Why would anyone believe him?

Salaamualaykum Islamispeace,

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.   May Allah be pleased with you.   Salaam

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

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!    What exactly is the purpose of you even being on this forum? 

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!

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!

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?

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! 

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

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?

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.

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."

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.

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.  

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).

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.   

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!  

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.    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.  

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

 

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?   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.

Ron Webb wrote: Shucks, no.  You need multiple religions in order to have religious conflict.

Who says?  You?  Don't make me laugh!  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 ).  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! 

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

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.

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.   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!

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. 

But like I said, a prankster or "mischievous spirit" could easily lose interest and move to some other prank. 

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.

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 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!

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."  

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?

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!

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!

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.

 

Yeah, but I was specifically referring to Hazrat Sawdah, you nincompoop. 

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.  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...

islamispeace wrote: Caringheart wrote: islamispeace wrote:   each person is responsible for his/her own sins from the book of Exodus, from the teaching of Moses 5 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.

asalaam,
Caringheart


Edited by Caringheart - 17 July 2014 at 9:47pm