Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Why would anyone believe him? Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 13 Next >>
Author Message
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1785
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 28 July 2014 at 6:35pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.  

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.

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/

Compare that to any of the monotheistic religions, all of which regard themselves as supreme and the only acceptable religion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 30 July 2014 at 2:48pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/)       

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

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

"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

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

'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

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

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 "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

"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/

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

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

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. (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, (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)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1164
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 31 July 2014 at 3:39am
Ron I think you should stop right here and don't say another word!
IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1785
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 01 August 2014 at 6:07am

Originally posted by islamispeace

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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!

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.
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 01 August 2014 at 10:02pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 01 August 2014 at 10:26pm
Originally posted by Abu Loren

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)

IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1785
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 02 August 2014 at 9:26am
Originally posted by islamispeace

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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. 

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.

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.
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 02 August 2014 at 8:28pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

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)

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

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)

Originally posted by Ron Webb

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

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

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


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

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

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

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.


Edited by islamispeace - 02 August 2014 at 8:44pm
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)

IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 13 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
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

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com