referring to in regard to the death of David's son.  You should already know it, since it is your "scripture".  But I will give you a hint:

Sam x 2 + 12...   

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out!

Walaikum as-salaam!


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 08 July 2014 at 4:58pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Key words to note:
' useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training '


You completely ignored Proverbs 30:5 and the rest of Paul's statement.  If the "word of God is flawless" and all "scripture is God-breathed", then there is no possibility of mistakes or exaggeration in the text.  Tell me.  What exactly was the point of "exaggerating" how many wives and concubines David and Solomon had?  How was that "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training"?  Wouldn't it have been better to just mention the correct number rather than inflating it?  Clearly, either both had many wives and concubines, or they didn't.  So either the Bible is wrong, or it severely overestimated the exact number.

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

As far as David and his adultery goes... someone would have to have accused him, wouldn't they?  and as far as I know no one ever did... it is not written that he was ever accused... so I have to assume that the facts were written after his death.


So wait, are you saying that he didn't commit adultery and that the story is a later addition?

In any case, David was directly accused of adultery by Nathan, and he confessed to it.  Also, according to the account, when David first saw Bathsheba, he sent his men to inquire about her.  They had told him who she was, and who her husband was.  He then told his men to bring Bathsheba to him, after which he committed adultery with her.  So, in fact, there were witnesses.  They would have known exactly what David was trying to do.  He hadn't brought her to him to play checkers.

Oh and by the way, according to the law, a king was not allowed to have many wives.  I bring this up because of your claim that David and Solomon had not been given "special dispensations" from God.  Deuteronomy 17:17 states that the king:

"...must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold."


If the king of Israel was not allowed to take "many wives", then why were David and Solomon allowed to have as many wives as they had?

Greetings islamispeace,

My reaction to this is, I truly don't know.  There is much that I do not understand about the old testament.  It would be better to speak with a Jewish person about it.  For me, the old testament is a history.  I do not attempt to explain why things were as they were.  It is a history, just as there is much contradictory evidence in the history of Muhammad.
I only know that it is useful for teaching... how to behave... how not to behave...
and that it reveals the message to come after... the message that is in Yshwe. 
I follow Yshwe.

I wasn't saying that David didn't commit adultery, but the story rather illustrates how men of power have always gotten away with being 'above the law'... on this earth, and in this life... don't they?  No one would probably have dared to accuse him during his time, but this does not mean that people didn't know the history, to write it down later... and the story is mainly to illustrate that God knew the truth... nothing is hidden from God... and to illustrate that it is God to whom we must answer.  (I have to assume that David was repentant, but I still have not looked up his story to read it.)

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Can you please share what scripture you are referring to?
    

Well, what are you asking me for?!  Haven't you read your Bible?!  Isn't it your "scripture"?! Shocked 

No, I am going to tell you what "scripture" I am referring to in regard to the death of David's son.  You should already know it, since it is your "scripture".  But I will give you a hint:

Sam x 2 + 12...   

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out!

Walaikum as-salaam!

Ah, I have not read the books of Samuel in full.  I have read parts.  I haven't read Kings, or Chronicles, in full either.  I have come to an interest in history very late.  It always bored me to death, and sometimes still does.  It has to have relevance to the current world for me to be interested.
At any rate, I have my reading assignment for tonight. Smile
Your sharing with me the scripture is helpful/useful.  Thanks.  I will get to it now.

Peace and blessings,
Caringheart



-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 08 July 2014 at 8:25pm
Greetings islamispeace,

So, it turns out that I have read most of Samuel.  History just isn't my forte, so I simply don't retain much of it without a refresher.
I wonder how much of Samuel have you read.  Have you read about all the conflicts with the Phillistines?
Re-reading about David, his story struck me as oddly similar to Muhammad's story... of taking another man's wife to be his own...
anyway... about the taking of the child...
what is possibly more painful than to lose a child... to lose his own life would not have redeemed David in anyway, but the pain of losing his child brought him to repentance didn't it?  Also, this is the child that was ill conceived to begin with... conceived in adultery...
does anything good come from conceiving a child against God's wishes... look at Hagar and Ishmael, and how they were cast off...

and as a final note;
I believe it is the qur'an that says; 'and allah does what he wills to do'

I don't try to explain history... I simply try to learn the lessons that are in it.  If we do not learn from history then we are doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes... which is what the human race has been doing for thousands of years.

The Biblical stories illustrate how the transgressions of the fathers are visited on the sons for generations...  because sin taints relationships and the fruits of those relationships are corrupted
it was true of the sons of Adam and Eve, when Cain killed his brother Abel
it was true of the favoritism shown by parents that caused a deeper rivalry between the brothers Jacob and Esau,
and then Jacob's later favoritism towards his son Joseph did the same...
I believe it is this, that the stories are meant to illustrate, to teach, and to learn from.

asalaam.

' useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training '  Smile


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 09 July 2014 at 3:32am
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:






Greetings Abu Loren,So, it turns out that I have read most of Samuel.� History just isn't my forte, so I simply don't retain much of it without a refresher.I wonder how much of Samuel have you read.� Have you read about all the conflicts with the Phillistines?Re-reading about David, his story struck me as oddly similar to Muhammad's story... of taking another man's wife to be his own...anyway... about the taking of the child...what is possibly more painful than to lose a child... to lose his own life would not have redeemed David in anyway, but the pain of losing his child brought him to repentance didn't it?� Also, this is the child that was ill conceived to begin with... conceived in adultery...does anything good come from conceiving a child against God's wishes... look at Hagar and Ishmael, and how they were cast off...and as a final note; I believe it is the qur'an that says; 'and allah does what he wills to do'I don't try to explain history... I simply try to learn the lessons that are in it.� If we do not learn from history then we are doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes... which is what the human race has been doing for thousands of years.The Biblical stories illustrate how the transgressions of the fathers are visited on the sons for generations...� because sin taints relationships and the fruits of those relationships are corruptedit was true of the sons of Adam and Eve, when Cain killed his brother Abelit was true of the favoritism shown by parents that caused a deeper rivalry between the brothers Jacob and Esau, and then Jacob's later favoritism towards his son Joseph did the same... I believe it is this, that the stories are meant to illustrate, to teach, and to learn from.asalaam.<span id="en-NIV-29870">' useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training '� [IMG>http://www.islamicity.com/forum/smileys/smiley1.gif" align="absmiddle" alt="Smile" /></span>





And why is this directed to me?

As you have, let me say this. The whole reason you don't know much about your own religion is well you are clueless. I thought that it was imperative for every Christian to know the Old Testament as well the New Testament. Otherwise how will you know what is what?


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 09 July 2014 at 3:36am
Why would anyone believe him?

Surat An-Naşr (The Divine Support)

Sahih International

When the victory of Allah has come and the conquest,
And you see the people entering into the religion of Allah in multitudes,
Then exalt [Him] with praise of your Lord and ask forgiveness of Him. Indeed, He is ever Accepting of repentance.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 09 July 2014 at 11:36am
Greetings islamispeace,

Br. Zainool has shared this video in which it talks about how Muhammad when he made mistakes it was for the purpose of teaching... of learning...
listen from the 29 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQjzErJlpJ0&list=PL9821CA747E7E0674

asalaam,
Caringheart


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 09 July 2014 at 3:55pm
Originally posted by Abu Loren Abu Loren wrote:

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:


Greetings Abu Loren,So, it turns out that I have read most of Samuel.  History just isn't my forte, so I simply don't retain much of it without a refresher.I wonder how much of Samuel have you read.  Have you read about all the conflicts with the Phillistines?Re-reading about David, his story struck me as oddly similar to Muhammad's story... of taking another man's wife to be his own...anyway... about the taking of the child...what is possibly more painful than to lose a child... to lose his own life would not have redeemed David in anyway, but the pain of losing his child brought him to repentance didn't it?  Also, this is the child that was ill conceived to begin with... conceived in adultery...does anything good come from conceiving a child against God's wishes... look at Hagar and Ishmael, and how they were cast off...and as a final note; I believe it is the qur'an that says; 'and allah does what he wills to do'I don't try to explain history... I simply try to learn the lessons that are in it.  If we do not learn from history then we are doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes... which is what the human race has been doing for thousands of years.The Biblical stories illustrate how the transgressions of the fathers are visited on the sons for generations...  because sin taints relationships and the fruits of those relationships are corruptedit was true of the sons of Adam and Eve, when Cain killed his brother Abelit was true of the favoritism shown by parents that caused a deeper rivalry between the brothers Jacob and Esau, and then Jacob's later favoritism towards his son Joseph did the same... I believe it is this, that the stories are meant to illustrate, to teach, and to learn from.asalaam.<span id="en-NIV-29870">' useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training '  [IMG>http://www.islamicity.com/forum/smileys/smiley1.gif" align="absmiddle" alt="Smile" /></span>

And why is this directed to me?

Greetings Abu Loren,

Yes, you are correct, that was meant to be a reply to islamispeace.
I will correct.

asalaam,
Caringheart


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 09 July 2014 at 4:49pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

You still cannot admit that your question was absurd from the start.  It's not my fault that you were not clear and concise in asking your question!

I think "why would anyone believe him?" is fairly concise.  You, on the other hand, seem to need an ever-increasing amount of text to answer a question that you consider "absurd".  Honestly, this is getting out of control.

Quote LOL Well, well, well...Dr. Ron wants to offer a diagnosis?

Of course not.  I'm just pointing out that one can have auditory hallucinations and still be perfectly competent and otherwise rational: "Patients also present with a lack of symptoms commonly found in other mental disorders similar to paraphrenia. There is no significant deterioration of intellect, personality, or habits and patients often remain clean and mostly self-sufficient. Patients also remain oriented well in time and space."

Quote And perhaps you just cannot admit that your crackpot theories don't work.  Perhaps you are afraid of the truth.  Perhaps this and perhaps that.  Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...

Yes, perhaps.  I'm not trying to prove anything.  I'm just pointing out that your "crackpot theory" is equally unproven, and quite a bit less likely a priori (i.e, just considering the statistical frequency of occurrences).

Quote LOL I was referring to his literal miracles such as providing water for his followers when there was none.

But Muhammad was just a man.  He had no power to perform miracles, as the Quran makes clear:
"Those who disbelieve say: If only some portent were sent down upon him from his Lord! Thou art a warner only, and for every folk a guide." (13:7)
So if you're claiming that Muhammad had divine powers, IMHO you are dangerously close to shirk.

Quote Um, I think if you wanted to sell a product, you would take advantage of current trends.  You wouldn't make the product hard to swallow.  If I wanted to come out with an alternative to Coke or Pepsi, I wouldn't make something that tastes awful.  Rather, I would try to offer a similar tasting product, but perhaps for less money.

Yes, "less money" would be one way of differentiating yourself.

Quote Similarly, if Muhammad (peace be upon him) wanted to pretend that he was the recipient of a divine message, he would have kept pagan sensitivities in mind, to make it easier for them to believe him.  He wouldn't have decided to attack their beliefs and criticize their materialism.

You're aware, I assume, that Allah was one of the gods worshipped by the pagans - the chief god in their pantheon, the creator god.  All Muhammad did was to eliminate all the lesser gods, the "partners" to God.

Quote Now use your head, Ron.  Which scenario would have been more advantageous for a supposed impostor:
A.  Accept the lucrative offer from the powerful elites and risk facing the wrath of his poor and defenseless followers,
OR
B.  Reject the lucrative offer from the powerful elites and risk facing their wrath.
Which scenario, do you think, provided the most security for Muhammad (peace be upon him)?  Que the Jeopardy music...

I already answered that.  Clearly B, because his followers were in a better position to kill him -- and more likely to do so, having been instructed by Muhammad himself that "Whoever changes his religion, kill him."  And because being God's Prophet has certain privileges that no one else could offer him, as I said.

Quote No, Ron.  Your absurd theories are not "more plausible".  Just because you don't believe in the supernatural does not make your laughable theories more "plausible".  Your theories, when analyzed with the evidence, are implausible.  I don't understand why you would so easily accept the most nonsensical arguments, unless you simply believe them because you want to believe.  Eh?

What makes my theories more plausible is that we have many, many real-world examples of people confusing dreams or hallucinations with reality, using claims of divine authority for personal ambition, and so on; whereas how many real-world examples of authentic encounters with God or His angels do we have?  Well, only a handful at best, and none that are verifiable.

Besides, even if Muhammad had an authentic supernatural experience, it is at least as likely that he was talking with Satan, or with some false demigod playing a prank.  Why would anyone assume that the message was from God, simply because it said it was from God?

Quote First of all, as usual, you completely ignored my refutation of your suggestion that Muhammad's motive was to gain more wives.  Polygamy was an accepted practice in Arabia and it would make no sense to suggest that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had to claim to be the recipient of a divine revelation in order to gain more wives!  In the same way, if he had wanted concubines, he could have gotten them some other way.  Claiming divine revelation was not needed to acquire concubines.

Do you really think he would have had that many wives if he had remained simply a successful trader?

Quote Second, in his life, he only had at most two concubines (and that is a matter of disagreement).  Some scholars are of the view that Mariyah the Copt became his wife after she gave birth to their son, Ibrahim, who sadly died in infancy.

Does it really change anything if she became his wife after she had his son?  And can a slave who has already been impregnated by her master truly be said to freely consent to marriage?  Anyway, how many successful merchants receive gifts of beautiful slave girls from Egyptian rulers?  That was my point.

Quote As far as whether a "poor man" can "support multiple wives", the fact is that Muhammad's poverty was a point of contention among some of his wives.

Not his poverty, but his parsimony.  They wouldn't have complained if they knew he couldn't afford to treat them better; but as implied by the verses (33:28-29) you quoted, he apparently could afford to set all of them free "in a handsome manner", so he was not poor.

Quote So, if Muhammad (peace be upon him) had decided to forge the revelation to give himself the benefit of having more than 4 wives, and if the motive was purely for sexual benefits, then why did he mostly marry widows and elderly women?  One of his wives, Sawdah (may Allah be pleased with her) was an elderly widow who, as Aslan describes her, was "long past the age of marriage".

Here is a list of the ages of Muhammad (M) and each of his wives (W) at the time they were married, along with the difference (D) in their ages.  The data is obtained from http://quransearchonline.com/Home/Biography.asp - http://quransearchonline.com/Home/Biography.asp .

(M) (W) (D)   Name

25  40? -15?  Khadijah
50  50? 0?    Sawda
54  9   45    Aisha
55  19  36    Hafsa
55  30  25    Zaynab bint Khuzayma
56  27  29    Hind
57  30  27    Zaynab bint Jahsh
57  20  37    Juwairiyah
58  36  22    Ramla
59  17  42    Safiyah
59  26  33    Maymunah


His first wife, Khadijah, is given as fifteen years older than Muhammad, although other authorities say she was only four years older.
Sawdah, whom you mentioned, is given as the same age as Muhammad.  That is extremely unlikely -- it would mean she was 104 at the time of her death in 674.  She must have been at least a few years younger.

Aside from those first two, the average age is about 24.  The average difference in ages between Muhammad and each wife is about 33 years; and the minimum difference is 22 (Ramla).  Except for Khadijah and Sawda, they were all young enough to be his daughters, and in many instances young enough to be his granddaughters.  Widows they may have been, but elderly?  Not hardly.

Quote Moreover, what ignoramuses such as yourself don't realize, which is no surprise, is that a later revelation actually did command Muhammad (peace be upon him) to not anymore women:

"It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things" (Surah Al-Ahzab, 33:52).

Well, he was nearly sixty and had had eleven wives already, plus a number of concubines and female slaves.  One might wonder why he even needed a special revelation in the Quran to tell him the obvious fact that enough was enough.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: fatima
Date Posted: 10 July 2014 at 4:57am
Bismillah irrahman irrahim
Ayah 52 of surah ahzab is revealed regarding a specific matter so no matter which side u r, try not to explain ur views with putting an ayah at the end unless u truely know it.
All of the ummahatul mauminin used to do their own chores and they had food only to have one full meal during each day. So after battle of confederates and then dealing with banu quraidha when other muslims were given wordly facilities, the wives of the Prophet saw asked for these things. This made Sayyidina Muhammad saw upset and he decided to stay away from all of his wives for a month. In this time a rumour went round that maybe Sayyidina Muhammad saw was divorcing his wives ra. But then Sayyidina Muhammad saw put an option infront of all of them, this world or the life with the Prophet saw and they all chose Sayyidina Muhammad saw. Now thats why it has been said that as they chose u then u dont need to divorce them and marry new women.
By the way for people who say its not the word of Allah subhanahu wataala, Sayyidina Muhammad saw was making life quite hard for himself saying only surah ahzab but then again who amongst u has truely read any part of Holy Quran to understand.

-------------
Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 10 July 2014 at 5:36am
Originally posted by fatima fatima wrote:

Bismillah irrahman irrahim
Ayah 52 of surah ahzab is revealed regarding a specific matter so no matter which side u r, try not to explain ur views with putting an ayah at the end unless u truely know it.
All of the ummahatul mauminin used to do their own chores and they had food only to have one full meal during each day. So after battle of confederates and then dealing with banu quraidha when other muslims were given wordly facilities, the wives of the Prophet saw asked for these things. This made Sayyidina Muhammad saw upset and he decided to stay away from all of his wives for a month. In this time a rumour went round that maybe Sayyidina Muhammad saw was divorcing his wives ra. But then Sayyidina Muhammad saw put an option infront of all of them, this world or the life with the Prophet saw and they all chose Sayyidina Muhammad saw. Now thats why it has been said that as they chose u then u dont need to divorce them and marry new women.
By the way for people who say its not the word of Allah subhanahu wataala, Sayyidina Muhammad saw was making life quite hard for himself saying only surah ahzab but then again who amongst u has truely read any part of Holy Quran to understand.
Hence the folly of debating with eediots. Ron Webb has admitted elsewhere that he only read parts of the Qur'an so is it worth debating with a person who has absolutely no knowledge watsoever of Islam or the Qur'an? He gets all of his information from the internet which makes him look like a scholar.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 10 July 2014 at 9:37am
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Greetings islamispeace,

So, it turns out that I have read most of Samuel.  History just isn't my forte, so I simply don't retain much of it without a refresher.
I wonder how much of Samuel have you read.  Have you read about all the conflicts with the Phillistines?
Re-reading about David, his story struck me as oddly similar to Muhammad's story... of taking another man's wife to be his own...
anyway... about the taking of the child...
what is possibly more painful than to lose a child... to lose his own life would not have redeemed David in anyway, but the pain of losing his child brought him to repentance didn't it?  Also, this is the child that was ill conceived to begin with... conceived in adultery...
does anything good come from conceiving a child against God's wishes... look at Hagar and Ishmael, and how they were cast off...

and as a final note;
I believe it is the qur'an that says; 'and allah does what he wills to do'

I don't try to explain history... I simply try to learn the lessons that are in it.  If we do not learn from history then we are doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes... which is what the human race has been doing for thousands of years.

The Biblical stories illustrate how the transgressions of the fathers are visited on the sons for generations...  because sin taints relationships and the fruits of those relationships are corrupted
it was true of the sons of Adam and Eve, when Cain killed his brother Abel
it was true of the favoritism shown by parents that caused a deeper rivalry between the brothers Jacob and Esau,
and then Jacob's later favoritism towards his son Joseph did the same...
I believe it is this, that the stories are meant to illustrate, to teach, and to learn from.

asalaam.

' useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training '  Smile


Why am I not surprised at your response? Ermm

It reeks of special pleading and the typical excuse-making that I have come to expect from Christian apologists. 

First, let us look at your pathetic excuse-making for plain injustice of killing David's son as a punishment of David.  As already mentioned, the law required the death penalty for adultery.  David got a pass on that.  Instead, God decided to kill his son, a clear violation of the law.  So, in this one incident, there were two clear violations of the law!

Second, your ridiculous comment that the child was "ill-conceived to begin with..." just illustrates once more the absurdity of the Bible and the sickening logic of Christian apologists such as yourself.  What had the child done to deserve death?  Even if he was "ill-conceived", that was not his fault, but the fault of his parents.  What makes this story (and your excuse-making) even more egregious is the fact that right after the death of the child, David was allowed to go back to Bathsheba (who was also grieving) and impregnate her again, the result being Solomon.  What had changed?  Did David's "repentance" somehow change the fact that Bathsheba was not his wife to begin with?  Did it change the fact that David had Uriah murdered to get him out of the way?  How was Solomon also not "ill-conceived"? 

Third, your attempted quoting of the Quran is out of place.  You have no business quoting from the Quran.  You don't even know your own "scripture", so what business do you have quoting from the Quran?  The fact is that while Allah (swt) does as He wills, the Quran also states that He is just and fair.  It also states that each person is responsible for his/her own sins and that children are born pure and not "ill-conceived".  This is divine justice.  To hold a child responsible for being "ill-conceived" is absolutely evil, which is why the Biblical story is pure fiction.  It is a vicious lie against Allah and against the noble prophet David (peace be upon him).

Your excuses are pathetic but typical.  Any reasonable person would be shocked and appalled at the severe miscarriage of justice illustrated in the story of David and Bathsheba.  There is nothing in this story that can be used  "for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training".  All it would show is that a king was spared death while anyone else would have been stoned to death and that an innocent child was killed for the sins of his father, a clear violation of Jewish law.  The contradictions and inconsistencies would serve as ample proof to a reasonable mind that the story is pure baloney.

And by the way, David also got a pass in being allowed to have multiple wives and concubines...a "special dispensation" from God, to use your words.  You can close your eyes to these facts all you want, but your hypocrisy is on display for all to see. Shocked


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 10 July 2014 at 11:36am
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

  injustice of killing David's son as a punishment of David.  As already mentioned, the law required the death penalty for adultery.  David got a pass on that.  Instead, God decided to kill his son, a clear violation of the law.  So, in this one incident, there were two clear violations of the law!

Second, your ridiculous comment that the child was "ill-conceived to begin with..." just illustrates once more the absurdity of the Bible and the sickening logic of Christian apologists such as yourself.  What had the child done to deserve death? 


Greetings islamispeace,

Isn't it your qur'an that confirms; 'and allah does what he wills to do'
Are you not familiar with the story of Moses and Pharaoh?  or does Islam have a different telling of the story?
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


Even if he was "ill-conceived", that was not his fault, but the fault of his parents.  What makes this story (and your excuse-making) even more egregious is the fact that right after the death of the child, David was allowed to go back to Bathsheba (who was also grieving) and impregnate her again, the result being Solomon.  What had changed?  Did David's "repentance" somehow change the fact that Bathsheba was not his wife to begin with?  Did it change the fact that David had Uriah murdered to get him out of the way?  How was Solomon also not "ill-conceived"? 


David had made Bathsheba his wife when Solomon was conceived.

24 And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the Lord loved him.

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


Third, your attempted quoting of the Quran is out of place.  You have no business quoting from the Quran.  You don't even know your own "scripture", so what business do you have quoting from the Quran?  The fact is that while Allah (swt) does as He wills, the Quran also states that He is just and fair.  It also states that each person is responsible for his/her own sins

I am simply stating a thing that I have read from qur'an.
Yes, sometimes God of the old testament, and Allah, do seem evil.
Isn't it in your own scriptures that it says; that often the Creator will do a thing that is good for you even though you do not understand or like it?
In the Biblical scriptures Job is rebuked by God Himself saying to him... 'Who are you... Do you have the mind of God, to know and understand all that He does.'
Again what is the story of Moses and Pharaoh?
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


and that children are born pure and not "ill-conceived"


If children are 'born pure and not ill-conceived', then why does the Creator require marriage?
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


 Any reasonable person would be shocked and appalled at the severe miscarriage of justice illustrated in the story of David and Bathsheba. 


I am shocked and appalled at the story of David and Bathsheba, and many other stories of the old testament(which are history, and useful for teaching)... even some of the things in the new testament shock and appall me...
 and I freely admit that I do not understand the mind of God and all that He allows.  I accept that the Creator knows something that I do not... that He is able to look at the whole picture where I see only part...

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

'the Creator does a thing good for you even though you may not like or understand it'

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


There is nothing in this story that can be used  "for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training". 


The lesson is in this:

22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

David was brought to his knees in repentance before God.  He also accepted God's will in the matter... he did not again turn away from God.

asalaam,

Caringheart



-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 10 July 2014 at 7:45pm
Originally posted by Abu Loren Abu Loren wrote:

Hence the folly of debating with eediots. Ron Webb has admitted elsewhere that he only read parts of the Qur'an so is it worth debating with a person who has absolutely no knowledge watsoever of Islam or the Qur'an? He gets all of his information from the internet which makes him look like a scholar.

No, I'm certainly not a Quranic scholar.  I have read parts of the Quran, just as I have read parts of many other scriptures.  I see no reason to study it in any greater detail than the others, unless someone can answer my question in the opening post.  Would you care to explain to me why should I believe that this document, which is so self-serving to Muhammad's own interests, is actually the words of Allah?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 10 July 2014 at 8:25pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

It reeks of special pleading and the typical excuse-making that I have come to expect from Christian apologists.

Oddly, that's exactly what I've been saying about your defence of Islam.  I mean, of all the millions of people throughout history who have claimed to speak on behalf of God, why would you believe Muhammad in particular, while dismissing virtually all the others?  Maybe special pleading is a necessary component of any belief system.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 10 July 2014 at 8:38pm
Originally posted by Abu Loren Abu Loren wrote:

Hence the folly of debating

Greetings Abu Loren,

Why do you view everything as debate?  Why not conversation?
Why do you view everyone as adversary, or opponent?
I agree, there is folly in debate... why not converse and try to be friends?

asalaam,
Caringheart


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 11 July 2014 at 3:32am
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Originally posted by Abu Loren Abu Loren wrote:

Hence the folly of debating

Greetings Abu Loren,

Why do you view everything as debate?  Why not conversation?
Why do you view everyone as adversary, or opponent?
I agree, there is folly in debate... why not converse and try to be friends?

asalaam,
Caringheart


Because a non believing friend will lead a believer away from the truth and then will be a loser. Non believers should be kept at arms length. I mean just look at what you people say about God, Islam and the Prophet (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam).

If I was somebody else then you guys would have been shot already.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 11 July 2014 at 7:48pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I think "why would anyone believe him?" is fairly concise.  You, on the other hand, seem to need an ever-increasing amount of text to answer a question that you consider "absurd".  Honestly, this is getting out of control.


Getting out of control?  Mellow out, Ron.  Don't be a drama queen.

I am merely pointing out that people did and continue to believe in Muhammad (peace be upon him).  Your first reaction to this point was not to say "well, I didn't mean those people".  Rather, you responded by asking a different question ("why" they believed).  Now that you have realized your predicament, you are trying to backtrack and are now claiming that you were pretty "concise".  I heartily disagree, Ron!  LOL

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Of course not.  I'm just pointing out that one can have auditory hallucinations and still be perfectly competent and otherwise rational: "Patients also present with a lack of symptoms commonly found in other mental disorders similar to paraphrenia. There is no significant deterioration of intellect, personality, or habits and patients often remain clean and mostly self-sufficient. Patients also remain oriented well in time and space."


How fitting that you simply pick and choose certain symptoms, while ignoring others.  I already showed why your paraphrenia theory is bogus and does not work.  It is one of your most implausible and laughable crackpot theories. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Yes, perhaps.  I'm not trying to prove anything.  I'm just pointing out that your "crackpot theory" is equally unproven, and quite a bit less likely a priori (i.e, just considering the statistical frequency of occurrences).
 

"Unproven"?  How blind are you?  You have been shown much evidence to show that Muhammad's success cannot be explained by your theories.  You simply cannot acknowledge, that given his situation and if he was an impostor, the probability is extremely low that he would have succeeded and accomplished all that he did.  Your assumption is that there "must" be some "other" explanation, as an alternative to his claim that he was the messenger of God, even if the "other" explanations are utterly ridiculous and illogical.  One would think that since you are trying to offer a simpler explanation (or the more "likely" explanation), you would be able to prove it using simple evidence.  But all you can provide is a whole lot of speculation ("maybe", "perhaps" etc.).

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

But Muhammad was just a man.  He had no power to perform miracles, as the Quran makes clear:
"Those who disbelieve say: If only some portent were sent down upon him from his Lord! Thou art a warner only, and for every folk a guide." (13:7)
So if you're claiming that Muhammad had divine powers, IMHO you are dangerously close to shirk.


LOL Oh, I love it when ignoramuses try to the quote the Quran in a pathetic attempt to teach Muslims what their holy book says.  It just makes them look foolish.

First of all, I never said that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had "divine powers", so don't lecture me about committing "shirk".  As any Muslim knows, the prophets were allowed to perform miracles by Allah's permission.  They had no powers themselves.  It was Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) who performed those miracles.  This is clearly stated in the Quran (which you obviously have not read and have no business quoting) in the example of Jesus (peace be upon him):

"And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe" (Surah Al-Imran, 3:49).

