Why would anyone believe him? |
Post Reply | Page <1 910111213> |
Author | |||||||||||||||||||||
islamispeace
Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
"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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Ron Webb
Senior Member Male atheist Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Status: Offline Points: 2467 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
I consider my time (and yours too) to be a matter of real importance. Don't you?
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.
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.
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"?
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.
Whether or not it makes sense to you as a strategy, the fact is that it worked.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I've never heard of a war started by humanists. I guess it's possible, but I'm finding it hard to imagine.
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.
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.
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.)
Fine, I'll take you at your word.
Why would you think that? Do rapists preferentially choose virgins as victims, for instance?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Caringheart
Senior Member Joined: 02 March 2012 Status: Offline Points: 2991 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
the Psalm of David # 51 5 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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
islamispeace
Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Yeah right. If that were the case, then why do you waste your time (and mine) on meaningless conversations? You are a walking contradiction!
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.
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"!
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.
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 So, I guess we can add vocabulary to the list of subjects you are not an expert on, but nevertheless pretend that you are!
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!
Excuses, excuses...You're making me cry, Ron.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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) 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...
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".
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!
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!
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...
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 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.
Oh, thank you great sir for your understanding...NOT. Like I care if you take me "at my word" or not!
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).
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.
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
islamispeace
Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
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"? And since when is legal sexual intercourse (between married men and women) a "sin"? 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Caringheart
Senior Member Joined: 02 March 2012 Status: Offline Points: 2991 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
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. asalaam and blessings. Edited by Caringheart - 21 July 2014 at 9:52pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||
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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Ron Webb
Senior Member Male atheist Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Status: Offline Points: 2467 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Well, sort of. Here are the reasons you've offered so far:
Let me know if I've missed any.
Exactly, so if there is a contradiction, the tradition must be wrong.
So do we have the testimony of any eyewitnesses?
You're right, I have no authority; but what has that to do with your inability to support your claims?
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.
Obviously not, because he didn't accept their offer, and he didn't die.
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.
And equally, no reason to believe he wasn't.
In Arabia, perhaps, but polytheism continues throughout the world and is in no danger of disappearing.
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?
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.
Because he's smarter than you. 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] Edited by Ron Webb - 24 July 2014 at 7:15pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
islamispeace
Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
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!
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"?
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! I can think of no better response to your idiocy than the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
Every time you write something, you expose your ignorance more and more. This is becoming a joke. 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!
This is all according to Sheik Ron Webb. 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?
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!
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.
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.
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!
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."
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!
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...
Sure, sure. We have already seen why this argument fails.
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?
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?!
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? 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!
Or maybe it's because you are too dumb to see the obvious. 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? 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! 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! Edited by islamispeace - 26 July 2014 at 1:44pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Post Reply | Page <1 910111213> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |