What is this "something else"?

I am led to God by my love for Christ... for the sacrifice made for me, and the love my Father in heaven has for me, not because of any earthly promise.

Caringheart,
some minds never grow out of their childhood at all. And claims alone don't help at all without any proves.

In order to understand a matter it is unwise to start at the wrong end, at the wrong place. For example if you want to learn about democracy, you will not go to a socialist or a communist and ask about democracy, would you?
Similarly, if you need a new car, would you go to the Ford dealer and ask information about Chevy? and what you think they will tell you if you did?
It seems that you have forgotten this very basic and simple principle of learning something right.
Why do you think, a Catholic source will tell you something about Islam in a way that it makes sense? They are rivals. Catholics are loosing numbers, Muslims are gaining numbers. Do you think knowing that fact, Catholics will help people understand Islam as it is, you got to be naive or st--- to think they would.
And on top, to show your innocence and immature conclusion that because someone has misinformed you about Islam and based on that you do not accept it. That is plain silly and like I said, immature.

My challenge to all of those like you is simple:

Show me if you are truthful these three things from your source without contradicting itself.
1-God, three in one as in a Trinity.
2-Jesus is God.
3-Salvation comes with blood sacrifice of Jesus (God)

Also, I will challenge you that on the following claims, the Quran does not contradict, show me if you claim it does.
1- God, one of one, who is not born to any, nor He has off spring.
2- Jesus, a man, a prophet, a creation, a servant of God.
3- Salvation comes through Obedience to God through His Mercy, Justice and Forgiveness and not through a ransom of blood, gold or wealth.

You can wander in vanities all you want, but if you are truly faithful to this cause of saving yourself and others, the answer to the above challenge is not pages long just a few line, unless you know you will not like the truthful answer, it's your choice.
Hasan

Edited by icforumadmin - 16 December 2012 at 2:32am

Caringheart wrote: Greetings Nausheen,I have read extensively from all sides, originally starting out to question the roots and practices of Christianity.� So I have been reading and viewing DVD's across many subjects that call up the history of Islam.� I have been studying the history of England, and the english empire, the moors in Spain, the crusades, the arab conquests, how the early church was formed(Catholicism), the Ottoman empire... goodness, it's too extensive to list all the places my journey has taken me in this study.Most of my reading has been online and I try to balance it with reading from many sources so as to get a balanced view.� I try to sort out the propaganda, but look for stories from both sides.� I try to look for stories written by people familiar with Islam, those having grown up with it, who can give a birdseye view of what goes on in those countries.� I have been trying to sort Islam the religion, from Islam the culture, and Islam the political.I did ask one time on the forum where I might go to read an unbiased history of Muhammad.� Do you have a suggestion?I had begun reading the hadiths but admit I have not gotten nearly as far with them as I would like.� I have found that it takes a lifetime to understand the religion that one was born into, let alone begin to understand the religion of others.� That's why I came to the forum for conversation.� I thought it would be easier to talk to people and wanted to get to know them. � Reading is not my strong suit.� It takes a great deal of time and energy that I do not have.� Though I keep plowing on because I have an insatiable desire for knowledge.� :-)Salaam,Caringheart

Hi Caringheart,

I think this will tickle you.
What Non-Muslims Say About Muhammad, The Prophet of Islam

What Non-Muslims Say About �Muhammad, The Prophet of Islam (Peace and Blessings be Upon Him and His Family)

Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of God and the Last of the Prophets. (Holy Qur'an 33:40)


This is a collection of short quotations from a wide variety of Non-Muslim notables, including academics, writers, philosophers, poets, politicians, and activists belonging to the East and the West.

To our knowledge none of them ever became Muslims. These words, therefore, reflect their personal views on various aspects of the life of the Prophet.


Michael H. Hart (1932- ) Professor of astronomy, physics and the history of science.

q       "My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level." [The 100: A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History, New York, 1978, p. 33]



William Montgomery Watt (1909- ) Professor (Emeritus) of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Edinburgh.

q       "His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad." [Mohammad At Mecca, Oxford, 1953, p. 52]



Alphonse de Lamartine (1790-1869) French poet and statesman.

q       "Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?"[Translated from Histoire De La Turquie, Paris, 1854, vol. II, pp. 276-277]



Reverend Bosworth Smith (1794-1884) Late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford.

q       "� he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope's pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar. Without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue, if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by a right Divine, it was Mohammed; for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports." Mohammed and Mohammedanism, London, 1874, p. 235]


Mohandas KaramchandGandhi (1869-1948) Indian thinker, statesman, and nationalist leader.

q       "....I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These, and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble." [Young India (periodical), 1928, Volume X]



Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) Considered the greatest British historian of his time.

q       "The greatest success of Mohammad's life was effected by sheer moral force without the stroke of a sword."
[History Of The Saracen Empire, London, 1870]



John William Draper (1811-1882) American scientist, philosopher, and historian.

q       "Four years after the death of Justinian, A.D. 569, was born at Mecca, in Arabia the man who, of all men exercised the greatest influence upon the human race . . . Mohammed." [A History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, London, 1875, vol.1, pp. 329-330]


David George Hogarth (1862-1927) English archaeologist, author, and keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

q       �Serious or trivial, his daily behaviour has instituted a canon which millions observe this day with conscious mimicry. No one regarded by any section of the human race as Perfect Man has been imitated so minutely. The conduct of the Founder of Christianity has not so governed the ordinary life of His followers. Moreover, no Founder of a religion has been left on so solitary an eminence as the Muslim Apostle.� [Arabia, Oxford, 1922, p. 52]


Washington Irving (1783-1859) Well-known as the �first American man of letters".

q       �He was sober and abstemious in his diet, and a rigorous observer of fasts. He indulged in no magnificence of apparel, the ostentation of a petty mind; neither was his simplicity in dress affected, but the result of a real disregard to distinction from so trivial a source ... In his private dealings he was just. He treated friends and strangers, the rich and poor, the powerful and the weak, with equity, and was beloved by the common people for the affability with which he received them, and listened to their complaints ... His military triumphs awakened no pride nor vain glory, as they would have done had they been effected for selfish purposes. In the time of his greatest power he maintained the same simplicity of manners and appearance as in the days of his adversity. So far from affecting regal state, he was displeased if, on entering a room, any unusual testimonial of respect were shown to him." [Life of Mahomet, London, 1889, pp. 192-3, 199]



Annie Besant (1847-1933) British theosophist and nationalist leader in India. President of the Indian National Congress in 1917.

q       "It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher." [The Life And Teachings Of Muhammad, Madras, 1932, p. 4]


Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) Considered the greatest British historian of his time.

q       "His (i.e., Muhammad's) memory was capacious and retentive, his wit easy and social, his imagination sublime, his judgment clear, rapid and decisive. He possessed the courage of both thought and action."[History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, London, 1838, vol.5, p.335]

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Caringheart wrote: I'm sorry but you  have no idea what it is to converse. My so called 'claims', (because that is how you put it, not me.  I have said over and over I make no 'claims'... I 'insist' on nothing), are based on research of reading what others have written, what others have said.  You reject that.  I can not help that. Your so-called 'claims are nothing different than your opinions and ideas you have formed from whatever sources you have come into contact with either.  (I do not see that you do any research at all.) This is what conversation is, exchange of ideas to gain understanding, but you will never gain any understanding because you do not seek it, and you do not converse... not with me anyway.  I don't know why you find it so challenging to have a conversation with me, but you do.  You seem to do alright with Placid for some reason. Your exchanges with me are nothing more than senseless attack.

Right, I don't know what it means to "converse".  Oh, but you do of course!

Unfortunately, the only one who does not know how to have a "conversation" is you.  See the way it usually works is thusly:

1.  Person A makes a statement (a "claim" ), and provides the "source" of that statement/claim by providing a citation.

2.  Person B then responds to Person A's statement/claim, providing evidence for his/her counter-statements (counter-claims).

3.  Person A then offers a rebuttal and so on and so forth.

You have made many statements (or claims), while claiming that your information is based on "research" that you have done.  But, you have never provided a citation, even though I have asked you to provide your sources on numerous occasions.  When someone does "research" and they then report the fruits of that research to others, it is customary to provide citations.  You may have noticed that in some of my responses, there are numbers in parantheses, like [1].  When you click on the number, it will take you to a website for where I got the information.  If the source is a book, I will provide the name of the author, the name of the book and page numbers.  That is a called a "citation".

So, it is clear that it is you who does not know how to have a conversation.  You make blanket statements, claiming it is based on "research", but never provide your "sources". 

Caringheart wrote: Regarding prayers... You did not 'prove' anything, though you like to believe you do.  The prayers may glorify your Allah, but this does not disprove what I say they sound like to me, or what other muslims have said that they mean.  So you really didn't 'show' me anything that I did not already know.

The words of a self-absorbed bigot with no knowledge about the subject she is talking about. 

Your bias is exposed for all to see.  You care little for the facts, and more for what your own opinions are ("what I say they sound like to me").  In addition, you have failed to "prove" you claims that in the 5 daily prayers, Muslims say how "terrible Jews and Christians are".  Do you think that it is incumbent upon me to "disprove" this ridiculous claim?  Or is it up to you to "prove" your own claim?  Let me give you a simple analogy:

Say a person "claims" that he saw Bigfoot.  He provides no evidence that he did indeed see Bigfoot and when pressed by other to provide evidence, he says that his detractors have not "disproved" that Bigfoot exists, and therefore, Bigfoot "must" exist.