Second, just because Muhammad (peace be upon him) is referred to as a "warner" does not mean that he could not perform miracles.  Other prophets are referred to as warners as well, and we know that they performed miracles.  An example is Moses (peace be upon him), who was sent to the Pharaoh:

"
To the People of Pharaoh, too, aforetime, came Warners (from Allah).  The (people) rejected all Our Signs; but We seized them with such Penalty (as comes) from One Exalted in Power, able to carry out His Will" (Surah Al-Qamar, 54:41-42).

The "signs" referred to here are the various miracles and plagues that the Egyptians witnessed.

Third, the Quran does indeed refer to Muhammad's miracles as well, and how the unbelievers still refused to believe in him.  They called him a "sorcerer".  Why would they call him a "sorcerer" if they not witnessed certain phenomena that they could not explain?

"
So they wonder that a Warner has come to them from among themselves! and the Unbelievers say, "This is a sorcerer telling lies!" (Surah Saad, 38:4)

The Quran also refers to the miracle of the splitting of the moon, which was shown to the unbelievers at their request, and yet they still refused to believe and dismissed it as "magic":

"
The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder.  But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic."" (Surah Al-Qamar, 54:1-2)

So as we can see, you have no idea what you are talking about.  Do yourself a favor and don't quote from the Quran or Hadiths to lecture Muslims.  You make a fool of yourself in doing so.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Yes, "less money" would be one way of differentiating yourself.


Yet the product would be the same.  It wouldn't have made sense for Muhammad (peace be upon him) to use religion to appeal to his people in order to gain their favor, and then criticize their religion.  As you well know, religion is a touchy subject and people tend to get riled up quite easily.  So, it would not have made sense to attack the pagan religion and then expect the pagans to give him wealth and power.  Instead, it would be expected that they would react angrily and with violence, which they did. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

You're aware, I assume, that Allah was one of the gods worshipped by the pagans - the chief god in their pantheon, the creator god.  All Muhammad did was to eliminate all the lesser gods, the "partners" to God.
 

First of all, Allah was the title which all Arabs, whether pagans, Jews or Christians, used to refer to the supreme God.  The only difference was that the pagans believe in other gods as well, the "lesser gods" you referred to. 

Second, Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) attempt to eliminate the "lesser gods" was definitely a big deal!  That's the whole point!  People did not want to be told that their "gods" were false.  For you to try to make this seem as if it was not a big deal just goes to show how disingenuous and dishonest you really are.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I already answered that.  Clearly B, because his followers were in a better position to kill him -- and more likely to do so, having been instructed by Muhammad himself that "Whoever changes his religion, kill him."  And because being God's Prophet has certain privileges that no one else could offer him, as I said.


LOL How confused are you?  In reality, scenario B was clearly the least obvious choice to make.  Rejecting the offer would have meant bringing the wrath of the powerful elites upon Muhammad (peace be upon him).  Whatever alleged danger there would have been in angering his poor and defenseless followers would have been trumped by the overwhelming danger of angering the powerful elites.  Use your common sense, Ron!

And by the way, you continue to expose your ignorance of Islam and making a fool of yourself.  The command to kill apostates was not made while the Prophet was in Mecca.  It was made while he was in Medina and was fighting for the survival of his community.  Apostates would be a dangerous foe since they would obviously switch sides and join the pagans who were on a mission to eliminate Islam through brutal violence.  Even if he had issued the command to kill apostates while he was in Mecca, he wouldn't have had the power to enforce that command as the Muslims were outnumbered and were bearing immense persecution at that time.  It would have been easy for any apostate to be protected by the pagans.  In contrast, since many of Muhammad's followers were poor people with no protection, they were vulnerable to persecution and would not have been in any position to pose a danger to Muhammad (peace be upon him) had he betrayed them and accepted the pagans' offer.  Moreover, after having gained the pagans' favor, he could rely on their protection.  There would have been nothing his followers could have done in that scenario. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

What makes my theories more plausible is that we have many, many real-world examples of people confusing dreams or hallucinations with reality, using claims of divine authority for personal ambition, and so on; whereas how many real-world examples of authentic encounters with God or His angels do we have?  Well, only a handful at best, and none that are verifiable.


Your theories have already been considered and found to be severly lacking in proof and common sense.  Therefore, your argument that they somehow are "plausible" just because there may be "real-world examples of people confusing dreams..." and so on, is simply ridiculous.  There may indeed be many of the "real-world examples" that you refer to.  But the fact is that this does not make your theories more plausible.  The reason is that when stacked up against the evidence, your theories cannot stand. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Besides, even if Muhammad had an authentic supernatural experience, it is at least as likely that he was talking with Satan, or with some false demigod playing a prank.  Why would anyone assume that the message was from God, simply because it said it was from God?


LOL Well, for one thing, I wouldn't expect Satan or a mischievous "false demigod" to tell Muhammad (peace be upon him) that there is only one true God and that all "gods" are false.  If anything, Satan would have tried to make him believe that one of the pagan gods had chosen him.  He would exploit the predominant pagan beliefs. 

Second, I wouldn't expect Satan to tell him to preach social justice, the feeding of the poor, respecting parents, being kind to orphans, and banning female infanticide and cruelty to animals etc.  Instead, I would expect Satan to try to maintain, if not strengthen, the status quo which was essentially the rich dominating the poor (a phenomenon which is still worldwide problem).

Third, I doubt that Satan would have hung on with Muhammad (peace be upon him) throughout his entire struggle (23 years), sticking with him through the most dire circumstances, instead of simply abandoning him to his enemies.  A "prankster" would be even less likely to do so.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Do you really think he would have had that many wives if he had remained simply a successful trader?


LOL Why not?  As I said, polygamy was a common occurrence and it was an accepted practice.  Not only that, but there was no limit as to how many wives one could have.   A successful trader would have more reason to have more wives since he could afford it. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Does it really change anything if she became his wife after she had his son?  And can a slave who has already been impregnated by her master truly be said to freely consent to marriage?  Anyway, how many successful merchants receive gifts of beautiful slave girls from Egyptian rulers?  That was my point.
 

It does change everything because you had claimed that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had more wealth at the time of his death than just a mule, some swords and a plot of land.  Now that you have been refuted, you changed your argument again.  What a fickle individual you are!

As for your other "point", it is irrelevant because, as I said, Arab society at that time fully accepted polygamy and concubinage.  A person did not need to invent a religion in order to get more wives or concubines.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Not his poverty, but his parsimony.  They wouldn't have complained if they knew he couldn't afford to treat them better; but as implied by the verses (33:28-29) you quoted, he apparently could afford to set all of them free "in a handsome manner", so he was not poor.


You are so full of crap, its not even funny!  You make up "facts" and then convince yourself, using your own authority, of their accuracy.

As sister Fatima stated in her post, Muhammad's wives had seen that other Muslims had begun to prosper, while the Prophet himself lived a simple life.  They wanted to get some of the wealth that his followers had acquired for themselves, so they asked him.  That is when the verse was revealed.  It proves two things:

1.  Muhammad lived a life of self-imposed poverty, contrary to your *****ic assertion, and,

2.  He offered to divorce his wives so that they could acquire the material benefits that they wanted. 

The reference to "a handsome manner" refers to divorcing them so that they could be given a share in the spoils that his followers were enjoying, but not himself.  As Maulana Muhammad Ali states:

"Thus they were offered two alternatives.  They might either have world finery, or remain in the Prophet's household.  Should they decide to have the former, they would have plenty of what they wanted, but would forthwith forfeit the honour of being the Prophet's wives."

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

ere is a list of the ages of Muhammad (M) and each of his wives (W) at the time they were married, along with the difference (D) in their ages.  The data is obtained from http://quransearchonline.com/Home/Biography.asp - http://quransearchonline.com/Home/Biography.asp .

(M) (W) (D)   Name

25  40? -15?  Khadijah
50  50? 0?    Sawda
54  9   45    Aisha
55  19  36    Hafsa
55  30  25    Zaynab bint Khuzayma
56  27  29    Hind
57  30  27    Zaynab bint Jahsh
57  20  37    Juwairiyah
58  36  22    Ramla
59  17  42    Safiyah
59  26  33    Maymunah


His first wife, Khadijah, is given as fifteen years older than Muhammad, although other authorities say she was only four years older.
Sawdah, whom you mentioned, is given as the same age as Muhammad.  That is extremely unlikely -- it would mean she was 104 at the time of her death in 674.  She must have been at least a few years younger.

Aside from those first two, the average age is about 24.  The average difference in ages between Muhammad and each wife is about 33 years; and the minimum difference is 22 (Ramla).  Except for Khadijah and Sawda, they were all young enough to be his daughters, and in many instances young enough to be his granddaughters.  Widows they may have been, but elderly?  Not hardly.


True, most were not elderly, but some were.  Why would a man whose motive was sex have married an elderly woman? 

Also, one would think that a man whose main motive was sex would not marry widows but instead virgins.  And as I pointed out already, most of his marriages had political implications for the purpose of forging alliances.   
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Well, he was nearly sixty and had had eleven wives already, plus a number of concubines and female slaves.  One might wonder why he even needed a special revelation in the Quran to tell him the obvious fact that enough was enough.


LOL You must be joking!  You come up with absurd theories, get refuted, and then change your argument to some other insane theory.  Wouldn't it be easier just to admit that you are mistaken?  There would be some dignity in that, don't you think?  Wink

The fact is that you have been making accusations and then failing to back them up.  You have shown your ignorance about Islam and about the Prophet's life.  All of this makes your mindless theorizing a joke.  First you claimed that Muhammad gave himself a pass on how many wives he could marry, not realizing that in fact, a verse was revealed which commanded him to not marry anymore wives.  When you realized your st**idity and ignorance, you simply continued to shamelessly try to satisfy your ego by just making up yet another laughable theory, instead of admitting that you were mistaken.  Why is it that every one of your accusations simply does not stand the weight of scrutiny? 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 July 2014 at 11:19am
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Isn't it your qur'an that confirms; 'and allah does what he wills to do'
Are you not familiar with the story of Moses and Pharaoh?  or does Islam have a different telling of the story?


Do you not know how to read?  Yes, it is "my" Quran, so what business do you have quoting it since you have idea what it actually says?  You don't even know "your" own scripture!

As I said, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) does what He wills BUT He does not kill children as a punishment for their parents' sins.  He punishes each person for his or her own sins. 

The Quranic story of the Exodus has some differences with the Bible.  You would know that if you had actually read the Quran.  The Quran does mention the various plagues which afflicted the Egyptians (floods, locusts, frogs, blood etc.), but it makes no mention of the final plague (the death of the first born son), which is what I assume you were referring to. 

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

David had made Bathsheba his wife when Solomon was conceived.

24 And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the Lord loved him.



Yeah, I know that they were "married", but the question still stands.  What had changed?  Bathsheba was not David's legal wife!  Since when are adulterers allowed to marry each other and have more children?  How did their "marriage" change the fact that David had murdered Uriah to get Bathsheba? 

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

I am simply stating a thing that I have read from qur'an.


Well, do us all a favor and don't "simply state a thing" when you have no idea what you are talking about.  You have no business quoting the Quran.  You don't even know your own scripture! LOL

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Yes, sometimes God of the old testament, and Allah, do seem evil.
Isn't it in your own scriptures that it says; that often the Creator will do a thing that is good for you even though you do not understand or like it?
In the Biblical scriptures Job is rebuked by God Himself saying to him... 'Who are you... Do you have the mind of God, to know and understand all that He does.'
Again what is the story of Moses and Pharaoh?


You still don't get it, do you?  You are an ignorant person when it comes to what the Quran says, so stop trying to save face by changing the subject.  So far, you have failed to offer a reasonable explanation for the absurd Biblical story of David and Bathsheba. 

Don't conflate the absurdities in your books with the Quran.  There is no comparison!  Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) does none of the things that your books claim God did.  He does not punish children for the sins of their fathers.  He does not give kings a pass when it comes to the law.  He holds all people responsible for their own deeds.  All praise is due to Him!

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

If children are 'born pure and not ill-conceived', then why does the Creator require marriage?
  

Confused Huh?  What does one have to do with the other?  Marriage is a prerequisite for a man and woman to procreate.  Having intercourse outside of marriage is forbidden.  Procreation is necessary for the continuation of life.  All life is maintained through procreation.  That has nothing to do with the fact that children are born pure. 

Why do I get the feeling that you are trying to refer to the nonsense of "original sin"? LOL 

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

I am shocked and appalled at the story of David and Bathsheba, and many other stories of the old testament(which are history, and useful for teaching)... even some of the things in the new testament shock and appall me...
 and I freely admit that I do not understand the mind of God and all that He allows.  I accept that the Creator knows something that I do not... that He is able to look at the whole picture where I see only part...

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

'the Creator does a thing good for you even though you may not like or understand it'



Yet a reasonable person would also come to the logical conclusion that the story cannot be true, given its contradictions, inconsistencies and flat-out absurdities.  Therefore, no reasonable person would think that God actually did those things, because God is just and fair.  Period.  Anyone who believes this story believes a lie against God, as well as a lie against the noble Prophet David (peace be upon him).

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

The lesson is in this:

22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

David was brought to his knees in repentance before God.  He also accepted God's will in the matter... he did not again turn away from God.

    

LOL No, no, no.  The lesson is this:

All adulterers are to die...unless you are a king.

God does not punish the sons for the sins of their fathers...unless the father is a king who committed adultery, in which case, the son is killed to punish the father. 

Kings must not take many wives...unless you are David and Solomon, who were allowed not just "many" wives, but hundreds.

The Moral of the Story: If you are king, the law does not apply to you in all cases. 

I see you continue to avoid discussing the fact that David and Solomon got a "special dispensation" by being allowed to have many wives, in direct contradiction to Deuteronomy.  Avoiding the truth does not make the truth disappear!


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 July 2014 at 11:24am
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

It reeks of special pleading and the typical excuse-making that I have come to expect from Christian apologists.

Oddly, that's exactly what I've been saying about your defence of Islam.  I mean, of all the millions of people throughout history who have claimed to speak on behalf of God, why would you believe Muhammad in particular, while dismissing virtually all the others?  Maybe special pleading is a necessary component of any belief system.


Or maybe special pleading is a necessary component of mindless atheists who have no way of explaining the success of Muhammad (peace be upon him), and who instead resort to *****ic theories with no logical basis in order to satisfy their egos! Big%20smile

Atheism is a religion in itself and atheists can be just as smart (or dumb, as this thread illustrates Wink) as any religious person.  Atheists think that as long there may be another explanation, no matter how nonsensical or unlikely, that is sufficient to deny the main explanation.  So far, in this thread, we have seen you jump from one theory to another, in a vain effort to question Muhammad's claims.  Yet, the evidence falsifies all of these theories, regardless of your...special pleading.  Clap 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 July 2014 at 11:27am
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Originally posted by Abu Loren Abu Loren wrote:

Hence the folly of debating with eediots. Ron Webb has admitted elsewhere that he only read parts of the Qur'an so is it worth debating with a person who has absolutely no knowledge watsoever of Islam or the Qur'an? He gets all of his information from the internet which makes him look like a scholar.

No, I'm certainly not a Quranic scholar.  I have read parts of the Quran, just as I have read parts of many other scriptures.  I see no reason to study it in any greater detail than the others, unless someone can answer my question in the opening post.  Would you care to explain to me why should I believe that this document, which is so self-serving to Muhammad's own interests, is actually the words of Allah?


Wait, you are NOT a Quranic scholar?  I am shocked!  Shocked

But seriously, non-Quranic scholar, your question has been answered already.  You just don't want to admit it because...maybe/perhaps you are afraid of the truth!  And guess what...no one cares if you don't believe and would rather live in your own world where crackpot theories with no logical basis suffice as alternative explanations!


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 12 July 2014 at 1:25pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Isn't it your qur'an that confirms; 'and allah does what he wills to do'
Are you not familiar with the story of Moses and Pharaoh?  or does Islam have a different telling of the story?

Yes, it is "my" Quran, so what business do you have quoting it since you have idea what it actually says?

Interesting comment.  Have I not seen you making use of the Biblical scriptures during discussion?  Have you read all the Biblical scriptures?

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


The Quran does mention the various plagues which afflicted the Egyptians (floods, locusts, frogs, blood etc.), but it makes no mention of the final plague (the death of the first born son), which is what I assume you were referring to. 

What explanation does Islam give for Pharaoh finally letting the Hebrews go?

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

David had made Bathsheba his wife when Solomon was conceived.

24 And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the Lord loved him.


Yeah, I know that they were "married", but the question still stands.  What had changed?  Bathsheba was not David's legal wife!  Since when are adulterers allowed to marry each other and have more children?  How did their "marriage" change the fact that David had murdered Uriah to get Bathsheba? 

How was Bathsheba not his legal wife?  Didn't Muhammad allow taking of captives to make them slaves... and the taking of slaves to make them wives?
and didn't Muhammad also take another man's wife for his own?  Wasn't it his nephew's wife that he took for his own?

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Yes, sometimes God of the old testament, and Allah, do seem evil.
Isn't it in your own scriptures that it says; that often the Creator will do a thing that is good for you even though you do not understand or like it?
In the Biblical scriptures Job is rebuked by God Himself saying to him... 'Who are you... Do you have the mind of God, to know and understand all that He does.'
Again what is the story of Moses and Pharaoh?

So far, you have failed to offer a reasonable explanation for the absurd Biblical story of David and Bathsheba. 

It's not a story... it is history... and history is replete with bad behavior and sinful transgressions.  The Biblical scriptures do not try to polish it up and make it a fable.
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

If children are 'born pure and not ill-conceived', then why does the Creator require marriage?
  

Confused Huh?  What does one have to do with the other?  Marriage is a prerequisite for a man and woman to procreate.  Having intercourse outside of marriage is forbidden.  Procreation is necessary for the continuation of life.  All life is maintained through procreation.  That has nothing to do with the fact that children are born pure. 
 
Why does the Creator make marriage a 'prerequisite for procreation'?

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

I am shocked and appalled at the story of David and Bathsheba, and many other stories of the old testament(which are history, and useful for teaching)... even some of the things in the new testament shock and appall me...
 and I freely admit that I do not understand the mind of God and all that He allows.  I accept that the Creator knows something that I do not... that He is able to look at the whole picture where I see only part...

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

'the Creator does a thing good for you even though you may not like or understand it'


Yet a reasonable person would also come to the logical conclusion that the story cannot be true, given its contradictions, inconsistencies and flat-out absurdities. 

Here are my refutations;
http://livingontheedge.org/broadcasts/player?bid=5f7a6747-3a8a-4276-a839-2217392650b1#.U8GYYrEuPms

specifically, listen from the 12 minute mark.

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


I see you continue to avoid discussing the fact that David and Solomon got a "special dispensation" by being allowed to have many wives, in direct contradiction to Deuteronomy.  Avoiding the truth does not make the truth disappear!

Greetings islamispeace,

I have not avoided discussion.  I have said;
"I am shocked and appalled at the story of David and Bathsheba, and many other stories of the old testament(which are history, and useful for teaching)... even some of the things in the new testament shock and appall me...
 and I freely admit that I do not understand the mind of God and all that He allows.  I accept that the Creator knows something that I do not... that He is able to look at the whole picture where I see only part...

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

'the Creator does a thing good for you even though you may not like or understand it'  "

asalaam,
Caringheart


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 12 July 2014 at 1:34pm
I just have to ask... does the Creator, in anyone's mind, approve of mockery as a means of communication?
Does this build understanding?
If one makes use of mockery can they really belong to the Creator?
asalaam.


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 July 2014 at 1:53pm
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Interesting comment.  Have I not seen you making use of the Biblical scriptures during discussion?  Have you read all the Biblical scriptures?


No, I have not read "all" the Biblical "scriptures", but I have certainly read more than you, as we have already seen.  LOL

I make use of the the Bible to show arrogant Christians that they are living in a glass house when they attack Islam or the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).  I also use it to show Christians how ignorant they are of their own "scripture" let alone of the Quran.  You have illustrated this point very clearly.

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

What explanation does Islam give for Pharaoh finally letting the Hebrews go?


Obviously, the plagues became increasingly difficult to deal with and as time went on, the Egyptians couldn't take it anymore.  However, the Pharaoh still remained stubborn and refused to let the Israelites go.  So, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) commanded Moses (peace be upon him) to take the Israelites by night and leave Egypt.  When the Pharaoh found out, he pursued them, only to be drowned. 

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

How was Bathsheba not his legal wife?  Didn't Muhammad allow taking of captives to make them slaves... and the taking of slaves to make them wives?
and didn't Muhammad also take another man's wife for his own?  Wasn't it his nephew's wife that he took for his own?


LOL It's amazing how you didn't answer my questions (how typical) and then tried to change the subject again to deflect attention from your predicament.

As I said, Bathsheba was not David's legal wife.  He had killed her husband and committed adultery with her.  I ask again:

Since when were adulterers allowed to marry each other?  Did not the law require stoning to death for the crime of adultery?

Your pathetic attempts to change the subject whenever you cannot answer a question demonstrates your deluded you are. 

By the way, Zayd (may Allah be pleased with him) had divorced Zaynab (may Allah be pleased with her).  They were not happily married.  It was only after Zayd divorced Zaynab that the Prophet married her.  Therefore, she was his legal wife.  That is what the Quran states.  Like I said, you have no business quoting from the Quran because you are comically ignorant of it!

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

It's not a story... it is history... and history is replete with bad behavior and sinful transgressions.  The Biblical scriptures to not try to polish it up and make it a fable.


It is a fable because it is full of contradictions and inconsistencies.  Just because you are too deluded to see that does not change the facts.  Interestingly, this story is not found in the other version of David's life: Chronicles. 

It is a fable which claims that God unjustly enforces the law on some but not others.  It claims that a king got several passes, whereas anyone else would not have been so lucky.  It claims that God killed a child for the sins of his father, whereas elsewhere, God had stated that the sons will not be killed for the sins of their fathers. 

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Why does the Creator make marriage a 'prerequisite for procreation'?
 

Isn't it obvious?  Fornication and adultery result in broken homes and illegitimate children (or in the case of the David and Bathsheba story, a dead child).  Unless one has a legal right, one cannot have sexual intercourse. 

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Here are my refutations;
http://livingontheedge.org/broadcasts/player?bid=5f7a6747-3a8a-4276-a839-2217392650b1#.U8GYYrEuPms


LOL Really?  These are your "refutations"?  Why can't you answer simple questions without forwarding me to some link?  I could care less why you believe in the Bible.  I want to know how you explain the contradictions and inconsistencies in it.  How do you explain what I pointed out before, regarding the "lesson" of the David/Bathsheba story:

All adulterers are to die...unless you are a king.

God does not punish the sons for the sins of their fathers...unless the father is a king who committed adultery, in which case, the son is killed to punish the father. 

Kings must not take many wives...unless you are David and Solomon, who were allowed not just "many" wives, but hundreds.

The Moral of the Story: If you are king, the law does not apply to you in all cases. 


Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

I have not avoided discussion.  I have said;
"I am shocked and appalled at the story of David and Bathsheba, and many other stories of the old testament(which are history, and useful for teaching)... even some of the things in the new testament shock and appall me...
 and I freely admit that I do not understand the mind of God and all that He allows.  I accept that the Creator knows something that I do not... that He is able to look at the whole picture where I see only part...

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

'the Creator does a thing good for you even though you may not like or understand it'  "
    

So in other words, you refuse to offer any kind of reasonable explanation.  You simply wash your hands (like Pilate in the fictional trial of Jesus) and close your eyes to logic and reason.  Thank you for admitting it!

In any case, I am satisfied in that I have exposed your ignorance of Islam (and of the Bible) and hypocrisy in your laughable attacks on Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).  Take a lesson from this experience.  Your ignorance and hypocrisy will not go unnoticed and you will be exposed, inshaAllah! Ouch


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 July 2014 at 1:58pm
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

I just have to ask... does the Creator, in anyone's mind, approve of mockery as a means of communication?
Does this build understanding?
If one makes use of mockery can they really belong to the Creator?
asalaam.


This is the last resort of someone who has no response to make and so tries to go off on tangents.  If you cannot take the "mockery", then just stay out of the conversation!  Simple! Big%20smile

Anyway, you have brought this on yourself with the lies you spread, so just accept it.  I have no qualms against putting arrogant Christians in their place.  I am defending Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) from your vitriol and lies.  I could care less if you don't like how I do it.  You deserve nothing but mockery.  If you weren't a biased, arrogant missionary, it would be different.  If you were here to genuinely learn about Islam and clear up your prejudices, it would be different.          


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 12 July 2014 at 2:35pm
Greetings islamispeace,

It's not about me...
it's about you and who you reveal you belong to...

'you will know them by their fruits' - the words of Yshwe

Why would anyone take your words seriously when you reveal who you truly belong to?

asalaam,
Caringheart


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 July 2014 at 2:56pm
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Greetings islamispeace,

It's not about me...
it's about you and who you reveal you belong to...

'you will know them by their fruits' - the words of Yshwe

Why would anyone take your words seriously when you reveal who you truly belong to?

asalaam,
Caringheart


LOL Oh, no, no.  It is about you.  You reveal your arrogance, ignorance and hypocrisy and when confronted, you avoid the awful truth.  These are your bitter "fruits"!  So, by your fruits I know you, Caringheart.  You reveal the bitter fruits of hypocrisy and ignorance within yourself.  Your continued attempts to avoid answering difficult questions (and frantic attempts to change the subject) will not change anything. 

Do you think I care what you or anyone else thinks about me?  Not at all!  I care about facts and the facts on this thread are clear for everyone to see.  Personal opinions don't matter.   


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 July 2014 at 3:15pm
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Here are my refutations;
http://livingontheedge.org/broadcasts/player?bid=5f7a6747-3a8a-4276-a839-2217392650b1#.U8GYYrEuPms

specifically, listen from the 12 minute mark.


I listened to that guy and found his argument to be one of special pleading.  He claims that the people who wrote the Old Testament would have avoided including the stories of their "heroes" David, Moses and Solomon, since they describe the many alleged evil things they did.  He then concludes that since these stories were included, that somehow means they are genuine and that the Old Testament is indeed the word of God.  Talk about a non-sequitur!  Of course, he ignores the fact that many of the evil deeds of the Biblical "heroes" were sanctioned by God.  For example, the immense violence perpetrated by the Biblical Moses was based on God's command to wipe out the indigenous population.  This wasn't Moses' doing.  The Bible claims that God commanded it. 

And with regard to the story of David and Bathsheba, he conveniently ignores that it is not mentioned in Chronicles, the other Old Testament source about David's life.  Why was it omitted by the author of Chronicles?

He also claimed that despite the 1500 year "publishing" project and over 40 authors, the result was a "cohesive" book.  Anyone who has read the Bible knows that it is anything but "cohesive".  A "cohesive" book does not contradict itself in multiple places.  It does not have different accounts of the same event.

My conclusion is that the guy in the recording is just another apologist who makes excuses and resorts to special pleading.  Not very convincing at all...      


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 13 July 2014 at 2:48pm
 
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I think "why would anyone believe him?" is fairly concise.  You, on the other hand, seem to need an ever-increasing amount of text to answer a question that you consider "absurd".  Honestly, this is getting out of control.

Getting out of control?  Mellow out, Ron.  Don't be a drama queen.

Here are the word counts for our exchanges so far:

Posted date          me    you
June 29 at 9:52am    50    
June 29 at 1:40pm        239
July 01 at 9:05am    220    
July 01 at 6:15pm        703
July 04 at 4:39pm    999    
July 05 at 2:08pm        1742
July 06 at 5:35pm    1071    
July 07 at 7:17pm        2036
July 09 at 6:49pm    1412    
July 11 at 9:48pm        2865


Your responses are about twice as long as what you are responding to.  Mine are almost always shorter.  If I adopted your style, we would very soon be writing volumes to each other.  I don't know about you, but I don't have time to read that much, let alone write it.

Quote I am merely pointing out that people did and continue to believe in Muhammad (peace be upon him).  Your first reaction to this point was not to say "well, I didn't mean those people".  Rather, you responded by asking a different question ("why" they believed).

How is it a different question?  The word "why" is right there, in the title of the discussion as well as opening post!  

Quote How fitting that you simply pick and choose certain symptoms, while ignoring others.

What other symptoms?  The only defining symptom of paraphrenia is auditory hallucinations.  Other symptoms may or may not be present.

Quote "Unproven"?  How blind are you?  You have been shown much evidence to show that Muhammad's success cannot be explained by your theories.

Evidence against my theories is not evidence in favour of yours.

Quote You simply cannot acknowledge, that given his situation and if he was an impostor, the probability is extremely low that he would have succeeded and accomplished all that he did.

No, I don't acknowledge that.  Lots of impostors are successful.

