More Muslim Problems - Page 13

hkbajwa · 10-30-2006, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

I have studied Islam for years - and done so with extreme scrutiny and skepticism of all sources.

My mind is actually quite open, but the evidence stacks up OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST Mohammed.

These supposed revelations he had - that resembled Judeo/Christian beliefs - came AFTER long discussions and debates with Jews and Christians in Medina. Revelations from God, or twisted Judaism?

Well of COURSE he had long discussions with people of other faiths. He was a a spiritual man who spent 35 years as a persecuted shepherd. And of COURSE Islam resembles Judaism and christianity. It's the UPDATE remember

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

From shortly after his move to Medina in 622, until his death, it was non-stop bloodshed, slaughter and warfare for the Muslims - MOST of it LED BY MOHAMMED HIMSELF. You can keep living in denial if you want, but you're arguing against history.

*sigh* I am not living in denial dear friend. The fact remains that considering the massive upheaval he brought about, Mohammad was NOT violent. I already explained the wars and the punishment of the jews as well as his military campaigns. They were the result of his particular cicumstance.. not of his violent nature as you would claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Mohammed screwed, and married, a 9-year old girl for crying out loud! 9 years old! "Men of God" don't do that crap. Perverts and savages do!

Yup if they were a medical transcriptionist in the 21st century. I already told you that according to the society of the time a girl was ready for marriage when her menstrual cycle started. Girls can start menstruating at age 8. Secondly the legal age at the time was not 18 or 21 .. it was 12 for boys and dependent on the mentruation for girls. You are judging a social norm of 1400 years ago by the standards of the 21st century.

YES it would be creepy if somebody did it today. But then again it would be creepy if a 5 yearold was given responsibility to guard a flock of sheep in the desert alone today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

And when I say that Mohammed was - yes, absolutely - a savage liar and evil man, that does NOT mean that all Muslims are savage liars and evil. However, many are. Even you cannot deny that. Even you cannot deny that the Muslim religion is solely responsible for VAST amounts of violence and bloodshed, the world over, every day.

Well i would say that your statement is not true of Islam alone. And if it is not unique to Islam, then it is hardly fair to assume that Islam the RELIGION is the cause of vast amounts of war and bloodshed.

Islam the RELIGION is not responsible for the imperial dreams of Saladin or the ummayads or the abbasids. Imperialism has existed in all cultures and all religions. Islam the philosophy is not responsible for religious persecution alone. It has happened in all cultures and all religions. Islam the culture is not responsible for the barbaric terrorism of today's AQ. Individuals have committed violent acts in the name of EVERY religion ( save buddhism i think).

YOu know that the christian religion was not responsible for the Inquisition or the exploitation of europe by the church, or for Timothy Mcveigh or the KKK. BY your logic, christianity is a terrible evil because it has caused people to act in this insane way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Are all Muslims blood-thirsty savages? No. But many ARE - and those that are can ALWAYS find justification for their brutality from both the Koran AND the life of Mohammed.

Yes my dear JUST LIKE McVeigh and the KKK have been able to find biblical and christian rationales for their bombing and cross burning. Just like the church sanctioned the Inquisition.

Just because twisted people twist a good message to support their insanity it does not invalidate the message. All that you use as proof that Islam causes more evil than good can be directly applied to christianity also.

hkbajwa · 10-30-2006, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayD

I dont know of your biblical knowledge, but Jesus most certainly without a question of doubt, in many ways, said he was God. The bible clearly says, and I qoute "Jesus Christ is the image of the living God" In Revolations he came to John saying "I am the first and the last, the beginning and end to all things. In the book of John its said, "he was in the world, and the world WAS MADE BY HIM, but the world knew him not. I'll take Johns word over anyones. After all he knew him personaly.

did john write the gospel??

10-30-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

Well that makes sense.

Though i would not agree that he was a liar. each situation must be dealt with accordingly. Jesus' position, his life, his following, his culture, his environment were all different from mohammad.

Jesus was an artisan in the hub of the civilized Roman EMpire.. Mohammad was a bedouin shepherd in a different time, place, society and culture.

Jesus lifting a sword would have meant something entirely different than when mohammad lifted a sword.