Obviously, no one would take this person seriously.  The burden of proof is on him to prove that he saw Bigfoot and not on his detractors to prove that he didn't.  In the same way, it is up to you to "prove" your frivolous and uncorroborated "claims".  Until you do, to me you will remain a charlatan who pretends to be interested in "learning" or to have a "conversation".

Caringheart wrote: Yes, I am expressing a sincere desire to learn about scriptures and prayers which I do not fully understand... I want to know what is in the heart of the muslim.  I do not know how these scriptures and prayers may be interpreted by the people who say them.  I know what they sound like to me.  That is why I ask about them.  In this way you can come to understand what these things seem to say to others, and that helps to build understanding amongst one another.  There is much you do not understand about the religion of others, which takes on a different meaning for you than what it means to the one who is of that religion, and you feel free to express your questions and the way you interpret the religion of others.  Is this not for the purpose of learning?  I could say that your statements express 'assumptions based on ignorance', but I do not, because I am not disconcerted by your questions or statements... your misunderstanding, or your differing beliefs.  I am more than willing to exchange ideas, beliefs, and understanding.  I can not really expect you to understand can I, when you have not been raised as I have, any better than I can understand when I have not been raised as you have.  That is meant to be the purpose of conversing.  It has nothing to do with ignorance... unless of course you mean it simply in the sense that I do not know you and your ways, and you do not know mine, which is of course true, unless we make the effort to know each other, and the others ways, and isn't that meant to be the purpose of this forum?

What they "sound like to" you is irrelevant.  As I said, if you were really interested in learning, you would not be making blanket statements, such as that Muslims pray 5 times a day to say how "terrible Jews and Christians are".  These sorts of statements show that:

1.  You are completely ignorant about Muslims, and,

2.  That you are a bigot.

It would be like if I approached a Jewish person and said "how come you Jews are so greedy"?  This is a common stereotype against Jews, one that no serious person would believe.  Chances are that the person being asked the question would be offended and would call me a bigot, regardless of my "claim" that I am only interested in "learning".  No one would take that excuse seriously, which is why I don't take you seriously.

Caringheart wrote: Because, as you say, I am honest, and just as I can honestly say that I personally have a problem with this particular scripture, I can also say that I have problems with some of your scriptures.  If you can feel free to say you have problems with some of the scripture of others, can you also be honest and acknowledge that there are some problems with yours as well?

Such as?  You haven't provided any proof "that there are some problems with" my scripture, even though I have asked you many times. 

The point is that someone who acknowledges that her scripture contains racist and prejudiced undertones is in no moral position to point her finger at others.  As I said, it is an example of the pot calling the kettle black. 

In any case, unlike your Bible, the Quran and Sunnah both decry racism:

"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)." (Al-Hujraat, 49:13)

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety (taqwa) and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves." (Farewell Sermon of the Prophet Muhammad)

Caringheart wrote: and I am telling you that I "do not defend 'Christian caricatures of non-Christians'" and I, personally, do not know others that do either. No decent person will defend that scripture, as in, it will not be made a part of current culture.  We will accept it as a written part of history, right or wrong, with no way to properly explain it other than to wait for God... but as civilized people we do well not to make it part of our present or future, not if we are decently guided.

So, in other words, you pay "lip-service".  Exactly as I thought.  Don't get me wrong.  I am glad you refuse to put that racist verse to practice, and I never said that you did.  However, the problem still remains that it is part of your scripture, and instead of realizing that it could not have come from God (just like the verses speaking of infanticide), you choose to shut your eyes and ears and pass it off as something that cannot be "properly explained".

Caringheart wrote: Just an observation... Does anybody on this forum ask 'polite' questions about the faith of non-muslims... or are they mostly making statements about what they believe?

This is a Muslim forum.  If anyone here was interested to learn about the faith of non-Muslims, would it not be more prudent to go to a non-Muslim source?  So, if I was interested in what Buddhists believe, I would go to a Buddhist source such as a website.  I wouldn't expect to learn much about Buddhism from this website. 

Also, I have a good Christian friend that I met on a Christian forum about 7 or 8 years years ago.  We still keep email correspondences and also debate with each other all the time.  I usually send him an email when I have a question about Christianity.  I also have another friend who used to be Catholic but converted to Islam a few years ago.  I met him on an Islamic forum (not this one) about 8 years ago  When he was researching Islam, he used to email me all the time asking me questions and I would answer to the best of my knowledge while also providing helpful links. 

The difference between these experiences and the one I have had with you is that you are a bigot who makes the same ignorant claims that other like-minded bigots would make.  I have had a lot of experience with your type and I know the signs.  I once had an email conversation with a Christian who originally pretended to be genuinely interested in having a friendly conversation.  We met on an Islamic website and eventually our conversation moved to email correspondence.  That is when this person's true nature came out, and he often times used foul language in his emails.    


Edited by islamispeace - 15 December 2012 at 1:30pm