Quote Your assumption is that there "must" be some "other" explanation, as an alternative to his claim that he was the messenger of God, even if the "other" explanations are utterly ridiculous and illogical.  One would think that since you are trying to offer a simpler explanation (or the more "likely" explanation), you would be able to prove it using simple evidence.  But all you can provide is a whole lot of speculation ("maybe", "perhaps" etc.).

Again, I'm not trying to prove anything.  At this point, 1400 years later and based solely on anecdotal information filtered through fanatical believers, there is no hope in getting to the real story.  I'm just pointing out that the God Hypothesis is equally speculative, and a priori quite a bit less likely.

Quote First of all, I never said that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had "divine powers", so don't lecture me about committing "shirk".  As any Muslim knows, the prophets were allowed to perform miracles by Allah's permission.  They had no powers themselves.

Other prophets (allegedly) performed miracles.  Muhammad never claimed to, and the Quran (as I quoted) confirms that he was a warner only.

Quote Third, the Quran does indeed refer to Muhammad's miracles as well, and how the unbelievers still refused to believe in him.  They called him a "sorcerer".  Why would they call him a "sorcerer" if they not witnessed certain phenomena that they could not explain?

According to the http://quran.al-islam.org/query.php?t_ali=on&sura=21&SavedSura=1&fromaya=3&toaya=3&searchtext= - Pooya commentary to 21:3 , they thought he used sorcery to make people believe.  IMHO it's more likely they just used "sorcerer" as a generalized term for heretic.  Or perhaps they said no such thing; it may be just a straw man created by Muhammad.

Quote The Quran also refers to the miracle of the splitting of the moon, which was shown to the unbelievers at their request, and yet they still refused to believe and dismissed it as "magic":

"The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder.  But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic."" (Surah Al-Qamar, 54:1-2)

If you believe that this refers to an event that had already happened, then you must also believe that the Hour of Judgement was "nigh" 1400 years ago.  No, the splitting of the moon is a prophecy of an event yet to come, a sign that will herald the Hour of Judgment.

Quote Yet the product would be the same.  It wouldn't have made sense for Muhammad (peace be upon him) to use religion to appeal to his people in order to gain their favor, and then criticize their religion.

Of course it makes sense.  Every new religion starts that way.

Quote LOL How confused are you?  In reality, scenario B was clearly the least obvious choice to make.  Rejecting the offer would have meant bringing the wrath of the powerful elites upon Muhammad (peace be upon him).  Whatever alleged danger there would have been in angering his poor and defenseless followers would have been trumped by the overwhelming danger of angering the powerful elites.  Use your common sense, Ron!

My common sense tells me that the elites were already angry with him so he had nothing to lose in that regard.  My common sense tells me that he had more to fear from his friends and family who slept by his side, shared his table at dinner, etc.

Quote Moreover, after having gained the pagans' favor, he could rely on their protection.  There would have been nothing his followers could have done in that scenario.

So abandon his friends and family and accept protective custody with strangers?  That's your preferred scenario?

Quote LOL Well, for one thing, I wouldn't expect Satan or a mischievous "false demigod" to tell Muhammad (peace be upon him) that there is only one true God and that all "gods" are false.  If anything, Satan would have tried to make him believe that one of the pagan gods had chosen him.  He would exploit the predominant pagan beliefs.

But he did exploit the predominant pagan beliefs.  Did I mention that "Allah" was one of the pagan gods?  As for declaring that all the other gods are false, why wouldn't he?  He's a liar.  He can say anything he wants.  To pretend to be Allah, the only god, would make him more powerful than saying he is just one of many.

Quote Second, I wouldn't expect Satan to tell him to preach social justice, the feeding of the poor, respecting parents, being kind to orphans, and banning female infanticide and cruelty to animals etc.  Instead, I would expect Satan to try to maintain, if not strengthen, the status quo which was essentially the rich dominating the poor (a phenomenon which is still worldwide problem).

I would expect exactly that.  The best lies are wrapped in half-truths.  Of course he would say all the right things about justice and mercy and all that, to lull you into complacency.  Then he'd add just enough twists to cause mischief, inspire hatred of other groups, promote the likes of Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc.  

In fact, if I were such a mischievous spirit, I'd twist Islam one way, Christianity another, Hinduism another, and so on.  Then I'd be endlessly entertained as I watched them slaughter each other to prove which of them had the one true religion.  Just like they've been doing for the last few millennia, eh?

Quote Third, I doubt that Satan would have hung on with Muhammad (peace be upon him) throughout his entire struggle (23 years), sticking with him through the most dire circumstances, instead of simply abandoning him to his enemies.  A "prankster" would be even less likely to do so.

It's not about Muhammad.  It's about the billions of Muslims and non-Muslims whose lives have been screwed up by religion.  I'd say that's worth a few decades of effort.

Quote It does change everything because you had claimed that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had more wealth at the time of his death than just a mule, some swords and a plot of land.  Now that you have been refuted, you changed your argument again.  What a fickle individual you are!

Refuted?  He did own slaves at the time of his death, right?  So that alone refutes your claim of "mule, swords and some land".  And I think we can assume that all those wives lived in houses, with furniture and clothing and pots to cook in, etc.

Quote As for your other "point", it is irrelevant because, as I said, Arab society at that time fully accepted polygamy and concubinage.  A person did not need to invent a religion in order to get more wives or concubines.

He needed a special dispensation from God to justify more than four wives.  Sure, the pagans also practiced polygamy, but eleven?  Plus concubines and slaves, plus numerous annulments and broken engagements?  I think any culture, pagan or not, would find that excessive.

Quote 1.  Muhammad lived a life of self-imposed poverty, contrary to your *****ic assertion, and,

Let me be clear.  I agree that Muhammad was not interested in material possessions.  He cared about power, and he cared about women.  As a Prophet he got both, far more than he could have had as a successful trader.

Quote 2.  He offered to divorce his wives so that they could acquire the material benefits that they wanted.

The reference to "a handsome manner" refers to divorcing them so that they could be given a share in the spoils that his followers were enjoying, but not himself.  As Maulana Muhammad Ali states:

"Thus they were offered two alternatives.  They might either have world finery, or remain in the Prophet's household.  Should they decide to have the former, they would have plenty of what they wanted, but would forthwith forfeit the honour of being the Prophet's wives."

I'm not sure where you got that quote, but here (in part) is http://books.google.ca/books?id=eRQ_4dHTWeIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Maulana+Muhammad+Ali&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GO3CU9_ND8G1yATh2YDQBw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Maulana%20Muhammad%20Ali&f=false - what Maulana Muhammad Ali actually says (page 524) about this verse: "The splendours of this world were not forbidden to any Muslim, but such transitory vanities were not to be admitted into the household of God's Prophet.  As he possessed the means, his wives would be allowed to depart with rich and ample gifts, if such was their desire."

Quote True, most were not elderly, but some were.  Why would a man whose motive was sex have married an elderly woman?

His first two wives, before he had significant power, were in their forties.  Try telling a woman in her forties that she is "elderly" and see how that goes. Wink  The rest were in their sexual prime, and most were described as beautiful.

Quote Also, one would think that a man whose main motive was sex would not marry widows but instead virgins.

Shocked I don't even know what to say in response to such a chauvinistic attitude.  Is that really how you value women?


-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 13 July 2014 at 5:11pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Here are the word counts for our exchanges so far:

Posted date          me    you
June 29 at 9:52am    50    
June 29 at 1:40pm        239
July 01 at 9:05am    220    
July 01 at 6:15pm        703
July 04 at 4:39pm    999    
July 05 at 2:08pm        1742
July 06 at 5:35pm    1071    
July 07 at 7:17pm        2036
July 09 at 6:49pm    1412    
July 11 at 9:48pm        2865

Your responses are about twice as long as what you are responding to.  Mine are almost always shorter.  If I adopted your style, we would very soon be writing volumes to each other.  I don't know about you, but I don't have time to read that much, let alone write it.


So you have time to do a tally of how many words you and I have used, but you don't have time to read or write a long response?  Well, no wonder!  You waste time on petty nonsense.  LOL

For my part, I write as much as is necessary to drive home the point.  Sometimes, just a few words is not enough. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

How is it a different question?  The word "why" is right there, in the title of the discussion as well as opening post!


Ugh, this is like trying to teach a monkey. 

You asked "why" would "anyone" believe him.  I pointed out that people did believe him.  You responded initially by asking "why" they believed and then said that you didn't mean those people.  Get it? 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

What other symptoms?  The only defining symptom of paraphrenia is auditory hallucinations.  Other symptoms may or may not be present.


So now you are having trouble with reading comprehension?  Or is it that you have a short memory?  In my response from July 7, I stated:

"Onset of symptoms generally occurs later in life, near the age of 60. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrenia#cite_note-Roth.2C_1955-2 -

Muhammad (peace be upon him) had his encounter at the age of 40, but paraphrenia generally effects older people. 

The article also states:

"The main symptoms of paraphrenia are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_delusions - paranoid delusions and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinations - hallucinations . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrenia#cite_note-Almeida-1 - [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrenia#cite_note-Kayroth.2C_1961-6 - [6] The delusions often involve the individual being the subject of persecution, although they can also be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroticism - erotic , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypochondriasis - hypochondriacal , or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiosity - grandiose in nature. The majority of hallucinations associated with paraphrenia are auditory, with 75% of patients reporting such an experience; however, visual, tactile, and olfactory hallucinations have also been reported. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrenia#cite_note-Almeida-1 - [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrenia#cite_note-Kayroth.2C_1961-6 - [6] The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia - paranoia and hallucinations can combine in the form of �threatening or accusatory voices coming from neighbouring houses [and] are frequently reported by the patients as disturbing and undeserved"."

None of these symptoms can be applied to Muhammad (peace be upon him).  He never claimed to be hearing "voices" which were threatening in manner.  Nor did he hear voices coming from "neighbouring houses".


You simply cherry-picked a couple of symptoms and ignored the rest, just like a crackpot would.  Big%20smile

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Evidence against my theories is not evidence in favour of yours.


But they are evidence that you have no explanations.  Your best "proof" is uncertainty. 

Also, I am referring to other evidence from other threads.  For example, the "Prophecy" thread in the General Discussion section.  Now I know you have tried to deny the prophecies, but the point is that the evidence is there.  You just try to deny it to satisfy your ego. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

No, I don't acknowledge that.  Lots of impostors are successful.


Yet you have failed to prove that he was an impostor.  In addition to that, you have failed to explain how he succeeded if he was an impostor. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Again, I'm not trying to prove anything.  At this point, 1400 years later and based solely on anecdotal information filtered through fanatical believers, there is no hope in getting to the real story.  I'm just pointing out that the God Hypothesis is equally speculative, and a priori quite a bit less likely.

 
Maybe according to your confused mindset.  No one cares what you think.  If you cannot prove anything (or are not even "trying" to prove anything), then you are just wasting time, which is ironic given that above you were complaining about not having enough time to read or write long responses!  LOL 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Other prophets (allegedly) performed miracles.  Muhammad never claimed to, and the Quran (as I quoted) confirms that he was a warner only.


I have already refuted this nonsense.  You are just too full of yourself to admit that you are mistaken.  How fitting that you ignored point #2, where I showed that other prophets were also described as "warners", yet they also performed miracles.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

According to the http://quran.al-islam.org/query.php?t_ali=on&sura=21&SavedSura=1&fromaya=3&toaya=3&searchtext= - Pooya commentary to 21:3 , they thought he used sorcery to make people believe.  IMHO it's more likely they just used "sorcerer" as a generalized term for heretic.  Or perhaps they said no such thing; it may be just a straw man created by Muhammad.
      

LOL Look at how you just make up theories to satisfy your own skepticism.  No proof.  No logic.  Just a whole bunch of "IMHO" and "it's more likely" or "perhaps this" and "perhaps that". 

Let's look at the "Pooya commentary" on Surah Al-Qamar 54, which I cited previously, to prove once and for all, that you are an ignoramus in denial and that Muhammad (peace be upon him) did perform miracles:

"The reference is a famous miracle of the Holy Prophet, recorded in several authentic traditions of the companions, particularly of the Ahl ul Bayt whose evidence is always true, performed at the insistent demand of the pagans and the Jews. The Jews who saw this miracle became Muslims but Abu Jahl said: "This is magic continuous". It is written in the Book of Joshua 10: 13: "So the sun stood still and the moon halted until a nation had taken vengeance on its enemies." So the Jews and the Christians cannot deny the possibility of "divine adjustment" in the solar system.

Some commentators think that the past tense is used here for the future-the moon will be rent asunder at the approach of the resurrection. Firstly authentic traditions relate the cleaving asunder of the moon, secondly the observation "this is magic continuous" in verse 2 leaves no room for the speculation of the enemies of the Holy Prophet. Even the Qadiani commentators, who habitually deny miracles, accept the incident to have taken place.

Aqa Mahdi Puya says:

Those who deny the miracle performed by the Holy Prophet will be punished as the people of Nuh were punished. Refer to verses 9 to 15."

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

If you believe that this refers to an event that had already happened, then you must also believe that the Hour of Judgement was "nigh" 1400 years ago.  No, the splitting of the moon is a prophecy of an event yet to come, a sign that will herald the Hour of Judgment.

LOL See the "Pooya commentary" above, non-Quranic scholar.  Your *****ic, pseudo-scholarly opinions mean nothing.

Anyone with even basic knowledge of Islamic eschatology knows that the meaning of the phrase "the hour of judgment is nigh" means that the splitting of the moon was one of the signs preceding the hour.  It did not mean that that hour was right around the corner.  In fact, there are many other signs which the Prophet stated had to occur before the hour would come.  Some of these signs have occurred.  Others have not.  One of the most significant signs will be the descent of Jesus (peace be upon him), which obviously has not happened yet.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Of course it makes sense.  Every new religion starts that way.

So it makes "sense" that Muhammad (peace be upon him) would have have invented his religious encounter in order to gain power and wealth, and then in his efforts to attain what he wanted, he antagonized the people he wanted it from?  Confused Thank you for once again showing how nonsensical your theories are!  

If Muhammad (peace be upon him) had wanted power, he needed to appeal to his people.  Attacking their religion and their way of life would not have been the best way to go about doing that!  If you disagree, then maybe you should try it yourself and see what happens!  It was nice knowing you Ron! Dead

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

My common sense tells me that the elites were already angry with him so he had nothing to lose in that regard.  My common sense tells me that he had more to fear from his friends and family who slept by his side, shared his table at dinner, etc.

Well then, your "common sense" could use a tune-up.  If the elites were already angry with him, they why did they make him such a lucrative offer?  They could have just continued to oppose him and make life difficult for him. 

As is typical of your inane babble, you completely ignored all the reasons I gave to show that your theories make no sense.  Your "common sense" can more fittingly be called "uncommon nonsense". 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

So abandon his friends and family and accept protective custody with strangers?  That's your preferred scenario?

They weren't "strangers", you ignoramus.  Many of his most vile detractors were from his family.  His uncles Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab were the leaders of the opposition.  They were the ones who made the offer to him.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

But he did exploit the predominant pagan beliefs.  Did I mention that "Allah" was one of the pagan gods?  As for declaring that all the other gods are false, why wouldn't he?  He's a liar.  He can say anything he wants.  To pretend to be Allah, the only god, would make him more powerful than saying he is just one of many.

Clap You just like making a fool of yourself, don't you?  

Did I mention that Allah was the title which ALL Arabs, whether Jew, Christian or pagan, used to refer to God?  Or do you not know how to read? 

Why would Satan start a new religion among a people who were already steeped in idol worship?  If anything, he would have wanted to continue the status quo.  Hence, making Muhammad (peace be upon him) think that one of the pagan gods, such as Hubal or the so-called "daughters of Allah" had chosen him would have made more sense. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I would expect exactly that.  The best lies are wrapped in half-truths.  Of course he would say all the right things about justice and mercy and all that, to lull you into complacency.  Then he'd add just enough twists to cause mischief, inspire hatred of other groups, promote the likes of Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc. 

LOL What a load of nonsense!  The problem is that the rich people in Mecca opposed him for preaching social justice as well as attacking their religion.  To them, the idea of charity was anathema.  So, the only ones who were "lulled into complacency" were the poor and downtrodden while the rich and powerful remained obstinate.  That's not exactly an ideal situation for a supposed impostor or for Satan's plan to start a new religion for no apparent reason.

Furthermore, your idiocy and ignorance of what Islam teaches just goes to show that you are just another troll who pretends like he is interested in discussion but who is more interested in spreading his own false propaganda and prejudice.       

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

In fact, if I were such a mischievous spirit, I'd twist Islam one way, Christianity another, Hinduism another, and so on.  Then I'd be endlessly entertained as I watched them slaughter each other to prove which of them had the one true religion.  Just like they've been doing for the last few millennia, eh?

Well, don't worry.  You are not a "mischievous spirit", but you are one hell of a dumb guy!  Wink  For someone who doesn't even believe in "mischievous spirits", you certainly seem to know a lot about how they think. Shocked

Oh and like I said, it seems unlikely that a "mischievous spirit" would spend so much time on a prank, sticking with it for such a long time instead of just losing interest and moving to some other "prank".  This is all speculation, of course, but I love that I have gotten an atheist to make up assumptions about what Satan or a "mischievous spirit" might do! Big%20smile

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

It's not about Muhammad.  It's about the billions of Muslims and non-Muslims whose lives have been screwed up by religion.  I'd say that's worth a few decades of effort.

More mindless theorizing?  And now it's not about Muhammad, huh?  So, for some reason, the "mischievous spirit" had the foresight to know that starting a new religion would get people to kill each other, as if people didn't kill each for other reasons? 

And by the way, I and the majority of religious people, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, have not had our "lives screwed up by religion".  Your atheist mumbo-jumbo just goes to show how screwed up your views on religion are. 

By the way, some of the worst mass murderers in history were actually atheists.  Stalin and Mao Zedong  come to mind.  Moreover, people fight over many things, not just religion.  They fight over nationality, ethnicity, land, resources, wealth etc.  *****ic atheists such as yourself have just gotten bogged down on religion and have over-exaggerated its link to violence.  You should read David Berlinski's book http://www.amazon.com/The-Devils-Delusion-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405296507&sr=8-1&keywords=the+devils+delusion+atheism+and+its - "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions" for more on the fallacy of your argument. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Refuted?  He did own slaves at the time of his death, right?  So that alone refutes your claim of "mule, swords and some land".  And I think we can assume that all those wives lived in houses, with furniture and clothing and pots to cook in, etc.

Which slaves did he own at the time of his death? 

And more of your assumptions?  When will you get your head out of the ground?  When will you admit that you are just a crackpot atheist who pretends to be knowledgeable but who is just a pathetic ignoramus? 

The houses where the Prophet's wives lived were simple.  They were not mansions with "furniture and clothing and pots to cook in".  As I said before, food was a commodity in his household.  That was due to the self-imposed poverty in which he lived and which his wives also shared with him as a condition of living with him. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

He needed a special dispensation from God to justify more than four wives.  Sure, the pagans also practiced polygamy, but eleven?  Plus concubines and slaves, plus numerous annulments and broken engagements?  I think any culture, pagan or not, would find that excessive.

I think you are just an i-d-i-o-t who makes up "facts" without proof.  As I said, polygamy and concubinage were accepted institutions in Arabia (and around the world).

There was no limit on how many wives or concubines a person could have.  As scholar Karen Armstrong states:

"In seventh-century Arabia, when a man could have as many wives as he chose, to prescribe only four was a limitation, not a license to new oppression." ("Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, p. 191)  

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Let me be clear.  I agree that Muhammad was not interested in material possessions.  He cared about power, and he cared about women.  As a Prophet he got both, far more than he could have had as a successful trader.

If he wanted power, he would have accepted the offer he was made.  Your theories crumble in the face of the evidence.  And your uncommon nonsense only makes things worse for you.  Poor guy...Cry

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I'm not sure where you got that quote, but here (in part) is http://books.google.ca/books?id=eRQ_4dHTWeIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Maulana+Muhammad+Ali&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GO3CU9_ND8G1yATh2YDQBw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Maulana%20Muhammad%20Ali&f=false - what Maulana Muhammad Ali actually says (page 524) about this verse: "The splendours of this world were not forbidden to any Muslim, but such transitory vanities were not to be admitted into the household of God's Prophet.  As he possessed the means, his wives would be allowed to depart with rich and ample gifts, if such was their desire."

Maybe if you read the entire quote, you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.  Here is the part that you deliberately ignored:

"If the Prophet had allowed his wives to share in the general prosperity of his community, there could not have been the least objection.  But he received a revelation which deprived him and those most nearly related to him of those material benefits which others could easily acquire."

His community was prospering.  If his wives wanted a piece of that prosperity, the Prophet would ensure that they would get it.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

His first two wives, before he had significant power, were in their forties.  Try telling a woman in her forties that she is "elderly" and see how that goes. Wink  The rest were in their sexual prime, and most were described as beautiful.

Umm, demographics were a little different in those days.  What do you think the average lifespan was?  Was it the same as today?  Wink  A woman in her late forties or early fifties would have been beyond her sexual prime and could be referred to as being "elderly".  Hazrat Sawdah (may Allah be pleased with her) was not a young woman and was not in her prime, as Reza Aslan pointed out.     

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Shocked I don't even know what to say in response to such a chauvinistic attitude.  Is that really how you value women?

Shocked I don't even know what to say in response to such an *****ic comment.  Wait, yes I do, and here it is: 

I wasn't saying anything about how I "value women", you i-d-i-o-t.  I was merely pointing out that a man who was only interested in sex would value virgins instead of widows.  Your idiocy and foolishness clearly knows no bounds! LOL     



-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: anshuha
Date Posted: 14 July 2014 at 2:16am
Salaamualaykum Islamispeace,
 
Peace and blessings of Allah be upon you.
 
I simply want to say that I appreciate very much your postings and the way you demystify things.Clap
 
May Allah be pleased with you.
 
Salaam


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 July 2014 at 6:03am

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

So you have time to do a tally of how many words you and I have used, but you don't have time to read or write a long response?  Well, no wonder!  You waste time on petty nonsense

I don't consider it a waste of time to support my statements with evidence.  IMHO the real waste of time is writing something so long that nobody bothers to read it.

Quote You asked "why" would "anyone" believe him.  I pointed out that people did believe him.  You responded initially by asking "why" they believed and then said that you didn't mean those people.  Get it?

When did I say I "didn't mean those people"?  "Anyone" means anyone.  (Gosh, maybe I do need to define it!)

Quote You simply cherry-picked a couple of symptoms and ignored the rest, just like a crackpot would.

I ignored the "generally", "often", "can be", etc.  My point is that a person can be otherwise completely normal and functional, except for experiencing auditory hallucinations.

Quote But they are evidence that you have no explanations.  Your best "proof" is uncertainty.

Proof of what?  How many times do I have to tell you: I'm not trying to prove anything!

Quote Yet you have failed to prove that he was an impostor.  In addition to that, you have failed to explain how he succeeded if he was an impostor.

Again, I'm not trying to prove anything.  You could save a lot of time writing if you put a little more care into reading.

Quote Maybe according to your confused mindset.  No one cares what you think.  If you cannot prove anything (or are not even "trying" to prove anything), then you are just wasting time, which is ironic given that above you were complaining about not having enough time to read or write long responses!

I'm just asking a question.  If you don't have an answer, that's fine.

Quote I have already refuted this nonsense.  You are just too full of yourself to admit that you are mistaken.  How fitting that you ignored point #2, where I showed that other prophets were also described as "warners", yet they also performed miracles.

I didn't ignore it.  Other prophets may have been miracle-workers as well as warners, but according to the Quran, Muhammad was not.  Muhammad is described as a warner only, specifically in response to expectations that he ought to be able to perform miracles.

Quote Let's look at the "Pooya commentary" on Surah Al-Qamar 54, which I cited previously, to prove once and for all, that you are an ignoramus in denial and that Muhammad (peace be upon him) did perform miracles:

I don't know why you think that this settles it "once and for all".  Even Pooya acknowledges that "some commentators think that the past tense is used here for the future - the moon will be rent asunder at the approach of the resurrection."

Quote Anyone with even basic knowledge of Islamic eschatology knows that the meaning of the phrase "the hour of judgment is nigh" means that the splitting of the moon was one of the signs preceding the hour.  It did not mean that that hour was right around the corner.  In fact, there are many other signs which the Prophet stated had to occur before the hour would come.  Some of these signs have occurred.  Others have not.  One of the most significant signs will be the descent of Jesus (peace be upon him), which obviously has not happened yet.

Actually, "nigh" does indeed mean just around the corner.  I'm sorry, but 1400 years is not "nigh" by anybody's reckoning.  The sentence doesn't make sense as anything but a prophetic sign.  And a prophecy about something that already happened would be silly.

Quote If Muhammad (peace be upon him) had wanted power, he needed to appeal to his people.  Attacking their religion and their way of life would not have been the best way to go about doing that!  If you disagree, then maybe you should try it yourself and see what happens!  It was nice knowing you Ron!

That's how most religions work.  They usually start by telling you how sick and broken you are, and then offer to "fix" you.  Yes, it's a risky business (it didn't go so well for "Reverend" Jim Jones, for instance), but the payoff is huge if it works (e.g. L. Ron Hubbard).

Quote Well then, your "common sense" could use a tune-up.  If the elites were already angry with him, they why did they make him such a lucrative offer?  They could have just continued to oppose him and make life difficult for him.

They were trying to buy him off, obviously.

Quote As is typical of your inane babble, you completely ignored all the reasons I gave to show that your theories make no sense.  Your "common sense" can more fittingly be called "uncommon nonsense".

See, that's one of the perils of writing too much.  I'm not sure which reasons you're referring to, but I can't possibly respond to every word you write.  Just stick to the important points and I promise I'll answer them.

Quote They weren't "strangers", you ignoramus.  Many of his most vile detractors were from his family.  His uncles Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab were the leaders of the opposition.  They were the ones who made the offer to him.

Oh, so spend the rest of his life in the custody of "his most vile detractors"?  Yeah, that's way better! LOL

Quote Why would Satan start a new religion among a people who were already steeped in idol worship?  If anything, he would have wanted to continue the status quo.

Shucks, no.  You need multiple religions in order to have religious conflict.

Quote Hence, making Muhammad (peace be upon him) think that one of the pagan gods, such as Hubal or the so-called "daughters of Allah" had chosen him would have made more sense.

Which is exactly what he did.  Allah was one of the pagan gods, as you just acknowledged.

Quote What a load of nonsense!  The problem is that the rich people in Mecca opposed him for preaching social justice as well as attacking their religion.  To them, the idea of charity was anathema.  So, the only ones who were "lulled into complacency" were the poor and downtrodden while the rich and powerful remained obstinate.  That's not exactly an ideal situation for a supposed impostor or for Satan's plan to start a new religion for no apparent reason.

It's an ideal situation for someone whose goal was to cause conflict and chaos, though.

Quote Oh and like I said, it seems unlikely that a "mischievous spirit" would spend so much time on a prank, sticking with it for such a long time instead of just losing interest and moving to some other "prank".

Satan has (allegedly) been around for thousands of years.  His "pranks" (if that's the right word) can easily span centuries.

Quote More mindless theorizing?  And now it's not about Muhammad, huh?  So, for some reason, the "mischievous spirit" had the foresight to know that starting a new religion would get people to kill each other, as if people didn't kill each for other reasons?

It's not that hard to predict what competing religions will do.  And yes, people do kill each other for other reasons too.  Assuming that Satan exists, it's safe to assume he plays lots of other "pranks" besides false religions.

Quote Which slaves did he own at the time of his death?

I was going to mention the three female slaves who outlived him, but in verifying their names I came across this:
"A Day Before His Death
On Sunday, a day before he died, the Prophet sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam set his slaves free, paid as a charity the seven dinars he owned and gave his weapons as a present to the Muslims."
http://sunnahonline.com/library/history-of-islam/279-death-of-the-messenger-of-allah-the - http://sunnahonline.com/library/history-of-islam/279-death-of-the-messenger-of-allah-the
So although technically he may have had no slaves on the day of his death, he obviously did own slaves until then.  It is at least misleading to say that he ended his life with nothing more than "a mule, swords and some land".

Quote The houses where the Prophet's wives lived were simple.  They were not mansions with "furniture and clothing and pots to cook in".

No, they were not mansions; but they were houses, right?  With furniture, cooking facilities, bedding, etc.?  Who do you think owned them?

Quote If he wanted power, he would have accepted the offer he was made.

And if he accepted their offer, do you think that a billion Muslims would still be obeying his commands 1400 years later?  Could they have given him that kind of power?

Quote
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I'm not sure where you got that quote, but here (in part) is what Maulana Muhammad Ali actually says (page 524) about this verse: "The splendours of this world were not forbidden to any Muslim, but such transitory vanities were not to be admitted into the household of God's Prophet.  As he possessed the means, his wives would be allowed to depart with rich and ample gifts, if such was their desire."

Maybe if you read the entire quote, you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.  Here is the part that you deliberately ignored:
"If the Prophet had allowed his wives to share in the general prosperity of his community, there could not have been the least objection.  But he received a revelation which deprived him and those most nearly related to him of those material benefits which others could easily acquire."

His community was prospering.  If his wives wanted a piece of that prosperity, the Prophet would ensure that they would get it.


That may be; but the question was, were his wives in poverty because Muhammad couldn't afford more, or because he refused to give them more?  And the answer is, he possessed the means to provide them rich and ample gifts.  He simply chose not to.

Quote Umm, demographics were a little different in those days.  What do you think the average lifespan was?  Was it the same as today?  Wink  A woman in her late forties or early fifties would have been beyond her sexual prime and could be referred to as being "elderly".  Hazrat Sawdah (may Allah be pleased with her) was not a young woman and was not in her prime, as Reza Aslan pointed out.

Aisha was 9.  Hafsa was 19.  The two Zaynabs were both 30.  Hind was 27.  Juwariah was 20.  Ramla was 36.  Safiyah was 17.  Maymunah was 26.  These are not "elderly", by anyone's definition.

Quote I wasn't saying anything about how I "value women", you i-d-i-o-t.  I was merely pointing out that a man who was only interested in sex would value virgins instead of widows.

This is the kind of screwed up value system that I was referring to earlier.  Women are not less valuable because they have had sex.  I can't say whether you believe that yourself, but it is certainly a belief promoted by many religions, including yours.  And it has certainly screwed up the lives of many young women. Unhappy If Satan existed, it is a belief that he might want to promote.

 

 



-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 16 July 2014 at 3:09pm
Originally posted by anshuha anshuha wrote:

Salaamualaykum Islamispeace,
 
Peace and blessings of Allah be upon you.
 
I simply want to say that I appreciate very much your postings and the way you demystify things.Clap
 
May Allah be pleased with you.
 
Salaam


Walaikum as-salaam.  Jazak Allah Khair for your kind words.  Smile


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 17 July 2014 at 2:02pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

  each person is responsible for his/her own sins

from the book of Exodus, from the teaching of Moses

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 ...




-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 17 July 2014 at 8:43pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I don't consider it a waste of time to support my statements with evidence.  IMHO the real waste of time is writing something so long that nobody bothers to read it.


What "evidence"?  So far, you have claimed that you are not trying to "prove" anything on this thread.  You also took the time to compare the amount of words you and I have used, as if that is a matter of real importance!  LOL  What exactly is the purpose of you even being on this forum? 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

When did I say I "didn't mean those people"?  "Anyone" means anyone.  (Gosh, maybe I do need to define it!)


Yes, and when I said that people did believe him, you responded by saying "why".  I gave the reasons.  Then you asked whether you needed to "define" what "anyone" means.  I interpreted that to mean that you were not referring to the people who did believe him, but rather to unbelievers such as yourself.  Gosh, maybe you should have been more concise!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I ignored the "generally", "often", "can be", etc.  My point is that a person can be otherwise completely normal and functional, except for experiencing auditory hallucinations.


Well then, you are a crackpot indeed!  Thank you for confirming what I have been saying all along! Clap

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Proof of what?  How many times do I have to tell you: I'm not trying to prove anything!


Then you are just wasting your time.  Then again, since you obviously have a lot of time on your hands, I guess it's no surprise that you like to engage in meaningless conversations.  You need to get a life, man!

In contrast, I have actually attempted to prove my side of the argument.  If you are not "trying" to "prove" anything, then what on earth are you doing here and why are you asking st**id questions and engaging in meaningless conversations?

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

gain, I'm not trying to prove anything.  You could save a lot of time writing if you put a little more care into reading.


Well excuse me for actually thinking that this conversation had a point!  LOL

Maybe you should get a new hobby.  How about knitting? 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I'm just asking a question.  If you don't have an answer, that's fine.


Oh, so you're just "asking a question".  Oh, why didn't you just so...

But seriously, your "question" has been answered already.  So, now what?  Have you thought about taking up knitting?

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I didn't ignore it.  Other prophets may have been miracle-workers as well as warners, but according to the Quran, Muhammad was not.  Muhammad is described as a warner only, specifically in response to expectations that he ought to be able to perform miracles.


You are an i-d-i-o-t, plain and simple, and you are incapable of admitting that you know nothing and are hilariously mistaken.  I already refuted your "warner" argument.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I don't know why you think that this settles it "once and for all".  Even Pooya acknowledges that "some commentators think that the past tense is used here for the future - the moon will be rent asunder at the approach of the resurrection."


LOL Yeah, and he also stated:

Firstly authentic traditions relate the cleaving asunder of the moon, secondly the observation "this is magic continuous" in verse 2 leaves no room for the speculation of the enemies of the Holy Prophet. Even the Qadiani commentators, who habitually deny miracles, accept the incident to have taken place.

So unless you have some actual evidence to refute this, you are just grasping for straws.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Actually, "nigh" does indeed mean just around the corner.  I'm sorry, but 1400 years is not "nigh" by anybody's reckoning.  The sentence doesn't make sense as anything but a prophetic sign.  And a prophecy about something that already happened would be silly.


The word "nigh" can simply mean "closer".  Hence, with the splitting of the moon, the Hour of Judgment has drawn closer in time.  In other words, the splitting of the moon was a major sign of the Day of Judgment.  It is one of the many signs that had to occur before the Day of Judgment.  

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

That's how most religions work.  They usually start by telling you how sick and broken you are, and then offer to "fix" you.  Yes, it's a risky business (it didn't go so well for "Reverend" Jim Jones, for instance), but the payoff is huge if it works (e.g. L. Ron Hubbard).


LOL Was L. Ron Hubbard constantly facing persecution and violence for his beliefs?  Do you think that when he was contemplating starting his religion, he thought to himself: "Hmmm.  Will people accept my message or will they react with violence and anger and try to kill me?"

It makes no sense that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) would have purposefully attacked the religion of the pagan Arabs in a vain effort to gain power and influence.   

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

They were trying to buy him off, obviously.
 

Which is exactly what a supposed impostor would have wanted, yet Muhammad (peace be upon him) refused to be bought out.  Unbelievers like you are tongue-tied to explain why he did that!  

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

See, that's one of the perils of writing too much.  I'm not sure which reasons you're referring to, but I can't possibly respond to every word you write.  Just stick to the important points and I promise I'll answer them.


Well then, you are not only a crackpot, but you are a lazy crackpot.  Big%20smile  Or maybe you have a short attention span...

You can either respond to my entire post, or you can continue to make a fool out of yourself.  People who have no answers typically tend to ignore anything that makes them look foolish...or they make excuses for why they don't respond.  LOL

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Oh, so spend the rest of his life in the custody of "his most vile detractors"?  Yeah, that's way better! LOL
 

Um, if he accepted their offer, that would have meant that he would stop preaching against their religion.  That was their main gripe.  Hence, they would become his allies if he accepted their offer.  And they certainly would not be "strangers", right? Wink  Think Ron, think! 

Moreover, who said he would "spend the rest of his life" in their custody?  He would  have stayed where ever he wanted, and with the backing of the elites, he would have the power and influence that you think was his motivation for preaching in the first place.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Shucks, no.  You need multiple religions in order to have religious conflict.


Who says?  You?  Don't make me laugh!  LOL Oops, too late...

Anyway, as anyone with even basic knowledge of pre-Islamic Arabia knows, conflicts between various factions were very common.  So if Satan wanted to incite further violence, he could have just exploited the many simmering disputes that already existed in those days. 

I still find it hilarious that the irony of your "Satan" argument does not seem to dawn on you.  I love it that an atheist has grown so desperate to smear Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), that he has to pontificate on what alleged role Satan may have played in the founding of Islam.  You do realize that you are shooting yourself in the foot, right?  If your Satan argument is true, then it means that Satan exists and your disbelief in the supernatural is unfounded (and which might mean that Satan has tricked you into being an unbeliever Wink).  If, however, Satan does not exist, your argument is still unfounded because that is yet another theory which fails to explain Muhammad's success.  You put your foot in your mouth either way! 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Which is exactly what he did.  Allah was one of the pagan gods, as you just acknowledged.


LOL I don't know if you are just blind or are too dumb to understand.  As I said, ALL Arabs (whether Jewish, Christian or pagan) referred to God as "Allah".  The only difference was that the pagans believed that there were lesser gods as well, such as Hubal.  In short, they were polytheists.  If Satan was playing a trick, he would have tricked Muhammad (peace be upon him) to believe that one of the lesser gods had chosen him.  That way, Satan could perpetuate the polytheistic religion.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

It's an ideal situation for someone whose goal was to cause conflict and chaos, though.
 

No, the "ideal situation" for Satan would be produce as many unbelievers as possible.  You know, people like you.  The more people he tricks, the more he leads to Hell. Dead  The best way to do that is not to start a religion founded upon monotheism and social justice as well as the rejection of polytheism and idol worship.  Rather, he would have wanted to perpetuate polytheism and idol worship.  Or, he could have endorsed atheism! Shocked

Originally posted by Ron
 Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Satan has (allegedly) been around for thousands of years.  His "pranks" (if that's the right word) can easily span centuries.


You certainly know a lot about Satan! I guess it makes sense.  You are of his stock, after all.  LOL

But like I said, a prankster or "mischievous spirit" could easily lose interest and move to some other prank. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

It's not that hard to predict what competing religions will do.  And yes, people do kill each other for other reasons too.  Assuming that Satan exists, it's safe to assume he plays lots of other "pranks" besides false religions.


Well that would include atheism, wouldn't it now?  Or your so-called "humanism"?  Certainly, atheists are capable of just as much violence as religious people.  History has proven that over and over.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I was going to mention the three female slaves who outlived him, but in verifying their names I came across this:
"A Day Before His Death
On Sunday, a day before he died, the Prophet sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam set his slaves free, paid as a charity the seven dinars he owned and gave his weapons as a present to the Muslims."
http://sunnahonline.com/library/history-of-islam/279-death-of-the-messenger-of-allah-the - http://sunnahonline.com/library/history-of-islam/279-death-of-the-messenger-of-allah-the
So although technically he may have had no slaves on the day of his death, he obviously did own slaves until then.  It is at least misleading to say that he ended his life with nothing more than "a mule, swords and some land".


I highlighted the part in red to show just how pathetic your argument is.  If the most powerful man in Arabia had just seven dinars to his name, how can anyone claim that he had wealth?  Even what little he had, he gave away in charity!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

No, they were not mansions; but they were houses, right?  With furniture, cooking facilities, bedding, etc.?  Who do you think owned them?


Actually, they are more appropriately referred to as "apartments".  Furthermore, as it is stated in a hadith of Hazrat Aisha in Sunan Tirmidhi, the Prophet's household was not made of riches:

"At our home (that is, the home of the Holy Prophet's household), fire would not be kindled (sometimes) for a whole month; we subsisted merely on water and dates."  

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

And if he accepted their offer, do you think that a billion Muslims would still be obeying his commands 1400 years later?  Could they have given him that kind of power?


LOL Are you serious, Ron?  Do you think before you write?  How would Muhammad (peace be upon him) have known that his followers would become 1 billion strong?  And even if he did know, what kind of "power" are you referring to?  Obviously, if he is no longer with us, then what "power" does he have?  Think, Ron, think!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

That may be; but the question was, were his wives in poverty because Muhammad couldn't afford more, or because he refused to give them more?  And the answer is, he possessed the means to provide them rich and ample gifts.  He simply chose not to.


He possessed the means to provide himself with rich and ample gifts, yet he simply chose not to.  Would a supposed impostor do that?  Think, Ron, think!

And like I already stated, he gave his wives two choices.  If they wanted the "rich and ample gifts", he would give them that, but at the cost of no longer being part of his household.  They could not have both.  They chose to stay with him.  They willingly accepted to share in his self-imposed poverty.  You have yet to explain why a supposed impostor would do that.  Think, Ron, think!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Aisha was 9.  Hafsa was 19.  The two Zaynabs were both 30.  Hind was 27.  Juwariah was 20.  Ramla was 36.  Safiyah was 17.  Maymunah was 26.  These are not "elderly", by anyone's definition.
 

LOL Yeah, but I was specifically referring to Hazrat Sawdah, you nincompoop. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

This is the kind of screwed up value system that I was referring to earlier.  Women are not less valuable because they have had sex.  I can't say whether you believe that yourself, but it is certainly a belief promoted by many religions, including yours.  And it has certainly screwed up the lives of many young women. Unhappy If Satan existed, it is a belief that he might want to promote.


Still not getting it?  Your idiocy and ignorance knows no bounds.  I would love for you to prove any of your foolhardy statements.  Prove that Islam teaches that "women are less valuable because they have had sex." 

To repeat, since you are obviously too dimwitted to understand the first time:

I never said anything about how I "value women".  I was specifically referring to your theory that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was driven by lust, by pointing out that a man who is obsessed with sex would probably "value" virgins, not widows.  Now, let me repeat again (I'll go slow so you can understand):

I...AM...NOT...SAYING...ANYTHING...ABOUT...HOW...I...VALUE...WOMEN.

Did you get all that?  I wasn't too fast?

Furthermore, there is nothing in Islam that states that women who have had sex are less "valuable" than virgins (unless of course, we are talking about fornicators or adulterers, but that would include both men and women).  If you disagree, then prove it.  Try to salvage what little dignity you have left...


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 17 July 2014 at 8:46pm
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

  each person is responsible for his/her own sins

from the book of Exodus, from the teaching of Moses

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 ...




From the Book of Deuteronomy, from the Law of Moses:

"Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

Awkward...LOL


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 17 July 2014 at 9:46pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

  each person is responsible for his/her own sins

from the book of Exodus, from the teaching of Moses

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 ...




From the Book of Deuteronomy, from the Law of Moses:

"Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

Awkward...

Greetings islamispeace,

The book of Deuteronomy is the law that is given to man... to use in governance of the affairs of men.  It is not a law that applies to God.  God does as He wills to do, according to what He judges good and best for us.  God leads us, and teaches, in His ways... not the ways of men. Smile

asalaam,
Caringheart


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 19 July 2014 at 12:32am
the Psalm of David
#135
The Lord does whatever pleases him
    throughout all heaven and earth,
    and on the seas and in their depths.
He causes the clouds to rise over the whole earth.
    He sends the lightning with the rain
    and releases the wind from his storehouses.
8
He smote the firstborn of Egypt, both of man and beast.

He performed miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt

    upon Pharaoh and upon all his servants.

(NLT,KJV)


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 July 2014 at 11:13am
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

  each person is responsible for his/her own sins

from the book of Exodus, from the teaching of Moses

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 ...




From the Book of Deuteronomy, from the Law of Moses:

"Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

Awkward...

Greetings islamispeace,

The book of Deuteronomy is the law that is given to man... to use in governance of the affairs of men.  It is not a law that applies to God.  God does as He wills to do, according to what He judges good and best for us.  God leads us, and teaches, in His ways... not the ways of men. Smile

asalaam,
Caringheart


What a typical goofball response from one of the most brain-washed apologists I have ever come across! LOL

So, let's see if God in the Bible ever said that He does not punish children for the sins of their fathers (since punishing the innocent is unjust, and we all know that God is NOT unjust):

"The word of the Lord came to me: �What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:

��The parents eat sour grapes,
    and the children�s teeth are set on edge�?

�As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child�both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die." (Ezekiel 18:1-4)

Like I said before...awkward...



-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 July 2014 at 11:25am
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

the Psalm of David
#135
The Lord does whatever pleases him
    throughout all heaven and earth,
    and on the seas and in their depths.
He causes the clouds to rise over the whole earth.
    He sends the lightning with the rain
    and releases the wind from his storehouses.
8
He smote the firstborn of Egypt, both of man and beast.

He performed miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt

    upon Pharaoh and upon all his servants.

(NLT,KJV)


Surah Az-Zumar, verses 53-54 -

"Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. "Turn ye to our Lord (in repentance) and bow to His (Will), before the Penalty comes on you: after that ye shall not be helped."

Surah An-Nisa, verse 112 -

"But if any one earns a fault or a sin and throws it on to one that is innocent, He carries (on himself) (Both) a falsehood and a flagrant sin."

Surah Yunus, verse 54 -

"Every soul that hath sinned, if it possessed all that is on earth, would fain give it in ransom: They would declare (their) repentance when they see the penalty: but the judgment between them will be with justice, and no wrong will be done unto them."

Surah Fatir, verse 18 -

"Nor can a bearer of burdens bear another's burdens, if one heavily laden should call another to (bear) his load. Not the least portion of it can be carried (by the other). Even though he be nearly related. Thou canst but admonish such as fear their Lord unseen and establish regular Prayer. And whoever purifies himself does so for the benefit of his own soul; and the destination (of all) is to Allah."

And finally, for those blasphemers who attribute lies to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), such as claiming that He kills innocent children to punish their fathers, we can quote Surah Yunus, verse 17 and Surah An-Nisa, verse 40:

"Who is then more unjust than who forges a lie against Allah or (who) gives the lie to His communications? Surely the guilty shall not be successful."

"Allah is never unjust in the least degree: If there is any good (done), He doubleth it, and giveth from His own presence a great reward."


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 19 July 2014 at 11:54am
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


Surah Fatir, verse 18 -

"Nor can a bearer of burdens bear another's burdens, if one heavily laden should call another to (bear) his load. Not the least portion of it can be carried (by the other). Even though he be nearly related. Thou canst but admonish such as fear their Lord unseen and establish regular Prayer. And whoever purifies himself does so for the benefit of his own soul; and the destination (of all) is to Allah."


and yet Yshwe says;

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.


Yshwe offers Himself to carry the yoke... to share the burden...

as anyone knows that when two oxen share a yoke the burden is easier to carry...

It is also why, during the crucifixion, Simon of Cyrene helped to carry the cross of Yshwe...

Yshwe always taught to carry one another's burdens... to help one another.

Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.


So Muhammad, in the qur'an, in this surah, teaches something other than what Yshwe taught.

asalaam.



-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 19 July 2014 at 11:56am
as to the rest of what is shared...
 these are good, but these are the laws as they apply to man, not God.  God is the law, and above all human laws.  God gives the laws as they apply to man, not as they apply to Himself.

I agree that we can not judge God to be unjust...

'God does as He wills to do', and to His own good purposes, which we may be unable to see or comprehend. 

and according to the Psalm of David;
8 He smote the firstborn of Egypt, both of man and beast.

Those that have been saved are clearly able to see God's purposes.

asalaam.


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 July 2014 at 12:27pm
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


Surah Fatir, verse 18 -

"Nor can a bearer of burdens bear another's burdens, if one heavily laden should call another to (bear) his load. Not the least portion of it can be carried (by the other). Even though he be nearly related. Thou canst but admonish such as fear their Lord unseen and establish regular Prayer. And whoever purifies himself does so for the benefit of his own soul; and the destination (of all) is to Allah."


and yet Yshwe says;

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.


Yshwe offers Himself to carry the yoke... to share the burden...

as anyone knows that when two oxen share a yoke the burden is easier to carry...

It is also why, during the crucifixion, Simon of Cyrene helped to carry the cross of Yshwe...

Yshwe always taught to carry one another's burdens... to help one another.

Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.


So Muhammad, in the qur'an, in this surah, teaches something other than what Yshwe taught.

asalaam.



Which is why the Bible is NOT the word of God.  Thank you for confirming this!  Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught that God is just and fair.  Obviously, you disagree. LOL  Hence, the warning in Surah Yunus applies to you very clearly:

"Who is then more unjust than who forges a lie against Allah or (who) gives the lie to His communications? Surely the guilty shall not be successful."

You are guilty and you will not succeed, inshaAllah!  Dead


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 July 2014 at 12:31pm
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

as to the rest of what is shared...
 these are good, but these are the laws as they apply to man, not God.  God is the law, and above all human laws.  God gives the laws as they apply to man, not as they apply to Himself.

I agree that we can not judge God to be unjust...

'God does as He wills to do', and to His own good purposes, which we may be unable to see or comprehend. 

and according to the Psalm of David;
8 He smote the firstborn of Egypt, both of man and beast.

Those that have been saved are clearly able to see God's purposes.

asalaam.


LOL Sure, sure.  Brainwashed apologists have no other explanation than to say "those that have been saved are clearly able to see God's purposes".  In other words, you close your eyes to the clear contradictions and absurdities in your "scripture" and simply accept the lies you have been told.  Bravo! Clap

"Every soul that hath sinned, if it possessed all that is on earth, would fain give it in ransom: They would declare (their) repentance when they see the penalty: but the judgment between them will be with justice, and no wrong will be done unto them."

"Allah is never unjust in the least degree: If there is any good (done), He doubleth it, and giveth from His own presence a great reward."


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 19 July 2014 at 2:08pm
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:



and yet Yshwe says;

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.


Yshwe offers Himself to carry the yoke... to share the burden...

as anyone knows that when two oxen share a yoke the burden is easier to carry...

It is also why, during the crucifixion, Simon of Cyrene helped to carry the cross of Yshwe...

Yshwe always taught to carry one another's burdens... to help one another.

Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.


So Muhammad, in the qur'an, in this surah, teaches something other than what Yshwe taught.

asalaam.


One man's word against the word of many witnesses...

One man who teaches a thing different than the Christ... against the Messiah... anti Christ's teaching....

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, [he is one that is] accursed.


I wonder... which is the Word that is true...
the one that foretold what was to come...

or the one that comes denying what came before... denying Yshwe and His teaching...

the answer seems pretty clear...
but it is for each to decide, and for each to receive the Truth and revelation. 
Only as they truly seek it, can it be revealed.

asalaam.


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 July 2014 at 2:22pm
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

One man's word against the word of many witnesses...

One man who teaches a thing different than the Christ... against the Messiah... anti Christ's teaching....

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, [he is one that is] accursed.


I wonder... which is the Word that is true...
the one that foretold what was to come...

or the one that comes denying what came before... denying Yshwe and His teaching...

the answer seems pretty clear...
but it is for each to decide, and for each to receive the Truth and revelation. 
Only as they truly seek it, can it be revealed.


LOL What "many witnesses" are you referring to?  The contradictory and inconsistent "Gospels"?  Oh, right...how silly of me! Confused

Blind and brainwashed apologists can do nothing except make vague statements.  When pressed for evidence, they are tongue-tied.  At the end of it all, the only reasonable conclusion that one can make is that it you Christians who are "anti-Christ".  You will stand condemned on the Day of Judgment for the lies you have propagated. 

"And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-" (Surah An-Nisa, 4:159)  


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 July 2014 at 2:28pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

One man's word against the word of many witnesses...

One man who teaches a thing different than the Christ... against the Messiah... anti Christ's teaching....

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, [he is one that is] accursed.


I wonder... which is the Word that is true...
the one that foretold what was to come...

or the one that comes denying what came before... denying Yshwe and His teaching...

the answer seems pretty clear...
but it is for each to decide, and for each to receive the Truth and revelation. 
Only as they truly seek it, can it be revealed.


LOL What "many witnesses" are you referring to?  The contradictory and inconsistent "Gospels"?  Oh, right...how silly of me! Confused

Blind and brainwashed apologists can do nothing except make vague statements.  When pressed for evidence, they are tongue-tied.  At the end of it all, the only reasonable conclusion that one can make is that it you Christians who are "anti-Christ".  You will stand condemned on the Day of Judgment for the lies you have propagated. 

"And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-" (Surah An-Nisa, 4:159)  


"Those to whom We have given the Book rejoice at what hath been revealed unto thee: but there are among the clans those who reject a part thereof. Say: "I am commanded to worship Allah, and not to join partners with Him. Unto Him do I call, and unto Him is my return."" (Surah Ar-Rad, 13:36)


Listen and contemplate the truth, for a time will come when your stubbornness will lead to your eternal damnation...


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 July 2014 at 9:47pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

What "evidence"?  So far, you have claimed that you are not trying to "prove" anything on this thread.  You also took the time to compare the amount of words you and I have used, as if that is a matter of real importance!

I consider my time (and yours too) to be a matter of real importance.  Don't you?

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Yes, and when I said that people did believe him, you responded by saying "why".  I gave the reasons.  Then you asked whether you needed to "define" what "anyone" means.  I interpreted that to mean that you were not referring to the people who did believe him, but rather to unbelievers such as yourself.


Why would you think that?  Here is how the exchange went:

Me:  "Why would anyone believe him?"
You: Well, people did believe him, Ron!
Me:  Yes, I know they believed him.  My question is, why?
You: That is not what you originally asked.  You asked why would "anyone" believe him?
Me:  Do I need to explain what "anyone" means?

I don't see anything in this that would suggest I am limiting the word "anyone".  Anyone means anyone: Why do you believe, why should I believe, why did they believe, why do others believe... I just want to hear a valid reason to believe that the Quran came from God, regardless of whose reason it is.

Quote I already refuted your "warner" argument.

You established that other prophets were more than just warners.  You haven't established that Muhammad was more than a warner; and if you could, you would be contradicting the Quran.

Quote Yeah, and he [Pooya] also stated:
Firstly authentic traditions relate the cleaving asunder of the moon, secondly the observation "this is magic continuous" in verse 2 leaves no room for the speculation of the enemies of the Holy Prophet. Even the Qadiani commentators, who habitually deny miracles, accept the incident to have taken place.

So unless you have some actual evidence to refute this, you are just grasping for straws.

1. If an apparently "authentic tradition" contradicts the Quran (13:7 among others), then that tradition is wrong.
2. Does that tradition include any eyewitnesses?  Or is it just hearsay, and/or people misquoting the Quran?
3. Since you and Pooya are making this assertion (in contradiction to the Quran), shouldn't you be the ones offering some "actual evidence"?

Quote The word "nigh" can simply mean "closer".

No, it can't.  And if it could, then any event could indicate that the Hour of Judgement is "closer", and the sentence again becomes meaningless.  The only way it makes sense is as a prophecy of a future event.

Quote It makes no sense that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) would have purposefully attacked the religion of the pagan Arabs in a vain effort to gain power and influence.

Whether or not it makes sense to you as a strategy, the fact is that it worked.

Quote You can either respond to my entire post, or you can continue to make a fool out of yourself.  People who have no answers typically tend to ignore anything that makes them look foolish...or they make excuses for why they don't respond.

Much of your posts is not worth responding to.  The ad hominems in particular I let stand on their own.  They discredit you far more than anything I could say in response.

Quote Um, if he accepted their offer, that would have meant that he would stop preaching against their religion.  That was their main gripe.  Hence, they would become his allies if he accepted their offer.  And they certainly would not be "strangers", right?

Would they be any less vile?  Surely you're not going to say that they would have made better companions than the ones he had.  "Allies" is not the same thing as friends; and I'm not so sure they wouldn't have ended up murdering him anyway.  They had no need for him; they only needed to shut him up.

Quote Anyway, as anyone with even basic knowledge of pre-Islamic Arabia knows, conflicts between various factions were very common.  So if Satan wanted to incite further violence, he could have just exploited the many simmering disputes that already existed in those days.

Isn't that what he did?  Muhammad did not invent monotheism.  He simply introduced another variant to the pre-existing Abrahamic tradition, which already included Judaism, Christianity and various gnostic sects.

Quote If your Satan argument is true, then it means that Satan exists and your disbelief in the supernatural is unfounded (and which might mean that Satan has tricked you into being an unbeliever ).

Of course I don't believe it's true.  I'm just saying it's at least as likely to have been Satan as to have been God.  You have no evidence either way, and no way of knowing for sure.

Quote If Satan was playing a trick, he would have tricked Muhammad (peace be upon him) to believe that one of the lesser gods had chosen him.  That way, Satan could perpetuate the polytheistic religion.

But polytheism perpetuated anyway.  I'm not sure what more he could have achieved by picking a lesser god.

Besides, the thing about polytheists is that they are by definition tolerant of other gods.  They feel no particular need to go to war against a neighboring tribe of village just because they worship a different god.  No, for true intolerance you need monotheism.

Quote No, the "ideal situation" for Satan would be produce as many unbelievers as possible.  You know, people like you.  The more people he tricks, the more he leads to Hell.   The best way to do that is not to start a religion founded upon monotheism and social justice as well as the rejection of polytheism and idol worship.  Rather, he would have wanted to perpetuate polytheism and idol worship.  Or, he could have endorsed atheism!

Personally, I think that if there is a god then he would have no problem with atheism.  After all, he is making no effort at all to convince me of his existence, so he apparently doesn't care one way or the other what I believe.

No, to send people to hell simply for believing in the wrong god, or no god, that requires a "jealous" god.  The Christian god, for instance.  If Christianity turns out to be the "true" religion, then Muhammad (or Satan working through Muhammad) may have led billions of Muslims to hell.  I'm not saying it is true, mind you -- only that even if you make the unlikely assumption that Muhammad's messages had a supernatural origin, you still don't know that they were from the "real" God.