Fact is that life in the arab desert was VERY harsh. THe people to this day are some of the toughest in the world ( they have a DUNE Fremen thing goin on). For mohammad to lift a sword in self defense was a necessity of his life in order for him to survive and perform his duty. Jesus had to be crucified to affect the world in the way he did.

At least this is how i see it, but your argument is interesting. If jesus could spread god's message without ever resorting to physical violence, then why did mohammad not do the same? They both come from the same source so why did one act differently from the other.

Gonna look it up.

Even if Jesus was to resort to violence, it would have been supernatural. He wouldnt have had to talk anyone into helping him, or lift a sword for him. (he told Peter to put down his sword, said those who live by the sword, will die by the sword)

Jesus told Pilot "My kingdom isnt of this world, for if it was I would have sent 12 leagons of my angles to deliver me" Then he straight told Pilot "you have no power over me but what my father in heaven gives to you." Basicaly saying he had everything under control, regardless of what the curcumstance looked like.

10-30-2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

did john write the gospel??

Yes. The book of John, and revelations.

10-30-2006, 10:22 AM

"*sigh* I am not living in denial dear friend. The fact remains that considering the massive upheaval he brought about, Mohammad was NOT violent. I already explained the wars and the punishment of the jews as well as his military campaigns. They were the result of his particular cicumstance.. not of his violent nature as you would claim."

See this is the whole thing right here. The words "Prophet of God", and "Millitary campaigns" together, should raise red flags all over the place.

Jefferson · 10-30-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

Well of COURSE he had long discussions with people of other faiths. He was a a spiritual man who spent 35 years as a persecuted shepherd. And of COURSE Islam resembles Judaism and christianity. It's the UPDATE remember
More Muslim revisionist history.
Mohammed did NOT spend 35 years as a persecuted shepherd. He married a rich 40-year old woman, named Kadijha, when he was 25. From that time until her death, Mohammed lived a life of ease and luxury.
Additionally, if he was actually receiving revelations from God, why were they nothing more than convoluted Judaism?

*sigh* I am not living in denial dear friend. The fact remains that considering the massive upheaval he brought about, Mohammad was NOT violent. I already explained the wars and the punishment of the jews as well as his military campaigns. They were the result of his particular cicumstance.. not of his violent nature as you would claim.
Mohammed turned savagely violent almost immediately after going to Medina. History bears out this fact.
It was NOT self defense.
How do you explain away his troops attacking and plundering the Quraysh caravans? THAT was unprovoked!

Yup if they were a medical transcriptionist in the 21st century. I already told you that according to the society of the time a girl was ready for marriage when her menstrual cycle started. Girls can start menstruating at age 8. Secondly the legal age at the time was not 18 or 21 .. it was 12 for boys and dependent on the mentruation for girls. You are judging a social norm of 1400 years ago by the standards of the 21st century.
Girls' periods are starting earlier and earlier now. I know, for a fact, that girls' menstrual cycles do NOT start at 8 - other than on an extremely rare occasion.
Even so, we're talking about a grown man screwing, and marrying, a 9-year old girl! Spin it anyway you want, but it's sick and creepy - especially for a pervert who claims to be a "man of god"!

YES it would be creepy if somebody did it today. But then again it would be creepy if a 5 yearold was given responsibility to guard a flock of sheep in the desert alone today.
It was sick and creepy then. But who was going to argue with him. He simply would have killed them.

Well i would say that your statement is not true of Islam alone. And if it is not unique to Islam, then it is hardly fair to assume that Islam the RELIGION is the cause of vast amounts of war and bloodshed.
Yes indeed, the fail-safe answer of all moderate Muslims. "Hey, Islam is not the ONLY religion that has been violent". Islam is a violent religion, as its founder was a violent man. Period.

Islam the RELIGION is not responsible for the imperial dreams of Saladin or the ummayads or the abbasids. Imperialism has existed in all cultures and all religions. Islam the philosophy is not responsible for religious persecution alone. It has happened in all cultures and all religions. Islam the culture is not responsible for the barbaric terrorism of today's AQ. Individuals have committed violent acts in the name of EVERY religion ( save buddhism i think).
You DO work very hard to explain away why the violence and bloodshed inherent to Islam is actually okay, or is somehow not what it appears to be. "Thou dost protest too loudly!"

YOu know that the christian religion was not responsible for the Inquisition or the exploitation of europe by the church, or for Timothy Mcveigh or the KKK. BY your logic, christianity is a terrible evil because it has caused people to act in this insane way.
Timothy McVeigh never claimed to do anything "in the name of God" did he? No.

Yes my dear JUST LIKE McVeigh and the KKK have been able to find biblical and christian rationales for their bombing and cross burning. Just like the church sanctioned the Inquisition.
Again, McVeigh was no more Christian than was Hitler. And yes, the Roman Catholic Church/State DID sanction and begin the Crusades - AS A RESPONSE TO DECADES OF MUSLIM AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE.
But guess what? EVERY Christian will denounce that nonsense. In addition, it took place for a very short period of time - and HAS NOT BEEN PERPETUATED, NOR REPLICATED.
Islam, on the other hand, has a non-stop history of violence, brutality, repression and bloodshed. Period.

Just because twisted people twist a good message to support their insanity it does not invalidate the message. All that you use as proof that Islam causes more evil than good can be directly applied to christianity also.
You're wrong.
Look at the founder of Christianity. Jesus NEVER did violence, plundered anything, raped a 9-year old girl, or slaughtered anybody.
Look at the founder of Islam. Mohammed did ALL of the above, and more!

The violence of Islam is nothing more than an extension of the violence of its founder.

If you want to keep worshipping a blood-thirsty savage, fine. I choose not to.

Jefferson · 10-30-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayD

See this is the whole thing right here. The words "Prophet of God", and "Millitary campaigns" together, should raise red flags all over the place.

But the funny thing is, they DON'T even raise the eybrows of Muslims!

They're so totally brain-washed and indoctrinated in this crap that it actually makes sense to them!

10-30-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

But the funny thing is, they DON'T even raise the eybrows of Muslims!

They're so totally brain-washed and indoctrinated in this crap that it actually makes sense to them!

I find it rather demonic. Especialy considering how these end time prophecies are shaping up.

alias · 10-30-2006, 11:35 AM

Muslim cleric 'backs execution of gays'
Don Frame
A ROW has blown up over a claim a prominent Manchester Muslim has defended the execution of sexually-active gay people as "justified".

Arshad Misbahi, a junior Imam at the city's Central Mosque is alleged to have confirmed that it is an acceptable punishment in Iraq and Iran.

His comments are said to have been made to psychotherapist Dr John Casson who is researching the persecution of gays in Islamic states. But they have been condemned as "encouraging conflict between the area's large gay and Muslim communities.

More at this link:

Muslim cleric 'backs execution of gays'

Why is it every time one of these muslims gets quoted or their Quran gets quoted they always say that the words were taken out of context? I see it everywhere and even here by our resident muslim.

satv365 · 10-31-2006, 09:42 PM

The first witness to Jesus's resurrection was a female. Jesus lived in a province of the Roman Empire that was known for rebellion, often.

Israel, Palestine, etc. As long as the Jews where in the Majority, they would rebell against the Romans periodically. This is why the Caeser expelled the Jews, and renamed it Palestine, moved in the Arabs, and why we have jews in Europe, Asia, and Africa to this day.

So no, Jesus didnt live in a civilized area of the Roman Empire. Legions where only stationed near ports and citys. Jerusalem, and Somaria. The rest of the land was arid desert, much like the rest of the middle east.

So, as a Muslim. If you beleive the Bible. Then you must beleive that Israel belongs to the Jewish people? If you beleive the Bible (most notably, the old testament) God gave that land to Jews, and are his chosen people above all others.

yet, your ilk call them descended from pigs, murderers, blah blah. Something I can sympathize with. Im not a big fan of Israel myself.

That is one more inconsistency in Islamic faith.

Muhammed was a merchant. Not a shepard. SHortly after his death, the Caliphs who assumed power from him, invaded Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia, Spain, Anatolia, north africa.

A legacy of war.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-30-2006, 10:22 AM		#125 (permalink)
	JayD Guest Posts: n/a	"sigh I am not living in denial dear friend. The fact remains that considering the massive upheaval he brought about, Mohammad was NOT violent. I already explained the wars and the punishment of the jews as well as his military campaigns. They were the result of his particular cicumstance.. not of his violent nature as you would claim." See this is the whole thing right here. The words "Prophet of God", and "Millitary campaigns" together, should raise red flags all over the place.