Quote Well that would include atheism, wouldn't it now?  Or your so-called "humanism"?  Certainly, atheists are capable of just as much violence as religious people.  History has proven that over and over.

I've never heard of a war started by humanists.  I guess it's possible, but I'm finding it hard to imagine.

Quote Are you serious, Ron?  Do you think before you write?  How would Muhammad (peace be upon him) have known that his followers would become 1 billion strong?  And even if he did know, what kind of "power" are you referring to?  Obviously, if he is no longer with us, then what "power" does he have?

I'm sure he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams (then again, Muhammad had some seriously grandiose dreams!), but even during his lifetime he had immense power.  Certainly far more than he would have had as a successful merchant, or a turncoat for the pagans.

Quote He possessed the means to provide himself with rich and ample gifts, yet he simply chose not to.  Would a supposed impostor do that?

Well, if you now agree that he had the means, then we are making progress.  Most likely he chose not to because a lavish lifestyle didn't appeal to him.  There are lots of us like that, you know.  He preferred the power, the prestige and the adulation of being the Prophet of God.  If he had translated that power into obvious wealth, people would have been suspicious.

Quote Yeah, but I was specifically referring to Hazrat Sawdah, you nincompoop.

Of course you were, because she and Khadijah are the only ones who could remotely be described as "elderly".  So how old do you think Sawdah was when Muhammad married her in 620?  (Hint: she died in 674.  Do the math.)

Quote I never said anything about how I "value women".

Fine, I'll take you at your word.

Quote I was specifically referring to your theory that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was driven by lust, by pointing out that a man who is obsessed with sex would probably "value" virgins, not widows.

Why would you think that?  Do rapists preferentially choose virgins as victims, for instance?

Quote Furthermore, there is nothing in Islam that states that women who have had sex are less "valuable" than virgins (unless of course, we are talking about fornicators or adulterers, but that would include both men and women).

In theory it probably does include men; but let's face it, there is no virginity test for men.  No bridegroom was ever rejected on his wedding night because he was found not to be a virgin.  So this is a women's issue.

The subject of how Islam and the other Abrahamic religions (mis)treat women is a topic in itself, and I don't want to get into it here.


-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 21 July 2014 at 12:11pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

  children are born pure and not "ill-conceived".

the Psalm of David
# 51

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.




-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 21 July 2014 at 8:45pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I consider my time (and yours too) to be a matter of real importance.  Don't you?


Yeah right.  If that were the case, then why do you waste your time (and mine) on meaningless conversations?  You are a walking contradiction!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Why would you think that?  Here is how the exchange went:

Me:  "Why would anyone believe him?"
You: Well, people did believe him, Ron!
Me:  Yes, I know they believed him.  My question is, why?
You: That is not what you originally asked.  You asked why would "anyone" believe him?
Me:  Do I need to explain what "anyone" means?

I don't see anything in this that would suggest I am limiting the word "anyone".  Anyone means anyone: Why do you believe, why should I believe, why did they believe, why do others believe... I just want to hear a valid reason to believe that the Quran came from God, regardless of whose reason it is.


I already gave you the reasons, knucklehead.  Your only response has been to come to up with absurd theories with no proof or logical basis.   

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

You established that other prophets were more than just warners.  You haven't established that Muhammad was more than a warner; and if you could, you would be contradicting the Quran.


LOL You are an ignoramus who has no business lecturing me on "contradicting the Quran".  We have already seen sufficient proof that you have no idea what the Quran actually says, so do yourself a favor and refrain from trying to teach the Quran to Muslims. 

It has already been shown that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did perform a miracle in response to the incessant demands of the pagans.  But when they were finally shown a miracle, they reacted exactly in the way the Quran had prophesied.  They still refused to believe and dismissed the miracle as "magic"! 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

1. If an apparently "authentic tradition" contradicts the Quran (13:7 among others), then that tradition is wrong.
2. Does that tradition include any eyewitnesses?  Or is it just hearsay, and/or people misquoting the Quran?
3. Since you and Pooya are making this assertion (in contradiction to the Quran), shouldn't you be the ones offering some "actual evidence"?


1.  You are an i-d-i-o-t.  By definition, an authentic tradition does NOT contradict the Quran. 
2.  You are an i-d-i-o-t.  By definition, an authentic tradition is based on eyewitness testimony.  If it wasn't, then it would not be an "authentic" tradition.  In fact, the tradition recounting the miracle is "mutawatir", meaning that it was reported by a large number of people. 
3.  You are an i-d-i-o-t.  Since you have absolutely no authority in appealing to the Quran, given your laughable ignorance of it, your request of "actual evidence" is also laughable.  In any case, the "actual evidence" is found in the context of the verse in Surah Al-Qamar as well as the authentic traditions.  They are in agreement.  Pseudo-scholars and ignoramuses such as yourself have absolutely no where to run.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

No, it can't.  And if it could, then any event could indicate that the Hour of Judgement is "closer", and the sentence again becomes meaningless.  The only way it makes sense is as a prophecy of a future event.


Oh really, it can't?  Hmm, let's see:

"nigh adverb \ˈnī\

: close in time or place

: almost or nearly

Full Definition of NIGH
1
:  near in place, time, or relationship �often used with on, onto, or unto"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nigh - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nigh

So, I guess we can add vocabulary to the list of subjects you are not an expert on, but nevertheless pretend that you are!  LOL

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Whether or not it makes sense to you as a strategy, the fact is that it worked.


LOL Talk about a non-sequitur.  You haven't even proven that this was his "strategy" (assuming he was an impostor) to begin with.  Obviously, atheists can be just as deluded as anyone else!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Much of your posts is not worth responding to.  The ad hominems in particular I let stand on their own.  They discredit you far more than anything I could say in response.


Excuses, excuses...You're making me cry, Ron. Cry

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Would they be any less vile?  Surely you're not going to say that they would have made better companions than the ones he had.  "Allies" is not the same thing as friends; and I'm not so sure they wouldn't have ended up murdering him anyway.  They had no need for him; they only needed to shut him up.


If he had not accepted their offer, then he was as good as dead.  But if he did accept their offer, he would have their backing as well as the power and wealth that you think was his motivation from the beginning.  We have seen why this crackpot theory falls flat on its face. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Isn't that what he did?  Muhammad did not invent monotheism.  He simply introduced another variant to the pre-existing Abrahamic tradition, which already included Judaism, Christianity and various gnostic sects.


Except that these beliefs were practiced by a very small minority of Arabs.  The vast majority were pagans, and they had various other on-going conflicts, mostly to do with tribal rivalries.  Satan could have easily exploited these rivalries if he was interested in seeing more bloodshed.  Yet, when Muhammad (peace be upon him) preached the Islamic message, he rejected tribalism, which was the cause of most of the bloodshed!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Of course I don't believe it's true.  I'm just saying it's at least as likely to have been Satan as to have been God.  You have no evidence either way, and no way of knowing for sure.
 

But if your argument is not true, then it is just another crackpot theory that fails to explain Muhammad's success and sincerity!  Satan certainly exists, but we have seen no reason to believe that he was responsible for the founding of Islam.  Atheist definitely, but not Islam. Wink 

Originally posted by Ron 
Webb Ron Webb wrote:

But polytheism perpetuated anyway.  I'm not sure what more he could have achieved by picking a lesser god.


LOL What are you talking about?  Polytheism was gradually replaced in Arabia by Islam.  By the end of Muhammad's life, the majority of Arabia had converted. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Besides, the thing about polytheists is that they are by definition tolerant of other gods.  They feel no particular need to go to war against a neighboring tribe of village just because they worship a different god.  No, for true intolerance you need monotheism.


LOL More pathetic rambling by an ignorant and deluded atheist!

First of all, if polytheists are "tolerant of other gods", then why did the pagans of Arabia persecute the early Muslims for being monotheists?  The first martyr of Islam was a woman named Sumayyah (may Allah be pleased with her) who was tortured to death by Abu Jahl.  There were many others who followed.

Second, what about the Roman persecution of both Jews and Christians?  While it is true that the Church has greatly exaggerated the history of the Roman persecution of Christians, there is little doubt that there were intermittent periods of persecution.  The Romans were not only polytheists, but they also worshiped the emperors.  Pliny the Younger described in a letter to the emperor Trajan how he tortured Christians who refused to pay homage to the Roman gods and to the emperor: 

"Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. [...]

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged." ( http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.asp - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.asp )

 
Third, what about the Seleucid persecution of Jews?  The Seleucids were Greek polytheists who ruled over the Holy Land for almost 300 years.  One of the most infamous Seleucid rulers was Antiochus Ephiphanes IV.  The title "Epiphanes" means "God manifest".  In other words, Antiochus considered himself to be divine.  He also was a polytheist.  Here is how the late scholar Geza Vermes described some of Antiochus' persecution of the Jews:

"In 169 BCE Antiochus IV visited Jerusalem and looted the Temple.  But when in 167 he actually prohibited the practice of Judaism under pain of death and rededicated the Jerusalem Sanctuary to Olympian Zeus, the 'abomination of desolation', the opponents of the Hellenizers finally rose up in violent resistance" ("The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English", p. 51).

Clearly, you are an ignorant atheist who needs to brush up on his history...Big%20smile

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Personally, I think that if there is a god then he would have no problem with atheism.  After all, he is making no effort at all to convince me of his existence, so he apparently doesn't care one way or the other what I believe.

No, to send people to hell simply for believing in the wrong god, or no god, that requires a "jealous" god.  The Christian god, for instance.  If Christianity turns out to be the "true" religion, then Muhammad (or Satan working through Muhammad) may have led billions of Muslims to hell.  I'm not saying it is true, mind you -- only that even if you make the unlikely assumption that Muhammad's messages had a supernatural origin, you still don't know that they were from the "real" God.


Of course we do, for all the reasons we have already seen.  We have seen that the the "impostor" theory has no logical basis.  We have seen that the "Satan" theory is nonsensical.  We have seen that people genuinely believed in Muhammad (peace be upon him) and witnessed the proof of the supernatural origin of his message.  All of this serves to show that the message of Islam was from the "real God". 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I've never heard of a war started by humanists.  I guess it's possible, but I'm finding it hard to imagine.
  

LOL We have already seen proof that atheists (the so-called "humanists") have and do commit atrocious acts of violence.  I already provided the examples of atheistic mass murderers like Stalin and Mao Zedong.  You try to move the goal post by using the term "humanists" because you realize that the term "atheist" does not make one any less prone to violence.  So you try to use the "nicer" term.  Nice try, but you are not fooling anyone!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I'm sure he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams (then again, Muhammad had some seriously grandiose dreams!), but even during his lifetime he had immense power.  Certainly far more than he would have had as a successful merchant, or a turncoat for the pagans.


Now, now...don't backtrack.  You claimed that because Muhammad's followers have grown to over 1 billion strong in the present day, that this is proof of his "power".  When you realized how foolish you sounded, you tried to backtrack and now you claim that he had "immense power" during his lifetime. 

When will you grow out of your i-d-i-o-c-y?  Again, if Muhammad (peace be upon him) was motivated by power, then on what basis would he have rejected the offer from the pagans?  They were giving him power!  Yet he chose to remain with his poor and defenseless followers.  It was only after more than 20 years of suffering and struggling that he emerged victorious...and powerful.  Alhamdulillah!  How did he do that?  Think, Ron, think!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Well, if you now agree that he had the means, then we are making progress.  Most likely he chose not to because a lavish lifestyle didn't appeal to him.  There are lots of us like that, you know.  He preferred the power, the prestige and the adulation of being the Prophet of God.  If he had translated that power into obvious wealth, people would have been suspicious.
 

LOL It's amazing how full of crap you really are!  You insist that he was motivated by power and wealth, yet when confronted with the fact that he rejected those very things when they were literally at this fingertips, you simply concoct some other i-d-i-o-t-i-c theory.  Your ego must really have a voracious appetite! 

If he had "preferred the power, the prestige and the adulation", then why did he not allow his followers to even stand up in respect of him whenever he came into a room?  Why did he choose to suffer along with his followers, and even more so?  Why did he tell his followers not to excessively praise him, telling them not to do what the Christians did to Jesus (peace be upon him)?  Think, Ron, think!  There must be some remnant of reason in that thick head of yours...Shocked

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Of course you were, because she and Khadijah are the only ones who could remotely be described as "elderly".  So how old do you think Sawdah was when Muhammad married her in 620?  (Hint: she died in 674.  Do the math.)
       

Hint: Do better research.  The date of her death is not clear.  Different sources say different things.  But they all agree about her age at the time of the marriage.  The website you had referenced earlier stated that she died in the 22nd year after the Hijra, which would be during the reign of Caliph Umar ibn Al-Khattab.  Other websites state that she died in 674 during the reign of Muawiyah. 

According to the former, her age at the time of her death was 72, which means that she was around 50 years old at the time of her marriage to Muhammad (peace be upon him).  In fact, the website states clearly that they were both 50 years old at the time of the marriage.

http://quransearchonline.com/Home/Biography.asp - http://quransearchonline.com/Home/Biography.asp

So once again, we find you hilariously out of touch with the facts.  I guess when you have an alternative agenda, facts don't really mean much.  LOL

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Fine, I'll take you at your word.


Oh, thank you great sir for your understanding...NOT.

Like I care if you take me "at my word" or not!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Why would you think that?  Do rapists preferentially choose virgins as victims, for instance?


Why not?  For example, it was a common custom in the pre-Islamic days that when there was tribal conflict, the victorious tribe would often humiliate the defeated tribe by raping virgin girls.  They didn't take widows and rape them.  They specifically took virgins.  As Michael Palmer and Stanley Burgess observe:

"...when two tribes fought each other, the winning tribe would do anything to humiliate the defeated tribe.  One way to inflict humiliation was to dishonor the tribe by raping young virgin women.  Thus, some of the victims' families believed that by getting rid of the girls, they would eliminate potential problems before they occurred" ("The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Religion and Social Justice", p. 138).

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

In theory it probably does include men; but let's face it, there is no virginity test for men.  No bridegroom was ever rejected on his wedding night because he was found not to be a virgin.  So this is a women's issue.


True, but if a man had been known to be a fornicator, it would be different.  The point is that there is nothing in Islam that states that a virgin is more valuable than a non-virgin unless it had to do with promiscuity, and applied to both men and women.  If it was an Islamic teaching, then Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) would not have married mostly widows. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

The subject of how Islam and the other Abrahamic religions (mis)treat women is a topic in itself, and I don't want to get into it here.
 

Now, now, don't try to run away from the mess you put yourself in.  I am not asking you about what other religions say.  I am asking you prove your i-d-i-o-t-i-c assertion that Islam places more value on virgins than non-virgins.  Put your money where you mouth is and provide proof for your claim.  Otherwise, admit that you are mistaken and salvage your dignity.     


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 21 July 2014 at 8:55pm
Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart wrote:

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

  children are born pure and not "ill-conceived".

the Psalm of David
# 51

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.




LOL Thank you for showing how sick and twisted your theology really is!  Only a sick and twisted theology would claim that babies are "shapen in iniquity" and "in sin".  God is the one who shapes us.  Does He shape us in "iniquity"?  Confused  And since when is legal sexual intercourse (between married men and women) a "sin"? Confused 

I, for one, will follow the more rational Islamic theology which states that all people are born pure and not "ill-conceived".  Yes that's right, "Caringheart"!  You too were once pure!  You have only become tainted by your years of brainwashing.   


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 21 July 2014 at 9:47pm
Greetings islamispeace,

David was simply stating a truth... that we are all born with a sin nature.
Have you ever raised children?  Have you not observed how naturally they lie when they are caught doing something wrong?  That is their first nature.  Have you not observed how it is that children must be taught to be truthful?
... to overcome their sinful nature.

I wonder if you will take the time to study and consider the following, and see the Truth in it:

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal,
...  I am all too human, a slave to sin.
15 I do that which I know not to do;
and what I know I should do, I don't do it;
but that which I hate, that I do

16 But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: because while I have the will to do good, I find that I am unable to do it

19 for the good that I want to do, I don�t;
but the evil that I wish not to do, that I do anyway.

20 Now if I do what I don�t want to do, it is no more I that do it; it is sin living in me that does it.

21 I have discovered this principle of life�that when I want to do what is right, nevertheless, evil is present with me.

22 for I love God�s law with all my heart.

23 But I see that there is another force at work within me, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. [that is, in my flesh]

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord [I am delivered].

[my paraphrase for clarity, using KJV and NLT]


God may have formed us in perfection, but God's original, perfect, creation was tampered with and is now 'shapen in iniquity' because of a deception perpetrated on it in the garden.
Look at the truths that are in front of your eyes... while children are innocent in what they do, they display from the very first their natural tendency toward sin... when they lie, when they defy and test limits, when they sneak, when they sass, when they hit, when they scream... you name it... it is very visible to see.  They must be taught not to do these behaviors... It is in teaching them about the Creator that they learn to purge these behaviors from their nature...

None of us will ever be able to purge all... we will always have our certain weak areas that cause us to fall short of the glory of God.
I am fine with the rest of what you said, in the other thread... about faith and works... and a sincere, repentant heart. Smile

asalaam and blessings.


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 24 July 2014 at 5:42pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

I already gave you the reasons, knucklehead.

Well, sort of.  Here are the reasons you've offered so far:
  1. "People did believe him."  I don't even see why this qualifies as a "reason", unless you're too lazy to think for yourself.
  2. "He had no motive."  Well, he wouldn't need a motive if he were experiencing genuine auditory hallucinations or confusing dreams with reality; but if he were an impostor, he had plenty of motivation.  Not money per se, I grant you; but:
    • Power -- his followers were supposedly commanded by God to obey him.  They would literally die, or kill, for him.  You can't get more power than that.
    • Prestige -- even today, you can't say his name without mumbling "peace be upon him".
    • Women -- not "elderly" women, but women in their sexual prime or earlier, including at least two teenagers and one pre-teen.  Not bad for a guy in his fifties.
  3. "He was persecuted."  Sure, it comes with the territory.  But the rewards were clearly worth it.  Besides, once he was in, he couldn't back out without his companions turning nasty and possibly murderous.
  4. "He was known to be truthful and trustworthy."  Actually, this "reason" is much like #1.  Some people considered him trustworthy (those who believed him), and some people obviously didn't.  What does that prove?
  5. "His miracles."  Except that the Quran says in at least a couple of places that he was a warner only, not a miracle worker; and the one example you offer requires us to accept that the Hour of Judgement was "nigh" 1400 years ago, which makes no sense.
  6. "His undeniable success against innumerable odds."  Congratulations to him then, but plenty of military leaders have beaten the odds.  Alexander the Great also had tremendous military success.  So what?

Let me know if I've missed any.

Quote 1.  You are an i-d-i-o-t.  By definition, an authentic tradition does NOT contradict the Quran.

Exactly, so if there is a contradiction, the tradition must be wrong.

Quote 2.  You are an i-d-i-o-t.  By definition, an authentic tradition is based on eyewitness testimony.

So do we have the testimony of any eyewitnesses?

Quote 3.  You are an i-d-i-o-t.  Since you have absolutely no authority in appealing to the Quran, given your laughable ignorance of it, your request of "actual evidence" is also laughable.

You're right, I have no authority; but what has that to do with your inability to support your claims?

Quote
Quote
Quote The word "nigh" can simply mean "closer".

No, it can't.

Oh really, it can't?  Hmm, let's see:
"nigh adverb \ˈnī\
: close in time or place

Do you need help understanding the difference between "close" and "closer"?  Yes, every morning when I wake up, the Hour of Judgement is "closer"; but that's not the same thing as saying that it's "close".  And it certainly wasn't "close" in Muhammad's time.

Quote If he had not accepted their offer, then he was as good as dead.

Obviously not, because he didn't accept their offer, and he didn't die.

Quote But if he did accept their offer, he would have their backing as well as the power and wealth that you think was his motivation from the beginning.

So he should just trust that "his most vile detractors" would become his best buddies, and not stab him in the back (literally) at their first opportunity?  Yeah, sure. LOL

Quote Satan certainly exists, but we have seen no reason to believe that he was responsible for the founding of Islam.

And equally, no reason to believe he wasn't.

Quote What are you talking about?  Polytheism was gradually replaced in Arabia by Islam.  By the end of Muhammad's life, the majority of Arabia had converted.

In Arabia, perhaps, but polytheism continues throughout the world and is in no danger of disappearing.

Quote First of all, if polytheists are "tolerant of other gods", then why did the pagans of Arabia persecute the early Muslims for being monotheists?

Not just for being monotheists.  They were persecuted for blaspheming against other religions.  Muslims of all groups should understand that.  Can you imagine what would happen to me if I criticized and mocked your religion incessantly and publicly for years in a Muslim-majority country? Ouch

Quote Second, what about the Roman persecution of both Jews and Christians?
Third, what about the Seleucid persecution of Jews?

These were more for political reasons than religious.  Besides, nobody is saying that all polytheists are tolerant to all others all the time.  (Shall I list the many, many instances of Muslim persecution of minorities, contemporary and historical?)  I'm just saying that if Satan wanted to cause chaos and religious conflict, he would be better off backing monotheisms that insist on the supremacy of their own God and are hostile to all other gods, rather than religions that accept lots of different gods and a diversity of worship practices.

Quote If he had "preferred the power, the prestige and the adulation", then why did he not allow his followers to even stand up in respect of him whenever he came into a room?  Why did he choose to suffer along with his followers, and even more so?  Why did he tell his followers not to excessively praise him, telling them not to do what the Christians did to Jesus (peace be upon him)?

Because he's smarter than you. Tongue Obviously he would not gain respect or earn praise simply by demanding it; but the more humble and modest his behaviour (in stark contrast to the praise of Allah Himself in the Quran), the more he was admired.  And you can't deny that it worked.

[edited to fix the numbering in the list]


-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 26 July 2014 at 1:34pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

  1. "People did believe him."  I don't even see why this qualifies as a "reason", unless you're too lazy to think for yourself.


LOL Getting confused, are we?  That wasn't a "reason", genius.  That was just to point out the absurdity of your question "why would anyone believe him".  Get your head out of the ground, Ron!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

  1. "He had no motive."  Well, he wouldn't need a motive if he were experiencing genuine auditory hallucinations or confusing dreams with reality; but if he were an impostor, he had plenty of motivation.  Not money per se, I grant you; but:
    • Power -- his followers were supposedly commanded by God to obey him.  They would literally die, or kill, for him.  You can't get more power than that.
    • Prestige -- even today, you can't say his name without mumbling "peace be upon him".
    • Women -- not "elderly" women, but women in their sexual prime or earlier, including at least two teenagers and one pre-teen.  Not bad for a guy in his fifties.


Still repeating the same m-o-r-o-n-i-c arguments, which have been refuted so many times already?  How many times does an atheist need to get embarrassed before he says to himself "hmmm, maybe I should just keep my mouth shut because I clearly don't have a clue"?  Big%20smile

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

"He was persecuted."  Sure, it comes with the territory.  But the rewards were clearly worth it.  Besides, once he was in, he couldn't back out without his companions turning nasty and possibly murderous.


So, apparently in your befuddled mind, a supposed impostor would have risked persecution and possibly death because "it comes with the territory", all for a less than guaranteed promise of "rewards".  Genius!  Absolutely brilliant Ron!  LOL  I can think of no better response to your idiocy than the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

"He was known to be truthful and trustworthy."  Actually, this "reason" is much like #1.  Some people considered him trustworthy (those who believed him), and some people obviously didn't.  What does that prove?
     

Every time you write something, you expose your ignorance more and more.  This is becoming a joke.  Big%20smile

Anyway, he was known to be truthful and trustworthy even to the people who would eventually become his enemies.  It was only after he began to preach Islam that his enemies accused him of being a "liar".  How convenient!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

"His miracles."  Except that the Quran says in at least a couple of places that he was a warner only, not a miracle worker; and the one example you offer requires us to accept that the Hour of Judgement was "nigh" 1400 years ago, which makes no sense.
  

This is all according to Sheik Ron Webb. LOL  Of course, pretending that you know what you are talking about does not actually mean that you know what you are talking about.  You have offered crackpot diagnoses and theories, as well as fatwas on what the Quran says.  Unfortunately, your fake attempts to explain what the Quran actually says have been refuted by clear facts.  We know for a fact that Muhammad (peace be upon him) did indeed perform a miracle in response to the incessant demands from the pagans to see a miracle.  When they were finally shown the miracle, they dismissed as "magic".  And when seen in context, it is clear that the verse is talking about an incident in the Prophet's life, because verse 5 states:

"Therefore, (O Prophet,) turn away from them. The Day that the Caller will call (them) to a terrible affair..."         

If the verses were referring to a future event, then why would the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) be told to "turn away" from the unbelievers?  Think, Ron, think? 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

"His undeniable success against innumerable odds."  Congratulations to him then, but plenty of military leaders have beaten the odds.  Alexander the Great also had tremendous military success.  So what?


LOL Alexander the Great had a professional army of tens of thousands of troops.  In the first battle the Muslims took part in, they had a little over 300 fighters (most of whom were not professional soldiers) and a few horses and camels.  And at the Battle of the Trench, they faced an all-out assault from the pagans, and held out for several weeks before a very well-timed sandstorm wiped out the pagan army!  Alhamdulillah!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Exactly, so if there is a contradiction, the tradition must be wrong.
 

Still confused, eh?  Let me go slower.  Your non-sequitur proves nothing, Sheik...I mean doctor...I mean...well, what are you anyway?  I can't keep track!

We have already seen that the verse is referring to an incident in the life of the Prophet, despite the protests of pseudo-scholars such as yourself.  The traditions that refer to the miracle have been authenticated using the science of hadith methodology, and they agree with the Quran.  If they had contradicted the Quran, they would have been proven to be unauthentic by using the science of hadith methodology.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

So do we have the testimony of any eyewitnesses?


Still confused, or are you just blind?  What did I say before?  Come on, Ron.  Read.  Reading is fundamental.  Here is what I said:

In fact, the tradition recounting the miracle is "mutawatir", meaning that it was reported by a large number of people.
 

The traditions of the miracle have been reported by the likes of Ibn Abbas, Anas ibn Malik, and Abdullah ibn Masud among others. 

Originally posted by Ron
 Webb Ron Webb wrote:

You're right, I have no authority; but what has that to do with your inability to support your claims?
  

LOL If you want to keep telling yourself that I have been unable to support my claims, go ahead.  Keep making a fool of yourself!  It's quite entertaining! 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Do you need help understanding the difference between "close" and "closer"?  Yes, every morning when I wake up, the Hour of Judgement is "closer"; but that's not the same thing as saying that it's "close".  And it certainly wasn't "close" in Muhammad's time.
 

Ah, semantics.  The last resort of a scoundrel with no where to go.  As I said before, the splitting of the moon was a major sign.  It was one of those events which was a prerequisite for the Day of Judgement.  Since it has now happened, the Day of Judgement is nigh/close/closer.  But there are still other major signs that have yet to happen.  When those happen, the Day of Judgement will be even closer.  Let us look at Yusuf Ali's commentary to help you further understand:

"Three explanations are given in the Mufradat, and perhaps all three apply here: (1) that the moon once appeared cleft asunder in the valley of Makkah within sight of the Prophet, his Companions, and some Unbelievers; (2) that the prophetic past tense indicates the future, the cleaving asunder of the moon being a Sign of the Judgement approaching; and (3) that the phrase is metaphorical, meaning that the matter has become clear as the moon. That the first was noticed by contemporaries, including Unbelievers, is clear from verse 2. The second is an incident of the disruption of the solar system at the New Creation: Cf. 75:8-9. And the third might well be implied as in eastern allegory, based on the other two."

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Obviously not, because he didn't accept their offer, and he didn't die.
  

But would he have known that, you silly atheist?  The fact that he didn't die means that he was legitimate.  He was who he said he was.  If he was an impostor, then chances are that he would have been killed eventually.  But he was not.  Alhamdulillah!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

So he should just trust that "his most vile detractors" would become his best buddies, and not stab him in the back (literally) at their first opportunity?  Yeah, sure. LOL
    

LOL Considering that rejecting their offer would have meant an eventual attempt on his life anyway, a supposed impostor would not have passed over the opportunity to get wealth and power and then use that to protect himself against any would-be assassins.  Accepting the offer would have been a better decision for an impostor than rejected the offer and guaranteeing further persecution and eventual death. But I know that your feeble mind cannot grasp the obvious.  Poor, silly atheist...Cry

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

And equally, no reason to believe he wasn't.


LOL Sure, sure.  We have already seen why this argument fails.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

In Arabia, perhaps, but polytheism continues throughout the world and is in no danger of disappearing.


Clap Brilliant Ron!  So Satan's plan was to allow millions of people in Arabia (and other places) to leave polytheism in favor of Islam so long as polytheism itself did not fully disappear from the world?!  Why wouldn't he simply have tried to expand polytheism further and keep it from losing ground to a monotheistic religion which shuns polytheism and idol worship? 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Not just for being monotheists.  They were persecuted for blaspheming against other religions.  Muslims of all groups should understand that.  Can you imagine what would happen to me if I criticized and mocked your religion incessantly and publicly for years in a Muslim-majority country? Ouch
 
 
Making excuses now, eh?  Your silly claim that polytheists are more "tolerant" has fallen by the wayside, so you attempt to save yourself more embarrassment by moving the goal post.  But in doing so, you expose your ignorance once again.  The fact is that Muslims were forbidden to insult the pagan gods:

"Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did." (Surah Al-Anaam, 6:108) 

Furthermore, the Quran stated:

"Say: O ye that reject Faith!  I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship.  And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship.  To you be your Way, and to me mine." (Surah Al-Kafiroon, 109:1-6)

Where is your dignity, silly atheist?! Embarrassed

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

These were more for political reasons than religious.  Besides, nobody is saying that all polytheists are tolerant to all others all the time.  (Shall I list the many, many instances of Muslim persecution of minorities, contemporary and historical?)  I'm just saying that if Satan wanted to cause chaos and religious conflict, he would be better off backing monotheisms that insist on the supremacy of their own God and are hostile to all other gods, rather than religions that accept lots of different gods and a diversity of worship practices.


Backtracking again?  Well, who can blame you?  After all the embarrassment you have suffered due to your i-d-i-o-t-i-c ramblings, backtracking is all you can really do.  Shall I repeat what you wrote originally?  Here is what you stated:

Besides, the thing about polytheists is that they are by definition tolerant of other gods.  They feel no particular need to go to war against a neighboring tribe of village just because they worship a different god.  No, for true intolerance you need monotheism.

Awkward!!

Anyway, it is true that the Romans and Seleucids had political reasons to persecute both Jews and Christians.  But, the fact is that they also forced them to conform to the pagan religious system.  Pliny the Younger forced Christians to worship the gods and the emperor!  Antiochus IV forcefully desecrated the Temple and forced Jews to conform to the Hellenistic culture.  That is why it is referred to as "forced Hellenization".  So clearly, polytheists are just as capable of intolerance. 

Satan had no reason to start a monotheistic religion in order to promote religious violence.  In fact, as I already pointed out (and which you are now ignoring), Satan already had a chance to cause more violence.  If he had started Islam, he would have further exploited the tribal rivalries that were causing tremendous bloodshed in pre-Islamic Arabia.  Unfortunately for you, Islam preached against tribalism!  Why would Satan have done that?  It just doesn't line up, does it? Wink

What all of this this shows is that you are a pathetic ignoramus who has no idea what he is talking about, but nevertheless pretend that you do...all to satisfy your atheistic worldview.  And when the facts are shown to you, instead of having the decency to admit that you are mistaken, you simply reformulate your argument but maintain the original premise.  For shame, Ron! Ouch 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Because he's smarter than you. Tongue Obviously he would not gain respect or earn praise simply by demanding it; but the more humble and modest his behaviour (in stark contrast to the praise of Allah Himself in the Quran), the more he was admired.  And you can't deny that it worked.


Or maybe it's because you are too dumb to see the obvious.  Tongue  Obviously, if he craved adulation and respect, he would have eventually allowed his followers to do the things that he had forbidden them.  Instead, he remained adamant throughout his life that they not show him excessive praise. 

Time after time, we see your crackpot theories being utterly ruined.  And then, you try to salvage your shattered theories by resorting to special pleading like the following:

1.  He was motivated by wealth.  Oh but wait, since he purposefully lived in poverty, "perhaps" he rejected wealth "because a lavish lifestyle didn't appeal to him."

Note: But if a "lavish lifestyle didn't appeal to him", then why would he risk his life by starting a religion for that purpose? 

2.  He wanted adulation and praise.  Oh but wait, since he purposefully forbid his followers from praising him, "perhaps" he rejected adulation and praise because "he would not gain respect or earn praise simply by demanding it". 

Note: He actually could have "demanded" it if he wanted.  His followers were willing to die for his cause, so why wouldn't they obey him if he told them to praise him and give him adulation? 

And since he did reject adulation and praise his entire prophetic life, then what benefits did he really enjoy by "pretending" to be a prophet in order to get praise and adulation? Confused   

3.  He wanted power and influence.  Oh but wait, since he purposefully rejected the pagans' attempt to buy him out, "perhaps" he rejected power and influence because his poor and defenseless followers would try to kill him. 

Note: Rejecting the offer would have meant incurring the wrath of the powerful pagans.  By choosing to remain steadfast, the Prophet was inviting further persecution, which of course did come.

Let me know if I forgot any.  How embarrassing this must be for you! Big%20smile

Oh and by the way, I noticed that you once again ignored my request for evidence for your claim that Islam places more value on virgins than non-virgins.  You can run, but you can't hide, Ron!  Put where your money where you mouth is and get ready for some more embarrassment and humiliation! DeadDeadDead


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 28 July 2014 at 6:35pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Getting confused, are we?  That wasn't a "reason", genius.  That was just to point out the absurdity of your question "why would anyone believe him".

I don't see how it points that out.  The question would be absurd if they didn't believe him, not if they did.

Quote So, apparently in your befuddled mind, a supposed impostor would have risked persecution and possibly death because "it comes with the territory", all for a less than guaranteed promise of "rewards".

Countless heretics over the millennia have risked persecution and possible death.  Some were impostors and/or charlatans, some were sincere and/or misled.  There is nothing unusual or surprising about it.

Quote Anyway, he was known to be truthful and trustworthy even to the people who would eventually become his enemies.  It was only after he began to preach Islam that his enemies accused him of being a "liar".

You don't know that; and even if you did, the obvious fact is that the ones who accused him of being a liar did not consider him trustworthy enough to swallow his tall tale.  Like I said, some believed, some didn't.  That's not proof of anything.

Quote We know for a fact that Muhammad (peace be upon him) did indeed perform a miracle in response to the incessant demands from the pagans to see a miracle.

No, we don't know that.  We have hearsay evidence, but no eyewitnesses.

What we do know (assuming you have faith in the Quran) is that in response to demands for such miracles, Muhammad was said to be a warner only.   Not a miracle worker.

Quote If the verses were referring to a future event, then why would the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) be told to "turn away" from the unbelievers?

Because he had no miracles to show them.  What else could he do?

Quote Alexander the Great had a professional army of tens of thousands of troops.  In the first battle the Muslims took part in, they had a little over 300 fighters (most of whom were not professional soldiers) and a few horses and camels.  And at the Battle of the Trench, they faced an all-out assault from the pagans, and held out for several weeks before a very well-timed sandstorm wiped out the pagan army!

Mahatma Gandhi defeated the entire British army without a single fighter.  Now that might qualify as a miracle.  But sandstorms in a semi-desert region are not really all that surprising, are they?

Quote We have already seen that the verse is referring to an incident in the life of the Prophet, despite the protests of pseudo-scholars such as yourself.

What we have seen is that the incident is a sign that the Hour of Judgement is "nigh"; and yet 1400 years later, still no Hour of Judgement. Tongue Obviously the sign couldn't have happened yet.

Quote The traditions that refer to the miracle have been authenticated using the science of hadith methodology, and they agree with the Quran.

"The science of hadith methodology" -- I love that phrase! LOL
Do they agree with the many verses in the Quran describing Muhammad as a warner only, not a miracle worker?

Quote The traditions of the miracle have been reported by the likes of Ibn Abbas, Anas ibn Malik, and Abdullah ibn Masud among others.

Reported by them but apparently not witnessed by them.  So just tradition, a.k.a. hearsay evidence at best.

We have first-hand accounts of Muhammad urinating, for pete's sake.  You'd think if he actually performed a miracle to a huge crowd of onlookers, then at least one of witnesses would have found that worthy of narrating.

Quote Ah, semantics.  The last resort of a scoundrel with no where to go.  As I said before, the splitting of the moon was a major sign.  It was one of those events which was a prerequisite for the Day of Judgement.  Since it has now happened, the Day of Judgement is nigh/close/closer.

I'm sorry if semantics (a.k.a. understanding the meaning of words) is too hard for you, but "close" and "closer" are not the same thing.  Every day, the (alleged) Hour of Judgement is a day "closer" than it was the day before.  I don't need a prophetic sign to tell me that.

OTOH, nobody would describe 1400 years as "close".  So either way, it's nonsense.  The only interpretation that makes sense is that the splitting of the moon is a prophetic sign that will happen in the future and will indicate that the Hour of Judgement is nigh (close).

Quote But would he have known that, you silly atheist?

Why not?  He might have been at risk in Mecca, but he was relatively safe in Medina -- or would have been if not for his continuing caravan raids.  It's nonsense to claim that he was "as good as dead", and history bears that out.

He would have been as good as dead if he had apostasized.  His friends would have turned against him, his enemies would have had no reason to protect him, and all the wealth in the world would have done him no good.  

Quote Brilliant Ron!  So Satan's plan was to allow millions of people in Arabia (and other places) to leave polytheism in favor of Islam so long as polytheism itself did not fully disappear from the world?!  Why wouldn't he simply have tried to expand polytheism further and keep it from losing ground to a monotheistic religion which shuns polytheism and idol worship?

Maybe because that particular monotheistic religion has spawned more terrorist groups and terrorist attacks than any other in the world. Certainly more than polytheism.

Quote Making excuses now, eh?  Your silly claim that polytheists are more "tolerant" has fallen by the wayside, so you attempt to save yourself more embarrassment by moving the goal post.

"Fallen by the wayside"?  Because you found a couple of conflicts that you think can be attributed to polytheism?

The most common polytheistic religion today is Hinduism:
"Hindus have welcomed, embraced and lived peacefully among other religions for centuries. During those same centuries, Hinduism itself evolved into hundreds of strains, and thus Hindus are fully at home with many different traditions and viewpoints within their own faith. Hence, they are naturally tolerant of other religions, respecting the fact that each has unique beliefs, practices, goals and paths of attainment, and not objecting when the doctrines of one conflict with those of another. Hindus readily accept the idea that it is not necessary, desirable or even possible for everyone to hold the same beliefs. And certainly such differences should never be cause for tension, criticism, intolerance or violence." http://www.himalayanacademy.com/blog/taka/2011/09/10/how-do-hindus-view-other-religions/ - http://www.himalayanacademy.com/blog/taka/2011/09/10/how-do-hindus-view-other-religions/

Compare that to any of the monotheistic religions, all of which regard themselves as supreme and the only acceptable religion.

Quote But in doing so, you expose your ignorance once again.  The fact is that Muslims were forbidden to insult the pagan gods:

That's lovely to hear, but it doesn't address the point.  What would happen to me if I stood in a public place in virtually any Muslim-majority country and called on everyone to abandon Islam and adopt some other faith?  You know perfectly well that I'd be lucky to escape with my life.  And if I kept it up for years?!  Really, it's extremely hypocritical of Muslims to criticise the pagans for persecuting Muhammad, when they would do the exact same thing if not worse to other faiths.

Quote Time after time, we see your crackpot theories being utterly ruined.  And then, you try to salvage your shattered theories by resorting to special pleading like the following:

1.  He was motivated by wealth.

I didn't say wealth, I said access to wealth.  For instance, one-fifth of all the loot from wars and caravan raids etc. was given to him.  And yes, he in turn gave most of it away, which must have been very satisfying personally, not to mention very helpful politically.  If you want to share in the Prophet's largesse, you'd best not be too critical.

Quote 2.  He wanted adulation and praise.

Which one can only get by being modest and humble, not by being proud and arrogant.  If you don't understand that, then try demanding that your friends and family praise and adore you, and see how that works out.

Quote 3.  He wanted power and influence.  Oh but wait, since he purposefully rejected the pagans' attempt to buy him out, "perhaps" he rejected power and influence because his poor and defenseless followers would try to kill him.

He didn't reject power and influence.  He became the most powerful man in Arabia.

Quote Note: Rejecting the offer would have meant incurring the wrath of the powerful pagans.  By choosing to remain steadfast, the Prophet was inviting further persecution, which of course did come.

In the beginning, maybe, but I doubt that anyone persecuted him once he was surrounded by the strongest army in the land.

Quote Oh and by the way, I noticed that you once again ignored my request for evidence for your claim that Islam places more value on virgins than non-virgins.

And you ignored my request to keep your replies to a reasonable length.  No, I'm not going to get into the subject of misogyny in the Abrahamic religions (not just Islam) here.  This discussion is already out of control.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 30 July 2014 at 2:48pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I don't see how it points that out.  The question would be absurd if they didn't believe him, not if they did.


Still not getting it?  Your question was absurd because there were and have been plenty of people who believed in him.  Hence, to ask "why would anyone believe him" makes no sense. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Countless heretics over the millennia have risked persecution and possible death.  Some were impostors and/or charlatans, some were sincere and/or misled.  There is nothing unusual or surprising about it.
 

But coupled with other evidence that we have seen, there is nothing to indicate that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had decided one day to start a new religion in the hopes of getting wealth and power (when he could have done something far less dangerous and complicated) and then when confronted with what he wanted, simply turned away from it.  Moreover, we have seen evidence that he was truly who he said he was, because if he wasn't, then odds are that he would have failed in his mission and probably ended up being murdered or having to renounce his beliefs.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

You don't know that; and even if you did, the obvious fact is that the ones who accused him of being a liar did not consider him trustworthy enough to swallow his tall tale.  Like I said, some believed, some didn't.  That's not proof of anything.

 
LOL There you go again with your agnostic idiocy.  You don't disprove what I said, but instead just resort to "uncertainty".  The fact is that we know very well that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a man of great repute in pre-Islamic Arabia.  People trusted him and respected him greatly.  The people who disbelieved in him when he preached Islam did so for political and/or religious reasons.  They just couldn't swallow what he was asking them to do (such as shunning their "gods", being charitable, etc.)

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

No, we don't know that.  We have hearsay evidence, but no eyewitnesses.


You, being the fake Sheik, might not "know that", but the rest of us do.  Big%20smile  And yes, we do have eyewitnesses, as we will see later.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

What we do know (assuming you have faith in the Quran) is that in response to demands for such miracles, Muhammad was said to be a warner only.   Not a miracle worker.


No, no, no.  "What we do know" is that you are a pseudo-scholar masquerading as one who thinks he knows what he is talking about.  Wink  What the Quran says is that the unbelievers insisted on seeing a miracle.  For a long while, no miracle was shown to them because it was stated that even if they were shown such miracles, they would still not believe.  Then, at one point, when the unbelievers again demanded a miracle, Allah (glorified and Exalted be He) allowed Muhammad (peace be upon him) to split the moon (although of course it was not Muhammad himself who did it of his own power, but Allah).  And predictably, the unbelievers still refused to believe, dismissing the miracle as "magic". 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Because he had no miracles to show them.  What else could he do?


LOLLOLLOL Oh, how deluded and blind are you, silly atheist?  The verse tells the Prophet to turn away from the unbelievers because even when they were shown the miracle they were demanding, they still refused to believe, as earlier verses had predicted).  Let us read:

"The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder.  But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic."  They reject (the warning) and follow their (own) lusts but every matter has its appointed time.  There have already come to them Recitals wherein there is (enough) to check (them),  Mature wisdom;- but (the preaching of) Warners profits them not.  Therefore, (O Prophet,) turn away from them. The Day that the Caller will call (them) to a terrible affair..." (Surah Al-Qamar, 54:1-7)

So, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was told to leave the unbelievers because of their stubbornness despite being shown the miracle they were demanding.  Anyone with half a brain can see the context.  I guess that means your brain isn't fully functioning!  Tongue 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Mahatma Gandhi defeated the entire British army without a single fighter.  Now that might qualify as a miracle.  But sandstorms in a semi-desert region are not really all that surprising, are they?


LOL Oh really?  Gandhi "defeated the entire British army"?  That's a new one to me! 

No, silly man.  Gandhi did not defeat an army with non-violent resistance.  The British had been discussing the issue of Indian independence from even before World War I.  Gandhi even supported the British in both world wars, even going so far as to recruit soldiers to fight for the British.  Clearly, he wanted to stay on the good side of the British while simultaneously making them know that Indian independence had to be recognized.  Moreover, in this regard, the Muslims of the subcontinent were also seeking independence.  So let's face it.  When you have hundreds of millions of people seeking independence, it is not a good idea to be stubborn.  The British eventually realized that to remain in India, among a hostile populace, would not be in their best interests.  As author Arthur Herman notes:

"The more that keeping order in the subcontinent required certain kinds of drastic actions--police actions, breaking up riots and demonstrations, throwing Gandhi into prison on a regular basis--the more it had a wearing effect on the British public, until the British became ashamed of themselves and of their empire in India. They saw a face of themselves they did not recognize. Gandhi showed them that face, and this was one of the key reasons why the decision was made once the war was over that Britain must give up rule in India." ( http://www.aei.org/speech/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/asia/gandhi-churchill-and-the-british-withdrawal-from-india-speech/ - http://www.aei.org/speech/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/asia/gandhi-churchill-and-the-british-withdrawal-from-india-speech/ )       

So, even among the British, there were voices in support of independence.  With all these factors at play, it is not surprising that India was eventually granted independence. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

What we have seen is that the incident is a sign that the Hour of Judgement is "nigh"; and yet 1400 years later, still no Hour of Judgement. Tongue Obviously the sign couldn't have happened yet.
 

LOL That's because the Hour of Judgment will come suddenly and unbelievers such as yourself will find themselves in a major quandary.
 
There are many signs that have to take place.  Some have taken place already and some have not.  Furthermore, when you consider the age of the earth (something like 4 billion years), 1400 years is like the blink of an eye.  The Quran states that when the Hour comes, Allah (glorified and Exalted be He) will create a different earth:

"One day the earth will be changed to a different earth, and so will be the heavens, and (men) will be marshaled forth, before Allah, the One, the Irresistible;" (Surah Ibrahim, 14:48)

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

"The science of hadith methodology" -- I love that phrase! LOL
Do they agree with the many verses in the Quran describing Muhammad as a warner only, not a miracle worker?


I love it that an ignoramus still keeps pretending as if his argument has any weight! LOL

What can one say to an i-d-i-o-t who thinks he knows better about the Quran (despite not ever having actually read the Quran) than Muslims? Big%20smile

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Reported by them but apparently not witnessed by them.  So just tradition, a.k.a. hearsay evidence at best.

We have first-hand accounts of Muhammad urinating, for pete's sake.  You'd think if he actually performed a miracle to a huge crowd of onlookers, then at least one of witnesses would have found that worthy of narrating.


Again we see your idiocy at work, consuming your ability to discern fact from fiction.  As I said before, many people reported the event of the splitting of the moon.  They did indeed witness this event.  Here is the eyewitness report of Abdullah ibn Abbas:

"Narrated 'Abdullah: The moon was split ( into two pieces ) while we were with the Prophet in Mina. He said, "Be witnesses." Then a Piece of the moon went towards the mountain." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 58, Number 209)

Don't you get tired of looking like a clown with no clue as to what he is talking about? Clown

Originally posted by Ron
 Webb Ron Webb wrote:

'm sorry if semantics (a.k.a. understanding the meaning of words) is too hard for you, but "close" and "closer" are not the same thing.  Every day, the (alleged) Hour of Judgement is a day "closer" than it was the day before.  I don't need a prophetic sign to tell me that.

OTOH, nobody would describe 1400 years as "close".  So either way, it's nonsense.  The only interpretation that makes sense is that the splitting of the moon is a prophetic sign that will happen in the future and will indicate that the Hour of Judgement is nigh (close).


We have been through this already.  Your *****ic repetitions are not fooling anybody.  As I have already said, being that the splitting of the moon was a major sign that had to occur as a prerequisite for the Day of Judgment, the meaning is that with the fulfillment of the moon miracle, the Hour has drawn near.  And as more and more signs occur, the Hour will be even nearer.  We may be witnessing some more of the major signs soon.  Allah only knows.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Why not?  He might have been at risk in Mecca, but he was relatively safe in Medina -- or would have been if not for his continuing caravan raids.  It's nonsense to claim that he was "as good as dead", and history bears that out.

He would have been as good as dead if he had apostasized.  His friends would have turned against him, his enemies would have had no reason to protect him, and all the wealth in the world would have done him no good. 


LOL You're jumping ahead of yourself, Bozo.  He was still years away from making the trip to Medina.  It wouldn't have even crossed his mind, because Medina (Yathrib as it was previoulsy known) had its own problems and it would not have been safe for him to go there anyway since there were no Muslims there.  It was not until around 620 (almost 8 years after he had begun publicly preaching) that the First Pledge of Aqaba was made by a delegation of people from Yathrib.  They were the first converts from Yathrib.  The Second Pledge occurred about 2 years later, and it was at that point that Muhammad (peace be upon him) decided to migrate.

Hence, prior to the Aqaba pledges, Muhammad (peace be upon him) would not have had any safe havens.  In fact, even before the Aqaba pledges, he had made attempts to garner support in the city of Taif, but was brutally persecuted.  This happened in 619.  So, there wasn't any safe haven for him.  This makes his rejection of the offer impossible to explain IF he was in fact an impostor.  Your feeble attempts to rewrite history reveal how desperate you are!  I guess we can add "Bozo the Clown" to your growing list of aliases!  LOL

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Maybe because that particular monotheistic religion has spawned more terrorist groups and terrorist attacks than any other in the world. Certainly more than polytheism.
      

LOL Right, so Satan somehow knew that would happen?  That was part of his plan back in 610 CE?  To start a religion that would, if all went according to plan, spawn terrorist groups while also winning many converts (especially among Arab polytheists)? 

Was it also part of Satan's plan to provoke the "spawning" of those terrorist groups by promoting western interference in Muslim countries?  Or perhaps to get western countries to help create and finance some of those terrorist groups?  Why even the post-911 world, it is well known that America and Israel finance the terrorist group known as MEK to carry out attacks against Iran.  And of course, we know that the CIA helped create Al-Qaeda in the 1980s to fight the Soviets.  And by the way, if you want to educate yourself further, you may want to read Prof. Charles Kurzman's book http://www.amazon.com/Missing-Martyrs-There-Muslim-Terrorists/dp/0199766878/ref=sr_1_92?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402445757&sr=1-92&keywords=ibn+al - "The Missing Martyrs: Why There Are So Few Muslim Terrorists."   Enlighten yourself and step out of your bubble of ignorance and foolishness.

I guess I can't blame you for your st**idity.  After all, you are just Bozo being Bozo! LOL

Originally posted by Ron
 Webb Ron Webb wrote:

"Fallen by the wayside"?  Because you found a couple of conflicts that you think can be attributed to polytheism?

The most common polytheistic religion today is Hinduism:
"Hindus have welcomed, embraced and lived peacefully among other religions for centuries. During those same centuries, Hinduism itself evolved into hundreds of strains, and thus Hindus are fully at home with many different traditions and viewpoints within their own faith. Hence, they are naturally tolerant of other religions, respecting the fact that each has unique beliefs, practices, goals and paths of attainment, and not objecting when the doctrines of one conflict with those of another. Hindus readily accept the idea that it is not necessary, desirable or even possible for everyone to hold the same beliefs. And certainly such differences should never be cause for tension, criticism, intolerance or violence." http://www.himalayanacademy.com/blog/taka/2011/09/10/how-do-hindus-view-other-religions/ - http://www.himalayanacademy.com/blog/taka/2011/09/10/how-do-hindus-view-other-religions/

Compare that to any of the monotheistic religions, all of which regard themselves as supreme and the only acceptable religion.


LOLLOLLOLLOL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

So you present someone's opinion of how Hindus view other religions and think that it somehow proves your point?  I don't doubt that the majority of Hindus would not think to hurt someone who didn't follow their religion, but that's the case with every religion!  In theory, Hinduism may be accepting of "other" gods, but the reality shows that this was not always the case. 

Shall I educate you on some more history by showing that Hindus have and do persecute people of other religions?  Let's have a lesson on Hindu persecution of Buddhists, just as an example (unfortunately, Muslims have also persecuted Buddhists): http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/1112/sbk/sbk2.html#iii1 - http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/1112/sbk/sbk2.html#iii1

1.  "The Pallava dynasty in Southern India ruled the northern Tamil Nadu region and the southern Andhra Pradesh region from 275 CE to late 13th century. The Pallavas were followers of Hinduism but were generally tolerant to other faiths. However, at least two attempts of overt persecution of Buddhism took place. Simhavarma, known to be the father of Naravarma who reigned from 404 CE, and Trilochana are known to have destroyed Buddhist stupas and have had Hindu temples built over them." 

2.  "Prior to this period, Buddhism flourished under the Gupta Empire. There was great development of Hinduism, but Buddhism was still prominently practiced in the Ganges Plain.
     
However, this was the period when Hindus, especially Shaivites, took aggressive action against Buddhism. At least two kings, the Hephthalite king Miharakula in the early 6th century and the Bengal king Sasanka in the early 7th century reportedly have persecuted Buddhism."


3.  "Sasanka of the Gauda Kingdom of central Bengal in the early 7th century also worshipped Shiva and endeavored to extirpate the Buddhists from his dominions. Having murdered Rajyavardhana, a Buddhist king of Thanesar, he have put thousands of Buddhist monks to death, particularly all those in the area around Kushinagar were known to be slaughtered. http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/1112/sbk/sbk2.html#9 - (9) He also cut down the holy bodhi tree at Bodh Gaya, the act for which Hsuen-Tsang maligned the king, and managed to break the stone carved with the footprints of the Buddha at Pataliputra in about 600 CE, http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/1112/sbk/sbk2.html#10 - (10) Nevertheless, Buddhism survived from Sasanka's persecution as the Emperor Harshavardhana of Harsha Empire, a great patron of Buddhism, defeated Sasanka and saved Buddhism."

So clearly, Hindus have been known to exhibit intolerance of other religions.  Even in modern times, Hindus extremists have been known to persecute Christians and Muslims in India.  They have even been known to persecute Jains!  Describing the historical persecution of Jains, Dr. K. Prabhakar Rao states:

"Jainism which was a major religion in Telangana disappered almost completely and this is the reason forcomin up of scores of siva temples in Telangana and other Andhra areas.Even fall of Kakateeya rule was partly due to the outcome of conspiracies of jains who suffered during the later years of their rule." ( http://kuntamukkalaprabhakar.blogspot.com/2007/12/fall-of-kalyani.html - http://kuntamukkalaprabhakar.blogspot.com/2007/12/fall-of-kalyani.html )


Oh and let's not forget the historical rivalry that has existed among Hindus themselves.  As anyone with even a basic knowledge of Hinduism knows, the two major sects are Vaishnavites (who worship Vishnu) and Shivaites (who worship Shiva).  Throughout history, the rivalry between the two sects has sometimes erupted in violence.  For example, the Chola king Kulottunga (who was a Shivaite) severely persecuted Vaishnavites during his reign (Alain Danielou, "A Brief History of India, p. 178)". 

Bozo being Bozo...tsk...tsk...tsk...Big%20smile

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

That's lovely to hear, but it doesn't address the point.  What would happen to me if I stood in a public place in virtually any Muslim-majority country and called on everyone to abandon Islam and adopt some other faith?  You know perfectly well that I'd be lucky to escape with my life.  And if I kept it up for years?!  Really, it's extremely hypocritical of Muslims to criticise the pagans for persecuting Muhammad, when they would do the exact same thing if not worse to other faiths.


None of this changes the fact that the pagans did persecute Muslims despite the latter's avoidance of directly attacking their religion.  Your attempts to change the subject will not save you from the embarrassment that you deserve.  Embarrassed

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I didn't say wealth, I said access to wealth.  For instance, one-fifth of all the loot from wars and caravan raids etc. was given to him.  And yes, he in turn gave most of it away, which must have been very satisfying personally, not to mention very helpful politically.  If you want to share in the Prophet's largesse, you'd best not be too critical.
 

Shocked It is shocking to see how desperate you are to malign the Prophet.  It seems like no matter what he did, m-o-r-o-n-s like you will not be satisfied.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  If Muhammad (peace be upon him) had kept the wealth, you would have said "Aha!  See, he was after wealth all along!"  But since he didn't keep the wealth, you say "Aha!  See, he was trying to gain the favor of the people by giving away the wealth he had gained!" 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Which one can only get by being modest and humble, not by being proud and arrogant.  If you don't understand that, then try demanding that your friends and family praise and adore you, and see how that works out.
 

LOL But one would think that eventually, he would have asked for the "praise and adulation" that he wanted.  Instead, we find that to the end of his life, he remained adamant that Muslims not praise him.  If you can't understand that, then pretend that you are an impostor who wants praise and adulation and try strictly telling your friends and family to NOT praise and adore you from now on until the day you die, and see how that works out. 

If a man was allegedly motivated by a need for praise and adulation, and was willing to suffer for it, but then strictly forbade his followers from giving him praise and adulation his entire life, then what did he accomplish???  Confused

Bozo being Bozo...

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

He didn't reject power and influence.  He became the most powerful man in Arabia.


LOL Um i-d-i-o-t, you are getting ahead of yourself again!  He rejected power and influence when it was offered to him in Mecca.  At that time, he would have had no way of knowing that in a little over 15 years, he would go on to conquer all of Arabia and emerge victorious over his enemies.  While he was in Mecca, his situation was increasingly becoming hopeless.  A lesser man would have failed and probably eventually be killed, but he succeeded!  Alhamdulillah!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

In the beginning, maybe, but I doubt that anyone persecuted him once he was surrounded by the strongest army in the land.


Again, i-d-i-o-t, he didn't become strong enough until many years later.  While he was still in Mecca, he was not strong.  He had no army to protect him.  All he had were his beliefs and his poor and defenseless followers.  So, if he was an impostor who was after power and wealth, then the pagan offer would have been too good an opportunity to pass.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

And you ignored my request to keep your replies to a reasonable length.  No, I'm not going to get into the subject of misogyny in the Abrahamic religions (not just Islam) here.  This discussion is already out of control.


Whine and moan all you want.  If you are too lazy to keep up, then maybe you should just get lost.  Have you considered my advice to take up knitting?  Who knows?  Maybe some time alone with your thoughts might get you to see the light and see what a fool you have made yourself out to be?  Big%20smile

Your whining and complaining aside, I ask again:

Prove your claim that Islam places more value on virgins than non-virgins.  Put your money where you mouth is.

I am not asking you about other religions.  I am asking you about Islam.  Oh and by the way, your weaselly attempt to change the argument now to alleged "misogyny" in Islam just goes to show how dishonest you really are.  Don't think that I didn't notice! Wink


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 31 July 2014 at 3:39am
Ron I think you should stop right here and don't say another word!


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 August 2014 at 6:07am

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

There you go again with your agnostic idiocy.  You don't disprove what I said, but instead just resort to "uncertainty".  The fact is that we know very well that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a man of great repute in pre-Islamic Arabia.  People trusted him and respected him greatly.  The people who disbelieved in him when he preached Islam did so for political and/or religious reasons.  They just couldn't swallow what he was asking them to do (such as shunning their "gods", being charitable, etc.)

Look, I'm not obliged to accept any silly claim you make, just because you make it.  I don't have to disprove it; you have to prove it.  Otherwise it remains uncertain.

You say that Muhammad was universally regarded as trustworthy.  This is obviously not true prima facie, because a number of people (even among his own family) did not trust him as a prophet.  But even if we limit the claim of trustworthiness to the period before his prophethood, AFAIK the only evidence you can offer is an oral history filtered through the retelling of his most fervent supporters.

The problem with that should be obvious.  Of course Muhammad is universally praised in the oral history.  If any witness in the seventh century had suggested that he was a liar and a fraud, do you seriously think any of those pious hadith-collectors would have transmitted such a story?  Shucks, what are the odds that such a critic would have even witnessed the next sunrise?  Even 1400 years later, Salman Rushdie writes a work of fiction that is not uniformly flattering to Muhammad, and he has to go into hiding for decades!  C'mon, think, islamispeace!  ThinkTongue

No, unless you have evidence other than the oral history within Islam, you do not know and cannot prove that Muhammad was universally trusted.  At this point we can only be uncertain about it.

Quote So, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was told to leave the unbelievers because of their stubbornness despite being shown the miracle they were demanding.

It doesn't say they saw a Sign.  It says "but if they see a Sign..."  In fact, these verses explain why Allah will not show them a Sign: because if they see a sign, they will dismiss it as magic, just as they did with earlier prophets.

Quote So, even among the British, there were voices in support of independence.  With all these factors at play, it is not surprising that India was eventually granted independence.

And Gandhi had nothing to do with it? Confused

Quote There are many signs that have to take place.  Some have taken place already and some have not.

Where does it say that the splitting of the moon is a prophetic sign?  Warning: it's a trick question, because the only place the event is "prophesized" is the very verse that you are claim says it had already taken place!  So what kind of prophetic sign is that?

"How will we know when the Hour of Judgement is nigh?"
"The moon will split.  That will be a Sign."
"But the moon has already split!"
"See?  Just as I predicted!"

And this makes him a prophetLOL

Quote Here is the eyewitness report of Abdullah ibn Abbas:

"Narrated 'Abdullah: The moon was split ( into two pieces ) while we were with the Prophet in Mina. He said, "Be witnesses." Then a Piece of the moon went towards the mountain." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 58, Number 209)


Yeah, I've puzzled over that hadith many times.  I don't think it's Abdullah ibn Abbas, because the very next hadith (210) is attributed to him, and all it says is "During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle the moon was split (into two places)."  Not much of an eyewitness acount, is it?

As you know, Abdullah is a very common name.  There are hadith attributed to a couple of dozen specific Abdullahs (Abdullah bin Abbas, bin Umar, bin Masud, etc.), and about two hundred hadith narrated by "Abdullah", not otherwise specified.  So unless I'm missing something, we really don't know exactly who this "eyewitness" is, do we?

Also, if you look at the hadith itself, you'll notice that it doesn't actually say he was an eyewitness.  It says he was in Mina at the time, but it doesn't say he saw it.  It says Muhammad told him to be a witness, but he doesn't affirm that he was a witness.  Frankly, it's just the sort of wishy-washy, equivocal statement I would make if my boss ordered me to testify to something I didn't really believe.

So all in all, if the best you've got is a single hadith with an uncertain narrator who doesn't positively say he saw the event, then I stand by my opinion that we don't have any true eyewitnesses.

Quote Hence, prior to the Aqaba pledges, Muhammad (peace be upon him) would not have had any safe havens. ... This makes his rejection of the offer impossible to explain IF he was in fact an impostor.

I think you're overstating the threat.  He was preaching in Mecca for nearly a decade, and as you pointed out he didn't have an army to protect him at that time.  If the Quraish had wanted him dead, he would have been dead.  I'm sure he was mocked and insulted.  I doubt that his life was in danger for most of that time.

Quote Right, so Satan somehow knew that would happen?  That was part of his plan back in 610 CE?  To start a religion that would, if all went according to plan, spawn terrorist groups while also winning many converts (especially among Arab polytheists)?

Was it also part of Satan's plan to provoke the "spawning" of those terrorist groups by promoting western interference in Muslim countries?


Perhaps.  I don't believe in Satan, but if I did -- yeah, that would be perfectly plausible.  At least as plausible as a loving and omniscient God starting a religion that would spawn terrorist groups by mistake. Ermm

Quote But one would think that eventually, he would have asked for the "praise and adulation" that he wanted.

No, one wouldn't think that.  That is exactly the wrong way to go about it.  Outwardly they may have praised him, but inwardly they would have been suspicious and resentful, and everyone (including Muhammad) would know they weren't sincere.  No, the right way is to get Allah to command it, which is what he did.  And I repeat: it worked!

Quote Your whining and complaining aside, I ask again:

Prove your claim that Islam places more value on virgins than non-virgins.  Put your money where you mouth is.


And I answer again, it was a tangential point not relevant to the discussion, and I'm not going to follow you down that rabbit hole.  Maybe when this discussion winds down (if ever -- you seem intent on expanding it), we can come back to it.

Just to be clear, however, I wasn't saying that specifically about Islam.  Most Abrahamic religions seem to have an underlying hatred of women and/or sexuality.  This obsession with female virginity is just one aspect of it.


-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 August 2014 at 10:02pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Look, I'm not obliged to accept any silly claim you make, just because you make it.  I don't have to disprove it; you have to prove it.  Otherwise it remains uncertain.

You say that Muhammad was universally regarded as trustworthy.  This is obviously not true prima facie, because a number of people (even among his own family) did not trust him as a prophet.  But even if we limit the claim of trustworthiness to the period before his prophethood, AFAIK the only evidence you can offer is an oral history filtered through the retelling of his most fervent supporters.

The problem with that should be obvious.  Of course Muhammad is universally praised in the oral history.  If any witness in the seventh century had suggested that he was a liar and a fraud, do you seriously think any of those pious hadith-collectors would have transmitted such a story?  Shucks, what are the odds that such a critic would have even witnessed the next sunrise?  Even 1400 years later, Salman Rushdie writes a work of fiction that is not uniformly flattering to Muhammad, and he has to go into hiding for decades!  C'mon, think, islamispeace!  ThinkTongue



LOL More mindless theorizing and uncertainty!  I already commented on why the pagans did not "trust" him as a prophet.  They had religious and economic reasons not to "trust" him.  He just was not telling them what they wanted to hear.  If he had promised them certain concessions, then they would have believed him.  For example, Abu Lahab had wondered if his status would entitle him to preferential treatment as a Muslim.  Of course, the answer was no. 

As for your attempt to discredit the "oral history filtered through the retelling of his most fervent supporters", the fact is that this "oral history" did not expunge the criticisms of the unbelievers.  The Quran refers to some of their false claims, such as that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had a human "teacher" who was telling him what to say.  If we go by your logic, then these criticisms should have been "filtered" a long time ago, and we shouldn't even know about them.  Confused 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

No, unless you have evidence other than the oral history within Islam, you do not know and cannot prove that Muhammad was universally trusted.  At this point we can only be uncertain about it.


You can be as "uncertain" as you want.  Rejecting the evidence is all you can really do.  The rest of us will look at the evidence and be certain.  Tongue

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

It doesn't say they saw a Sign.  It says "but if they see a Sign..."  In fact, these verses explain why Allah will not show them a Sign: because if they see a sign, they will dismiss it as magic, just as they did with earlier prophets.
 

The fake Sheik is still confused, huh?  If the verses "explain why Allah will not show them a Sign", then why would they be shown the "sign" of the splitting of the moon in the "future"?  Think, fake Sheik, think!

Those with eyes to see understand that these verses explain that the unbelievers were shown a sign and still refused to believe, just as earlier verses had predicted.  Hence, the Prophet was told to "turn away" from them.  No matter what, they would not believe.         

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

And Gandhi had nothing to do with it? Confused


Of course he did.  The point is that there were multiple factors involved, which you ignorantly ignored.  This is not rocket science.  Well, maybe it is to you!  Confused

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Where does it say that the splitting of the moon is a prophetic sign?  Warning: it's a trick question, because the only place the event is "prophesized" is the very verse that you are claim says it had already taken place!  So what kind of prophetic sign is that?

"How will we know when the Hour of Judgement is nigh?"
"The moon will split.  That will be a Sign."
"But the moon has already split!"
"See?  Just as I predicted!"

And this makes him a prophetLOL


LOL When did I say that the splitting of the moon was a "prophetic" sign, dummy?  I said that it was a major sign of the Day of Judgment, which occurred in the lifetime of the Prophet.  Other signs were also mentioned by the Prophet, which were to occur after him.  One such major sign is the descent of Jesus (peace be upon him).  All of the major signs are mentioned in various hadith.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Yeah, I've puzzled over that hadith many times.  I don't think it's Abdullah ibn Abbas, because the very next hadith (210) is attributed to him, and all it says is "During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle the moon was split (into two places)."  Not much of an eyewitness acount, is it?

As you know, Abdullah is a very common name.  There are hadith attributed to a couple of dozen specific Abdullahs (Abdullah bin Abbas, bin Umar, bin Masud, etc.), and about two hundred hadith narrated by "Abdullah", not otherwise specified.  So unless I'm missing something, we really don't know exactly who this "eyewitness" is, do we?

Also, if you look at the hadith itself, you'll notice that it doesn't actually say he was an eyewitness.  It says he was in Mina at the time, but it doesn't say he saw it.  It says Muhammad told him to be a witness, but he doesn't affirm that he was a witness.  Frankly, it's just the sort of wishy-washy, equivocal statement I would make if my boss ordered me to testify to something I didn't really believe.

So all in all, if the best you've got is a single hadith with an uncertain narrator who doesn't positively say he saw the event, then I stand by my opinion that we don't have any true eyewitnesses.



LOLLOLLOL So now the fake Sheik is a hadith expert!  It's amazing how you clowns first deny that evidence exists and then, when shown the evidence, make pathetic arguments against it.  First, let me just make it clear once more: I could care less what you believe and whether you choose to "stand by [your] opinion" or not.  I am not trying to convince you of anything because I know that you are a blind "skeptic" who simply chooses to close his eyes when confronted with evidence which contradicts his worldview. 

Second, let me correct myself before proceeding.  I had erroneously stated that it was Abdullah ibn Abbas who narrated the hadith.  It was actually Abdullah ibn Masud.  I acknowledge my mistake.  We know that it was Abdullah ibn Masud because a similar hadith in Sahih Muslim narrated by him makes this clear:

"This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Abdullah b. Mas'ud (who said): We were along with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) at Mina, that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upbn him) said to us: Bear witness to this." (Book 39, Number 6725)    

As for you argument that the hadith "doesn't actually say he was an eyewitness", that even though the Prophet told him to be witness, it doesn't mean that he was and that the whole thing is "wishy-washy", it is just another example of a pathetic atheist clown who chooses to resort to special pleading when confronted with evidence that leaves him tongue-tied.  Your rambling response just reeks of denial.

The reality is that the hadith states:

1.  That Abdullah ibn Masud and others were present at Mina with the Prophet when the miracle occurred.

2.  That the Prophet told them to be "witnesses".

Your pathetic claim that the hadith doesn't say that Abdullah actually was a witness is absurd.  How could he not be a witness when he says that he was present when the miracle occurred?  What do you think?  He deliberately closed his eyes when the miracle occurred??? LOLLOLLOL

The hadith from Sahih Muslim makes it even clearer that Abdullah ibn Masud and others witnessed the miracle, so you have no where to run. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I think you're overstating the threat.  He was preaching in Mecca for nearly a decade, and as you pointed out he didn't have an army to protect him at that time.  If the Quraish had wanted him dead, he would have been dead.  I'm sure he was mocked and insulted.  I doubt that his life was in danger for most of that time.


The reason they hadn't killed him yet was because his uncle Abu Talib, who was the chief of the Banu Hashim tribe, had supported him even though he did not accept Islam.  Due to the fierce tribal loyalties, killing Muhammad (peace be upon him) would risk conflict with his tribe, something the pagans needed to avoid at all costs.  I mentioned before how fierce tribal conflicts could get.  It was a major problem in Arabia at the time.  So, as long as Abu Talib was supportive of him, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was okay, although he still suffered physical and verbal abuse from the pagans.  They just couldn't kill him yet, but instead were biding their time.  In fact, when they did decide to kill him, they came up with an ingenious solution.  They would send assassins from every tribe, so that each tribe would bear responsibility for the murder.  That way, there would be little risk of the Banu Hashim seeking revenge against all of them. 

These facts lend even more support to the suggestion that had he been an actual impostor, he would have accepted the pagans' offer.  Why?  Because with his uncle's support (and by default, the tribe's support), he had nothing to fear. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Perhaps.  I don't believe in Satan, but if I did -- yeah, that would be perfectly plausible.  At least as plausible as a loving and omniscient God starting a religion that would spawn terrorist groups by mistake. Ermm
 

Again with your idiocy?  We have already seen that some of the terrorist groups were not the result of a "mistake".  The MEK in Iran are not a "mistake".  They are a proxy group used by Israel and America to wage a terrorist insurgency against Iran.  Al-Qaeda was supported by the CIA as a proxy against the Soviets.  These were all calculated projects, not "mistakes". 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

No, one wouldn't think that.  That is exactly the wrong way to go about it.  Outwardly they may have praised him, but inwardly they would have been suspicious and resentful, and everyone (including Muhammad) would know they weren't sincere.  No, the right way is to get Allah to command it, which is what he did.  And I repeat: it worked!


But again, what would be the purpose of "praise and adulation" if one is not around to receive it?  For his entire prophetic life, Muhammad (peace be upon him) strictly forbid his followers to praise him or give him the respect which only kings received.  Just like your *****ic "wealth" argument, if he had wanted praise and adulation, he certainly didn't take advantage when the opportunity presented itself. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

And I answer again, it was a tangential point not relevant to the discussion, and I'm not going to follow you down that rabbit hole.  Maybe when this discussion winds down (if ever -- you seem intent on expanding it), we can come back to it.
Just to be clear, however, I wasn't saying that specifically about Islam.  Most Abrahamic religions seem to have an underlying hatred of women and/or sexuality.  This obsession with female virginity is just one aspect of it.
    

Oh really?  Hmmm, let's see your original post from July 15:

"This is the kind of screwed up value system that I was referring to earlier.  Women are not less valuable because they have had sex.  I can't say whether you believe that yourself, but it is certainly a belief promoted by many religions, including yours.  And it has certainly screwed up the lives of many young women. Unhappy If Satan existed, it is a belief that he might want to promote."

So I ask again:

Prove your claim that Islam places more value on virgins than non-virgins.  Put your money where you mouth is.

Your complaining and groaning will not get you anywhere.  No one is forcing you to have this discussion.  Get lost then, if that is your preference.  Have you though about knitting? Wink


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 August 2014 at 10:26pm
Originally posted by Abu Loren Abu Loren wrote:

Ron I think you should stop right here and don't say another word!


Too late!  LOL


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 02 August 2014 at 9:26am
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

More mindless theorizing and uncertainty!  I already commented on why the pagans did not "trust" him as a prophet.  They had religious and economic reasons not to "trust" him.  He just was not telling them what they wanted to hear.  If he had promised them certain concessions, then they would have believed him.  For example, Abu Lahab had wondered if his status would entitle him to preferential treatment as a Muslim.  Of course, the answer was no.

That would be according to your heavily biased Muslim sources, I presume?  Any independent verification?

Quote As for your attempt to discredit the "oral history filtered through the retelling of his most fervent supporters", the fact is that this "oral history" did not expunge the criticisms of the unbelievers.  The Quran refers to some of their false claims, such as that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had a human "teacher" who was telling him what to say.  If we go by your logic, then these criticisms should have been "filtered" a long time ago, and we shouldn't even know about them

Incidents of (baseless) criticism and overcoming adversity only improve the story.  Far from being expunged, one would expect such incidents to be manufactured if they didn't exist.

Does the oral history actually name this human teacher?  Do we have a confession from him, or from anyone who overheard him teaching the Quran to Muhammad?  Of course not.  If there really were such a person, we would have no solid evidence of it in the oral history.  He would have been murdered and never heard from again -- just like he never existed. Hmmm...Wink

Quote The fake Sheik is still confused, huh?  If the verses "explain why Allah will not show them a Sign", then why would they be shown the "sign" of the splitting of the moon in the "future"?

Prophetic signs are for believers, not for unbelievers.  I'm sure you know that.

Quote When did I say that the splitting of the moon was a "prophetic" sign, dummy?  I said that it was a major sign of the Day of Judgment, which occurred in the lifetime of the Prophet.  Other signs were also mentioned by the Prophet, which were to occur after him.  One such major sign is the descent of Jesus (peace be upon him).  All of the major signs are mentioned in various hadith.

If it's not a prophetic sign, then what kind of sign is it?  If it heralds the Day/Hour of Judgement, isn't that a prophetic sign?  And if so, then how is it that more than 500,000 days later, still no Day of Judgement?? Tongue

Quote Your pathetic claim that the hadith doesn't say that Abdullah actually was a witness is absurd.  How could he not be a witness when he says that he was present when the miracle occurred?  What do you think?  He deliberately closed his eyes when the miracle occurred???

It says he was in Mina, along with Muhammad.  It doesn't say he was standing beside Muhammad when the (alleged) miracle occurred, and it doesn't say he saw it.  Why didn't he see it?  I don't know.  Maybe because it was an optical illusion (e.g. due to atmospheric refraction) that was only visible if you stood in the right spot.  Maybe because he was indoors, or praying, or asleep.

Or maybe because it didn't happen.

Quote The reason they hadn't killed him yet was because his uncle Abu Talib, who was the chief of the Banu Hashim tribe, had supported him even though he did not accept Islam.  Due to the fierce tribal loyalties, killing Muhammad (peace be upon him) would risk conflict with his tribe, something the pagans needed to avoid at all costs.  I mentioned before how fierce tribal conflicts could get.  It was a major problem in Arabia at the time.  So, as long as Abu Talib was supportive of him, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was okay, although he still suffered physical and verbal abuse from the pagans.  They just couldn't kill him yet, but instead were biding their time.  In fact, when they did decide to kill him, they came up with an ingenious solution.  They would send assassins from every tribe, so that each tribe would bear responsibility for the murder.  That way, there would be little risk of the Banu Hashim seeking revenge against all of them.

This is all according to the Muslim oral history, of course.  Do we have any independent evidence?

Quote These facts lend even more support to the suggestion that had he been an actual impostor, he would have accepted the pagans' offer.  Why?  Because with his uncle's support (and by default, the tribe's support), he had nothing to fear.

Assuming he had anything to fear in the first place.  But bow could he justify giving special power and authority to his uncle?  It would reek of nepotism and the whole enterprise would fall apart.  Besides, it's pretty clear that Muhammad just didn't like Abu Lahab. 

Quote Again with your idiocy?  We have already seen that some of the terrorist groups were not the result of a "mistake".  The MEK in Iran are not a "mistake".  They are a proxy group used by Israel and America to wage a terrorist insurgency against Iran.  Al-Qaeda was supported by the CIA as a proxy against the Soviets.  These were all calculated projects, not "mistakes".

Were they calculated by Allah?  If Allah is omniscient, then He would have known that His religion would result in all these terrible events.  So either that was part of His plan, or he made a mistake, or He couldn't help it.  Take your pick.  But if it was part of His plan, it looks a lot like an evil plan to me.  Something more like what Satan might come up with.

Quote But again, what would be the purpose of "praise and adulation" if one is not around to receive it?

But he did receive it.  He just didn't ask for it -- at least not directly.  He got Allah to ask/demand it on his behalf.  If he had asked for it directly, he would not have received it.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 02 August 2014 at 8:28pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

That would be according to your heavily biased Muslim sources, I presume?  Any independent verification?


How typical!  Every time you get cornered, you try to weasel your way out by moving the goal post.  All this time, you never questioned the "heavily biased Muslim sources", but now that you have run out of hiding places, now you try to question those sources.  It's pretty obvious that no amount of proof will set you straight.  LOL

Interestingly, according to the Armenian Christian historian Sebeos:

"In that period a certain one of them, a man of the sons of Ishmael named Muhammad, a merchant, became prominent. A sermon about the Way of Truth, supposedly at God's command, was revealed to them, and [Muhammad] taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially since he was informed and knowledgeable about Mosaic history. Because the command had come from On High, he ordered them all to assemble together and to unite in faith. Abandoning the reverence of vain things, they turned toward the living God, who had appeared to their father, Abraham. Muhammad legislated that they were not to [123] eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsehoods, and not to commit adultery. He said: "God promised that country to Abraham and to his son after him, for eternity. And what had been promised was fulfilled during that time when [God] loved Israel. Now, however, you are the sons of Abraham, and God shall fulfill the promise made to Abraham and his son on you. Only love the God of Abraham, and go and take the country which God gave to your father, Abraham. No one can successfully resist you in war, since God is with you."" ( http://rbedrosian.com/seb9.htm - http://rbedrosian.com/seb9.htm )

So Sebeos confirms much of what the so-called "heavily biased" Muslim sources say.  He confirms that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a merchant who then brought God's revelation to the Arabs.  He also confirms that they abandoned their previous religion and followed him.    

Speaking of "independent verification", do you have any for your *****ic theories?  Oh right...I forgot...You have none!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Incidents of (baseless) criticism and overcoming adversity only improve the story.  Far from being expunged, one would expect such incidents to be manufactured if they didn't exist.

Does the oral history actually name this human teacher?  Do we have a confession from him, or from anyone who overheard him teaching the Quran to Muhammad?  Of course not.  If there really were such a person, we would have no solid evidence of it in the oral history.  He would have been murdered and never heard from again -- just like he never existed. Hmmm...Wink


ClapClapClap Bravo! Your clownish idiocy just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.  We see more and more how you concoct theories and then using circular reasoning, convince yourself of their accuracy.

First, let us look at what the Quran actually says in response to the unbelievers' accusation:

"We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear." (Surah An-Nahl, 16:103)


So, the fact was that this individual was a foreigner who did not speak Arabic, whereas the Quran was in the Arabic language. 

As far as the identity of this person, Maududi states:

"In this connection, traditions mention the names of several persons, one of whom (Jabar), according to the disbelievers of Makkah taught the Holy Prophet; however, one thing particularly noteworthy about all these persons is that they were non-Arab slaves. Whosoever he might be, the fact that he used to recite the Torah and the Gospel and had an acquaintance with the Holy Prophet, gave an opportunity to the disbelievers for spreading this false report that it was the particular slave who was the real author of the Holy Qur'an, but Muhammad (Allah's peace be upon him) presented it as the Word of God. This not only shows that his opponents were very impudent in spreading false accusations against the Holy Prophet but also that, in general, people are not just in judging the worth of their contemporaries. They were ill-treating like this that great personality who has had no parallel in history. Nevertheless, these people who had become blind in their opposition, preferred to attribute the authorship of the matchless Arabic Qur'an to a non-Arab slave who had a smattering of the Torah and the Gospel. Instead of accepting the claim of the Holy Prophet, who was an embodiment of truth, they attributed its authorship to an insignificant foreign slave." ( http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/16/index.html#sdfootnote108sym - http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/16/index.html#sdfootnote108sym )

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Prophetic signs are for believers, not for unbelievers.  I'm sure you know that.


Dummy, dummy...wait a minute.  Think.  It was the unbelievers who asked for a "sign", remember?  Hence, they were shown the "sign" of the splitting of the moon, which was also given as a sign of the Day of Judgment.  The Day of Judgment applies to all people, believers and unbelievers, because all will face judgment.       

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

If it's not a prophetic sign, then what kind of sign is it?  If it heralds the Day/Hour of Judgement, isn't that a prophetic sign?  And if so, then how is it that more than 500,000 days later, still no Day of Judgement?? Tongue


It was a sign for the unbelievers.  Remember?  They had been demanding to see a miracle for a while, and now they got it...and still refused to believe.  Doesn't that remind you of someone?  Wink

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

It says he was in Mina, along with Muhammad.  It doesn't say he was standing beside Muhammad when the (alleged) miracle occurred, and it doesn't say he saw it.  Why didn't he see it?  I don't know.  Maybe because it was an optical illusion (e.g. due to atmospheric refraction) that was only visible if you stood in the right spot.  Maybe because he was indoors, or praying, or asleep.

Or maybe because it didn't happen.


LOLLOLLOL Oh, you make me laugh too much!  Since you obviously have trouble reading, let's look at the hadith again:

"Narrated 'Abdullah: The moon was split ( into two pieces ) while we were with the Prophet in Mina. He said, "Be witnesses." Then a Piece of the moon went towards the mountain."


So, it says that:

1.  They were at Mina with the Prophet when the moon split.

2.  The Prophet told them to "be witnesses". 

3.  Abdullah described how the moon split, stating that a piece "went towards the mountain".

All of this indicates that Abdullah ibn Masud and others witnessed the miracle.  Otherwise, he wouldn't have what he saw! Big%20smile

You can deny this all you want.  I could care less.  You are a just a modern example of an tongue-tied unbeliever who just doesn't know what to do with the evidence, so he settles for pathetic denial. Big%20smile

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:


This is all according to the Muslim oral history, of course.  Do we have any independent evidence?


LOL Running out of arguments, huh?  Poor, poor Bozo.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Assuming he had anything to fear in the first place.  But bow could he justify giving special power and authority to his uncle?  It would reek of nepotism and the whole enterprise would fall apart.  Besides, it's pretty clear that Muhammad just didn't like Abu Lahab. 


LOL More ignorance!  Nepotism was a common occurrence, dummy.  It would not have been unusual.  Family dynasties often had all the power.  This was true in many cultures. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Were they calculated by Allah?  If Allah is omniscient, then He would have known that His religion would result in all these terrible events.  So either that was part of His plan, or he made a mistake, or He couldn't help it.  Take your pick.  But if it was part of His plan, it looks a lot like an evil plan to me.  Something more like what Satan might come up with.
  

Your idiocy just has no limits.  Read the book I previously recommended.  You need some education.  Tongue

In any case, who said that there couldn't be bad Muslims?  People have free will.  They can choose to be good or bad.  Just because some Muslims choose to use violence (due to legitimate complaints), doesn't mean that the majority do. 

Furthermore, dark times were inevitable.  The hadith are full of prophecies of the end times, when the Muslim world would suffer from great calamities.  There were even prophecies about certain groups of people who would claim to be Muslims, but whose actions would show that they are not.  It is even stated that it would be in the midst of these people that the Dajjal would arise. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

But he did receive it.  He just didn't ask for it -- at least not directly.  He got Allah to ask/demand it on his behalf.  If he had asked for it directly, he would not have received it.
  

More theorizing!  If his followers were willing to die for him, then I don't see why he couldn't ask them for praise and adulation.   

But we actually see that he refused to accept any praise or adulation which kings received.  He was humble and rejected such things. 

Also, it is rather hard to believe that an impostor would go to such lengths and suffering just for "praise and adulation".  Only the befuddled mind of an atheist clown could suggest such a possibility! LOLLOLLOL 

Oh and before I close:

Prove your claim that Islam places more value on virgins than non-virgins.  Put your money where you mouth is.


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 August 2014 at 4:31pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

How typical!  Every time you get cornered, you try to weasel your way out by moving the goal post.  All this time, you never questioned the "heavily biased Muslim sources", but now that you have run out of hiding places, now you try to question those sources.

Actually, I mentioned it back on http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30031&PID=187084#187084 - July 13 : " At this point, 1400 years later and based solely on anecdotal information filtered through fanatical believers, there is no hope in getting to the real story."  You didn't respond at the time, so I let it go.  I'm only bringing it up again because you are trying to make the case that Muhammad was universally trusted -- and for that you obviously need sources other than his own followers.

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Quote
Quote More mindless theorizing and uncertainty!  I already commented on why the pagans did not "trust" him as a prophet.  They had religious and economic reasons not to "trust" him.  He just was not telling them what they wanted to hear.  If he had promised them certain concessions, then they would have believed him.  For example, Abu Lahab had wondered if his status would entitle him to preferential treatment as a Muslim.  Of course, the answer was no.

That would be according to your heavily biased Muslim sources, I presume?  Any independent verification?

Interestingly, according to the Armenian Christian historian Sebeos:

"In that period a certain one of them, a man of the sons of Ishmael named Muhammad, a merchant, became prominent. A sermon about the Way of Truth, supposedly at God's command, was revealed to them, and [Muhammad] taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially since he was informed and knowledgeable about Mosaic history. Because the command had come from On High, he ordered them all to assemble together and to unite in faith. Abandoning the reverence of vain things, they turned toward the living God, who had appeared to their father, Abraham. Muhammad legislated that they were not to [123] eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsehoods, and not to commit adultery. He said: "God promised that country to Abraham and to his son after him, for eternity. And what had been promised was fulfilled during that time when [God] loved Israel. Now, however, you are the sons of Abraham, and God shall fulfill the promise made to Abraham and his son on you. Only love the God of Abraham, and go and take the country which God gave to your father, Abraham. No one can successfully resist you in war, since God is with you."" (http://rbedrosian.com/seb9.htm)

So Sebeos confirms much of what the so-called "heavily biased" Muslim sources say.  He confirms that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a merchant who then brought God's revelation to the Arabs.  He also confirms that they abandoned their previous religion and followed him.

Yes, we know all that; but Sebeos says nothing about the pagans and their motives, nor even mention Abu Lahab.  It's a complete non sequitur to your previous claims.

Quote Speaking of "independent verification", do you have any for your *****ic theories?  Oh right...I forgot...You have none!

Of course not.  My whole thesis is that we don't know what happened 1400 years ago.

Quote So, the fact was that this individual was a foreigner who did not speak Arabic, whereas the Quran was in the Arabic language.

Which proves nothing, of course.  No doubt Muhammad spoke other languages besides Arabic and could translate.

But anyway, I don't see why you bothered to quote this verse.  Surely you're not saying that such a person actually existed!  I'm certainly not saying that.  I'm saying that if he or someone like him existed, any credible evidence in his favour would disappear from the oral history.  All that would remain would be a few verses such as this one which discredit him.

Quote Dummy, dummy...wait a minute.  Think.  It was the unbelievers who asked for a "sign", remember?  Hence, they were shown the "sign" of the splitting of the moon, which was also given as a sign of the Day of Judgment.  The Day of Judgment applies to all people, believers and unbelievers, because all will face judgment.

The Day of Judgement is for all, the signs are only for believers.  Yes, the unbelievers may ask for a sign, but as the Quran says, if they see a sign, they dismiss it as magic.  That is why the last prophet was a warner only, not a miracle worker.  His only (alleged) miracle was the Quran.

Quote 1.  They were at Mina with the Prophet when the moon split.

Sure, but did they witness it?

Quote 2.  The Prophet told them to "be witnesses".

Sure, but did they witness it?

Quote 3.  Abdullah described how the moon split, stating that a piece "went towards the mountain".

All of this indicates that Abdullah ibn Masud and others witnessed the miracle.  Otherwise, he wouldn't have what he saw!

Sure, but did he witness it?  Or did he just repeat what others told him?

By the way, are you sure it was Abdullah ibn Masud?  Because Bukhari quotes him as saying, "Narrated Abdullah bin Masud: During the lifetime of the Prophet the moon was split into two parts and on that the Prophet said, "Bear witness (to thus)."  (Book #56, Hadith #830)  Surely if he was an eyewitness he could do better than "during the lifetime of the Prophet."

The other odd thing about all of these so-called descriptions is that they really don't describe it.  What did it look like?  How long did it last?  Were they round pieces, or jagged?  Did it begin and end abruptly, or slowly?  Surely anyone who actually saw a miracle would have more to say than just "the moon split".

Even such descriptions as we have are inconsistent.  The hadith you quoted says "the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram' mountain."  But the one just before it (Bukhari, Book 58, Hadith 208) says "a piece of the moon went towards the mountain."  So which is it?

Quote
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

This is all according to the Muslim oral history, of course.  Do we have any independent evidence?

Running out of arguments, huh?  Poor, poor Bozo.

I'm not the one running out of arguments.  Take away the Muslim sources with their obvious bias, and you've got nothing.

Quote More ignorance!  Nepotism was a common occurrence, dummy.  It would not have been unusual.  Family dynasties often had all the power.  This was true in many cultures.

Right, and if Muhammad had given his uncle special powers or benefits, they would have been seen as just another family dynasty, rather than a Prophet of God.

Quote
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Were they calculated by Allah?  If Allah is omniscient, then He would have known that His religion would result in all these terrible events.  So either that was part of His plan, or he made a mistake, or He couldn't help it.  Take your pick.  But if it was part of His plan, it looks a lot like an evil plan to me.  Something more like what Satan might come up with.

Your idiocy just has no limits.  Read the book I previously recommended.  You need some education.

So, no substantive response, eh?  Just pure ad hominem?

By the way, are you aware that just about every one of you posts on this discussion has flagrantly violated the terms of use of this board?  You might want to reread the http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4589&FID=30&PR=3 - Guidelines for Discussions , specifically Rules 15 and 16.

Personally, I don't mind -- I prefer to let your rudeness and sarcasm speak for themselves -- but even if you have no respect for me and no concern for your own reputation, you ought to have some consideration to the moderators, who are being remarkably patient with you.

Quote In any case, who said that there couldn't be bad Muslims?  People have free will.  They can choose to be good or bad.  Just because some Muslims choose to use violence (due to legitimate complaints), doesn't mean that the majority do.

Nobody is saying otherwise.  It's just that as I look around the world today, I find it hard to see how Islam, or monotheism for that matter, has been a net benefit to humanity.

Quote Furthermore, dark times were inevitable.

Some of them perhaps, but certainly not all.  You claim that Allah raised a sandstorm to prevent the pagan army from defeating the early Muslims.  Could He not have done the same to keep the planes grounded on Sept 11, 2001?  Or at least to have prevented them from reaching their targets?

Quote But we actually see that he refused to accept any praise or adulation which kings received.  He was humble and rejected such things.

For which he was praised all the more.

Quote Also, it is rather hard to believe that an impostor would go to such lengths and suffering just for "praise and adulation".

On balance, I think Muhammad had a pretty good life, at least compared to most of his contemporaries.  Wouldn't you agree?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 08 August 2014 at 9:53pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Actually, I mentioned it back on http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30031&PID=187084#187084 - July 13 : " At this point, 1400 years later and based solely on anecdotal information filtered through fanatical believers, there is no hope in getting to the real story."  You didn't respond at the time, so I let it go.  I'm only bringing it up again because you are trying to make the case that Muhammad was universally trusted -- and for that you obviously need sources other than his own followers.


This is just yet another attempt to move the goal post.  When you have nothing to argue for, you resort to the "uncertainty" principle and question the veracity of the so-called "fanatical believers". 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Yes, we know all that; but Sebeos says nothing about the pagans and their motives, nor even mention Abu Lahab.  It's a complete non sequitor to your previous claims.
      

It confirms some basic elements of the Islamic narrative.  Until you can provide some contradictory information from your so-called "independent sources", the non-sequitur is yours and yours alone!  You're the one who has been making up crackpot theories and providing only your own conclusions to back them up instead of "independent sources". LOL

The other problem with you request of "independent sources" is that it is a slippery slope.  Who is to say that you simply will not reject those sources as well if they happened to agree with the Islamic traditions?  Conversely, who is to say that if these sources happened to disagree with the Islamic traditions, you would jump on that bandwagon and simply blindly accept those sources due to your obvious bias.   

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Of course not.  My whole thesis is that we don't know what happened 1400 years ago.


You're more than welcome to hold on to this view.  For the rest of us, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the traditional narrative.  You simply choose to disregard it because it does not agree with your view, but you also don't present any evidence which directly contradicts the traditional narrative.  You want to have your cake and eat it too.  Well, it doesn't work that way! Wink

Originally posted by Ron
 Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Which proves nothing, of course.  No doubt Muhammad spoke other languages besides Arabic and could translate.


Oh really?!  So what proof do you have for this latest crackpot theory?  After all, you have "no doubt"! 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

But anyway, I don't see why you bothered to quote this verse.  Surely you're not saying that such a person actually existed!  I'm certainly not saying that.  I'm saying that if he or someone like him existed, any credible evidence in his favour would disappear from the oral history.  All that would remain would be a few verses such as this one which discredit him.


This person did exist, dummy.  The pagans were trying to discredit Muhammad (peace be upon him) anyway they could.  So they suggested that he was being taught by this person.  But the Quran laid this myth to rest by making a logical argument against it.

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

The Day of Judgement is for all, the the signs are only for believers.  Yes, the unbelievers may ask for a sign, but as the Quran says, if they see a sign, they dismiss it as magic.  That is why the last prophet was a warner only, not a miracle worker.  His only (alleged) miracle was the Quran.


LOL What a laughable circular argument!  "Signs" are for all people, including unbelievers.  They were the ones who asked for them!  Just because they don't accept them does not change the fact that it is meant for them as well. 

One of the final signs of the Day of Judgment will be the rising of the sun from the west.  According to the hadith, the unbelievers will look upon this sign and then realize that judgment is imminent.  Of course, it will be too late to believe at that point.  A good example of this principle is the Pharaoh's downfall.  When his army was drowned in the sea while chasing after Moses (peace be upon him) and the Israelites, he tried to affirm his belief in God, but it was rejected.  This was his final sign, after all the others that he had rejected, and it was too late to believe now.  The same will happen to all unbelievers, whether they live to see the final signs or not. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Sure, but did they witness it?


Yes, because Ibn Masud actually described how the moon split! Big%20smile

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Sure, but did they witness it?


Yes, because Ibn Masud actually described how the moon split! Big%20smile

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Sure, but did he witness it?  Or did he just repeat what others told him?


Yes, because Ibn Masud actually described how the moon split! Big%20smile

Besides, we have much more eyewitness testimony for other miracles the Prophet performed.  For example, at Hudaybiyah, it is well attested that the Prophet miraculously provided water for all of his followers even when there was only a few drops left:

"Narrated Al-Bara: We were one-thousand-and-four-hundred persons on the day of Al-Hudaibiya (Treaty), and (at) Al-Hudaibiya (there) was a well. We drew out its water not leaving even a single drop. The Prophet sat at the edge of the well and asked for some water with which he rinsed his mouth and then he threw it out into the well. We stayed for a short while and then drew water from the well and quenched our thirst, and even our riding animals drank water to their satisfaction." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 56, Nunber 777)

So, Al-Bara was one of the 1400 people present at the time and he describes how he and everyone else drank their fill even after all the water had been used up.  Alhamdulillah! 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

By the way, are you sure it was Abdullah ibn Masud?  Because Bukhari quotes him as saying, "Narrated Abdullah bin Masud: During the lifetime of the Prophet the moon was split into two parts and on that the Prophet said, "Bear witness (to thus)."  (Book #56, Hadith #830)  Surely if he was an eyewitness he could do better than "during the lifetime of the Prophet."


LOL Oh, you silly, poor clown.  I know, I know.  It's hard to admit that you have been wrong all this time.  It's hard to admit that you have been deceived.  But, the time eventually comes to grow up and accept the facts. 

I already showed that it was Abdullah ibn Masud.  Hadiths would have been mentioned multiple times by the same person to different people for different reasons.  The purpose of the hadith you mentioned clarifies that the splitting of the moon was an event that was contemporaneous with the Prophet; hence the statement "during the lifetime of the Prophet". 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

The other odd thing about all of these so-called descriptions is that they really don't describe it.  What did it look like?  How long did it last?  Were they round pieces, or jagged?  Did it begin and end abruptly, or slowly?  Surely anyone who actually saw a miracle would have more to say than just "the moon split".

 
LOL I know, I know.  You just can't bring yourself around to face the facts, so you naturally resort to special pleading once again.  The fact is that they did describe the event itself, as the hadith from Sahih Muslim I previously mentioned attests:

"This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Abdullah b. Mas'ud (who said): We were along with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) at Mina, that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upbn him) said to us: Bear witness to this." 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Even such descriptions as we have are inconsistent.  The hadith you quoted says "the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram' mountain."  But the one just before it (Bukhari, Book 58, Hadith 208) says "a piece of the moon went towards the mountain."  So which is it?


See that's another thing with clowns who first deny that there is any evidence but still remain stubborn when the evidence is shown: they nit pick! 

Isn't it obvious that the hadith from Bukhari is providing more detail?  The moon was situated away from the mountain.  Then it split into two pieces, and one piece went towards the mountain, until the mountain itself was situated between the two pieces.  This is not rocket science!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I'm not the one running out of arguments.  Take away the Muslim sources with their obvious bias, and you've got nothing.
 

LOL "Obvious bias"!  That's rich!  But atheist clowns such as yourself "obviously" have no "bias"...Tongue

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Right, and if Muhammad had given his uncle special powers or benefits, they would have been seen as just another family dynasty, rather than a Prophet of God.
 

So what?  If his ultimate goal was power and prestige, who cares if he had a family dynasty instead of being a Prophet? 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

So, no substantive response, eh?  Just pure ad hominem?
 

I already gave you a response, dummy.  I told you to read the book.  The answers are there!  Seek and you shall find...Big%20smile

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

By the way, are you aware that just about every one of you posts on this discussion has flagrantly violated the terms of use of this board?  You might want to reread the http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4589&FID=30&PR=3 - Guidelines for Discussions , specifically Rules 15 and 16.

Personally, I don't mind -- I prefer to let your rudeness and sarcasm speak for themselves -- but even if you have no respect for me and no concern for your own reputation, you ought to have some consideration to the moderators, who are being remarkably patient with you.
 

LOL Oh, here we go.  Here comes the melodrama! 

Are you aware that, according to the rules:

"4. When discussing issues dealing with Islam, please support your comments with the Quran or Sunnah. Mocking any Quranic reference, Hadith, scholar, or member will not be tolerated. If you are stating something about a religion, please list your source. If it is an opinion, please state this fact. [...]

15. We will not tolerate personal attacks on participants from ANY Community (personal attacks are defined as comments that reflect upon the person instead of their opinion). Furthermore, any insults intended to ANY religion, ANY prophet of God, or ANY holy scripture shall be removed."


You have been spreading all sorts of lies against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), suggesting, among other things, that he was an impostor, a sexual deviant, a liar, a war monger etc.  Well, earth to Ron!  You have violated the rules!  But, do you think that bothers me?  Do you think I care what you think?  Do you think that I am going to whine and groan and be all melodramatic?  Hell no!  But maybe you should take your own advice and "have some consideration to the moderators", because they surely must be being very patient with an arrogant atheist clown who attacks the integrity of the blessed Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

So, let's not waste each other's time with childish melodrama.  If you can't take the heat, then don't participate in the discussion!

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Nobody is saying otherwise.  It's just that as I look around the world today, I find it hard to see how Islam, or monotheism for that matter, has been a net benefit to humanity.


Well, besides providing a pathway to salvation, Islam has provided many benefits to humanity.  Read Mark Graham's book " http://How%20Islam%20Created%20the%20Modern%20World - How Islam Created the Modern World ".  Clearly, Islam has had a positive impact on the world, regardless of your childish misconceptions. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Some of them perhaps, but certainly not all.  You claim that Allah raised a sandstorm to prevent the pagan army from defeating the early Muslims.  Could He not have done the same to keep the planes grounded on Sept 11, 2001?  Or at least to have prevented them from reaching their targets?


Of course He could have.  But everything happens for a reason.  Bad things happen in this world and good things happen in this world.  They all have a reason.  As I said, dark times were inevitable.  And as we get closer and closer to the Day of Judgment, it will only get worse before it gets better. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

For which he was praised all the more.
  

LOL See?  Again with the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument!  There is just no pleasing some people.  That's what I have been saying all this time.  I could care less what you think, because I know that no matter what, you will never change your mind. 

In your diseased mind, no matter what Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did, he must have had some other ulterior motive for personal gain. 

1.  So, if he rejected wealth (even if that was his alleged motive), you think that it must have been because he wanted to gain the people's favor (while choosing to live in abject poverty himself).  But, if he had taken the wealth, then you would think that it was his motivation the whole time.

2.  If he rejected power (even if that was his alleged motive), you think that it must have been because he was afraid of his weak followers (instead of the more powerful pagans).  But, if he had taken the offer, then you would think that it was his motivation the whole time. 

3.  If he rejected "praise and adulation" (even if that was his alleged motive), you think that it must have been because he actually wanted to make people think that he was humble and hence gain their respect.  But, if he had not rejected the "praise and adulation", then you would think that it was his motivation from the start.

"Damned if you.  Damned if you don't."

Originally posted by Ron 
Webb Ron Webb wrote:

On balance, I think Muhammad had a pretty good life, at least compared to most of his contemporaries.  Wouldn't you agree?
   

I think you are just a fool.  Those with eyes to see and who are not blinded by atheistic bias, would see that Muhammad (peace be upon him) lived a very difficult life after he declared his prophethood.  Before he declared himself a prophet, you could argue that he had a "pretty good life", although he was clearly disturbed by the injustice of the time.  But after he announced his prophetic mission, his life was turned upside down.  He was hounded from that point on.  He suffered abuse and war for years.  And he lived in self-imposed poverty.  He didn't have the luxuries that kings had.  In fact, I would say that most of his followers lived much more luxuriously, at least when compared to Muhammad himself.  He slept on a simple bed.  He stitched his own clothes.  He fasted long hours.  He prayed long into the night.  He took every difficulty upon himself.  He suffered abuse and violence from his enemies, even to the point of being stoned on at least one occasion. 

No.  I would say that he lived a very difficult life.  A lesser man (like an atheist clown such as yourself Wink) would have failed.  But he succeeded.  Alhamdulillah!   


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 11 August 2014 at 11:19am
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

This is just yet another attempt to move the goal post.  When you have nothing to argue for, you resort to the "uncertainty" principle and question the veracity of the so-called "fanatical believers".

The "goalpost" remains the same: to give a valid and compelling reason why anyone should believe that Muhammad received the Quran from Allah.  Failing that, all we are left with is uncertainty.

Part of that uncertainty is the lack of unbiased sources.  Frankly, I'm surprised that that even needs to be pointed out.  Surely "because Abdullah said so" is scarcely more compelling than "because Muhammad said so".  If you believe things simply because people tell you so, you shouldn't really be on the Internet without adult supervision.

Quote It confirms some basic elements of the Islamic narrative.

The basic elements are not in question.  We know that Muhammad existed, and we know what he claimed.  What we need is some independent support for those claims.  And there is none, nor can there be.

Quote The other problem with you request of "independent sources" is that it is a slippery slope.  Who is to say that you simply will not reject those sources as well if they happened to agree with the Islamic traditions?  Conversely, who is to say that if these sources happened to disagree with the Islamic traditions, you would jump on that bandwagon and simply blindly accept those sources due to your obvious bias.

To some extent you're right.  In general, whenever we have contradictory sources, it's hard to know which to believe.  All we have is uncertainty.

In this case, however, we don't have contradictory sources, nor should we expect any -- which leads to a different kind of uncertainty.  We know that contrary opinions were actively suppressed.  We don't know their content and therefore can't assess their validity.

Quote You're more than welcome to hold on to this view.  For the rest of us, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the traditional narrative.  You simply choose to disregard it because it does not agree with your view, but you also don't present any evidence which directly contradicts the traditional narrative.  You want to have your cake and eat it too.  Well, it doesn't work that way!

What evidence?  All you have is stories: stories about how trustworthy Muhammad was, stories about alleged miracles, stories about unlikely military victories aided by fortuitous sandstorms.  But every religious tradition has such stories, all of them told by allegedly trustworthy sources.  Why should the Muslim stories be regarded as credible, while all the others are not?

Quote Oh really?!  So what proof do you have for this latest crackpot theory?  After all, you have "no doubt"!

Well, maybe "no doubt" is too strong, but Muhammad was a trader and traveled with trading caravans to other countries.  It wouldn't be surprising if he picked other languages along the way.  And there are hadith alleging that he understood the language of animals, so a foreign human language shouldn't be a challenge.

Quote This person did exist, dummy.  The pagans were trying to discredit Muhammad (peace be upon him) anyway they could.  So they suggested that he was being taught by this person.  But the Quran laid this myth to rest by making a logical argument against it.

You assume he exists because of one line in the Quran.  You have no corroborating evidence and no information about this person beyond the fact that he spoke a foreign language.

But think about it for a moment.  Why would the pagans have made this allegation, about this particular guy, if they knew that he didn't even speak the same language as Muhammad?  If they just made this up out of nothing, surely they would have picked a more likely prospect.

There must have been some incident that formed the basis of the claim, whether it was true or not.  He must have been seen speaking with Muhammad, or bragging that he had helped Muhammad with a verse, or reciting the verse before it was "revealed", or something.  Perhaps he spoke a foreign language, but that doesn't mean that he didn't also speak Arabic.

We'll never know, of course.  All we have is the rebuttal to the claim, not the claim itself.

Quote LOL What a laughable circular argument!  "Signs" are for all people, including unbelievers.  They were the ones who asked for them!  Just because they don't accept them does not change the fact that it is meant for them as well.

I'm glad you find it amusing, but that's what the Quran says.  Muhammad was asked for signs, and Allah refused to give them.

Quote One of the final signs of the Day of Judgment will be the rising of the sun from the west.  According to the hadith, the unbelievers will look upon this sign and then realize that judgment is imminent.

So is "imminent" like "nigh", i.e. at least 1400 years away? LOL

Quote Besides, we have much more eyewitness testimony for other miracles the Prophet performed.  For example, at Hudaybiyah, it is well attested that the Prophet miraculously provided water for all of his followers even when there was only a few drops left:

"Narrated Al-Bara: We were one-thousand-and-four-hundred persons on the day of Al-Hudaibiya (Treaty), and (at) Al-Hudaibiya (there) was a well. We drew out its water not leaving even a single drop. The Prophet sat at the edge of the well and asked for some water with which he rinsed his mouth and then he threw it out into the well. We stayed for a short while and then drew water from the well and quenched our thirst, and even our riding animals drank water to their satisfaction." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 56, Nunber 777)

So, Al-Bara was one of the 1400 people present at the time and he describes how he and everyone else drank their fill even after all the water had been used up.  Alhamdulillah!

It is impossible to empty a well with a pail "not leaving even a single drop", so already we know that this is an exaggeration.  And the thing about wells is that they constantly refill themselves from the surrounding water table.  I'm not familiar with wells myself so I can't say how quickly this normally happens, but there is no miracle about it that can't also be explained by exaggeration.

By the way, do you condone spitting into a well where people draw their drinking water?

Quote I already showed that it was Abdullah ibn Masud.  Hadiths would have been mentioned multiple times by the same person to different people for different reasons.  The purpose of the hadith you mentioned clarifies that the splitting of the moon was an event that was contemporaneous with the Prophet; hence the statement "during the lifetime of the Prophet".

Nobody would make the vague statement "during the lifetime of the Prophet" if he was an actual witness and could name the specific place and time of the event.  Vagueness does not clarify anything.  It only reduces credibility.

Quote LOL I know, I know.  You just can't bring yourself around to face the facts, so you naturally resort to special pleading once again.  The fact is that they did describe the event itself, as the hadith from Sahih Muslim I previously mentioned attests:

"This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Abdullah b. Mas'ud (who said): We were along with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) at Mina, that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upbn him) said to us: Bear witness to this."

Now it's behind the mountain?  So what does "on this side of the mountain" mean?  Was the other piece in front of the mountain?

Quote Isn't it obvious that the hadith from Bukhari is providing more detail?  The moon was situated away from the mountain.  Then it split into two pieces, and one piece went towards the mountain, until the mountain itself was situated between the two pieces.  This is not rocket science!

It's also not what any of the hadiths say.  If it happened as you described, then why didn't anybody report it that way?  Did the ones who reported it moving toward the mountain just stop watching it at that point?  Did the ones who reported seeing it on the other side of the mountain not think it relevant to mention that it passed behind the mountain -- or in front of it?  And why did nobody report what happened next?  Did the two pieces merge again?  Surely that would have been an amazing sight in itself!

Face it: these are three different descriptions.  At best they are incomplete, at worst they are contradictory.  And as eyewitness accounts (of an alleged miracle, no less!), they are flat and unconvincing.

Quote So what?  If his ultimate goal was power and prestige, who cares if he had a family dynasty instead of being a Prophet?

Because it would never have happened.  People would have seen through it immediately.

Quote LOL Oh, here we go.  Here comes the melodrama!

No melodrama.  Like I said, I don't mind.  I just thought it was worth reminding you that nobody with solid arguments to make for their position resorts to ad hominems.  It really says more about you than about me.

Quote Are you aware that, according to the rules:

"4. When discussing issues dealing with Islam, please support your comments with the Quran or Sunnah. Mocking any Quranic reference, Hadith, scholar, or member will not be tolerated. If you are stating something about a religion, please list your source. If it is an opinion, please state this fact. [...]

15. We will not tolerate personal attacks on participants from ANY Community (personal attacks are defined as comments that reflect upon the person instead of their opinion). Furthermore, any insults intended to ANY religion, ANY prophet of God, or ANY holy scripture shall be removed."

You have been spreading all sorts of lies against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), suggesting, among other things, that he was an impostor, a sexual deviant, a liar, a war monger etc.  Well, earth to Ron!  You have violated the rules!

I have not mocked or insulted any religion.  I have not said that Muhammad was an impostor, a liar, or anything else.  I honestly don't know if he was any of those things.  I'm only saying that there are any number of more plausible explanations for his alleged revelations from God than the naive assumption that he really was talking to God.  And I'm saying that at this point, 1400 years later, we cannot know the true explanation.

In any case, I say only what is necessary to explain my position.  Your insults, on the other hand, are gratuitous and irrelevant.  They only show how weak you must know your arguments to be, if they cannot stand on their own.

Quote
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Some of them perhaps, but certainly not all.  You claim that Allah raised a sandstorm to prevent the pagan army from defeating the early Muslims.  Could He not have done the same to keep the planes grounded on Sept 11, 2001?  Or at least to have prevented them from reaching their targets?

Of course He could have.  But everything happens for a reason.  Bad things happen in this world and good things happen in this world.  They all have a reason.  As I said, dark times were inevitable.  And as we get closer and closer to the Day of Judgment, it will only get worse before it gets better.

If He could have stopped it, then it was not inevitable.  It happened because Allah wanted it to happen.  A loving and merciful god certainly could have and would have stopped it.  On the other hand, Satan would have been cheering them on.

Quote In your diseased mind, no matter what Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did, he must have had some other ulterior motive for personal gain.

I'm not saying that he must have had an ulterior motive.  As I said, I honestly don't know.  What I'm saying is that if he had such goals, he went about achieving those goals the right way -- not by demanding power or adulation himself (which would not have worked), but by letting Allah demand it on his behalf.  It is a possible explanation, though not one that could be proven, nor even one that I necessarily believe myself.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Muslim75
Date Posted: 17 August 2014 at 12:55pm
When the prophets were considered liars, as the ancients (of Islam) teach, Allah responded with miracles, thereby proving the veracity of the prophets. This is why people follow prophets.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net