Did Mohammad sin???

[Michael]

You wouldnt be able to write something like the Quran.

This may be true but someone wrote it

Anyway, I didn't say I was a poet I said I could write something that met the criteria of "perfect" as defined.

Because they are too stupid to read and if they can read they are too stupid to understand? What about the majority of people that dont find verses to justify killing of inncocent people?

I think your use of the word innocent is really the key thing here.


Which is more perfect a book that can never be used to justify killing innocent people or a book with can be used to justify killing innocent people?

Is it within the power of God to make a book soooo "perfect" that no human ever could ever use it to justify killing innocent people? Can God make such a book? If such a book could be made, would it be more "perfect" than the Qur'an?

Michael

 

[Arsalan]

Do you beleif that Muslims in Islamic societies in general have higher morals than non-Muslims living within the same society?

Some Muslim countries have gone astray, unfortunately. I am therefore not defending any country. I am not bound by the actions of anyone except the Holy Prophet.

What about when compared with other societies? Take the average Tibetian Buddhist and compare them to the average person in your town, do you really think you have attained more harmony and higher morals?

All religions are connected. And because of that, Jesus also taught the buddhists. Unfortunately my previous post on that was deleted.

 

[Michael]

The word that is used here signifies human weakness, not a sin.

Can you define and then give me some examples of "human weaknesses"

Thanks
MII

 

[Arsalan]

Which is more perfect a book that can never be used to justify killing innocent people or a book with can be used to justify killing innocent people?

If the peoeple who claim the Quran justifies it really studied it they wouldnt justifiy it with the Quran because it never justifies that. Its like me saying that 1+1=3 Now you would use math to show me Im wrong. The math was right, but i abused it because of my lack of knowledge about it.

 

[Revolvr]

Could you quote the verses then? And not just those verses but before and after. People can try and justify their actions with it, but it doesnt mean they are right. And please, nothing from that idiot of a Maududi.

You and I both know that isn't necessary and would prove nothing. The teachings are clear. And Maududi speaks for most of Islam doesn't he? Islam is for the entire world; the entire world should be under Sharia Law. Or does your group not believe that?

It's fine to say your group doesn't believe these things. But can you argue your community speaks for all of Islam?

 

[Michael]

Some Muslim countries have gone astray, unfortunately. I am therefore not defending any country. I am not bound by the actions of anyone except the Holy Prophet.

So you are saying societies that are not Islamic can live better lives than Islamic ones?

To tell you the truth I would NOT want to live in any Islamic societies even if I were a Muslim. I can't think of one that seems to be all that great to live in. Funny enough, I have a good Aussie Muslim friend who just couldn't wait to move to the middle east. He's really become more and more religous lately and he just went on and on about how great it was going to be. He even spent a couple years really getting his Arabic down (he speaks it with his family but he wanted to really get it down). Well he went there a few months ago. He didn't say much except he didn't want to move there anymore. And he went to UAE - imagine if he had gone to Iran or Lebanon?


Could you give me at least 2 or 3 Islamic countries (dates too please) in the last 1000 years that has lived up to the "harmonious" Islamic egalitarian society that you suggest living an Islamic life is supposed going to lead to.

Michael

PS: I often find it interesting how the Europeans viewed the world during the Age of Exploration. Their commentaries are very enlightening. They see most of the World as lower than themselves of course - as people do. It really gives them a sense of superiority. That is, until at the very end of their voyages, after conquoring countless people and visiting every country and recording every culture on earth they entered Japan. Just like you they thought their society was so great because they were Xian and seeing all the other countries in the world proved it to them - until they entered Buddhist/Shinto Japan and realized they were dead wrong. Japan turned their Xian-centric bull shit on it's head.

 

[Michael]

All religions are connected. And because of that, Jesus also taught the buddhists. Unfortunately my previous post on that was deleted.

Hmmm I thought Buddha sat under a tree for a few years before he reached an epiphany?

 

[Michael]

If the peoeple who claim the Quran justifies it really studied it they wouldnt justifiy it with the Quran because it never justifies that. Its like me saying that 1+1=3 Now you would use math to show me Im wrong. The math was right, but i abused it because of my lack of knowledge about it.

I guess that's a difference between the Qur'an and a Math book. Math has mathematical proofs and I can "prove" you wrong. The people will simply tell you that you don't know what you are talking about and that you do not understand what innocent means. There is no "proof" you can present.

 

[Michael]

Revolvr,

Are you in agreeance that "sin" should be read as "human weaknesses"?
If so can you define and then give me some examples of some "human weaknesses" - I'm not even sure what they are really.

Thanks

 

[Revolvr]

Revolvr,

Are you in agreeance that "sin" should be read as "human weaknesses"?
If so can you define and then give me some examples of some "human weaknesses" - I'm not even sure what they are really.

Thanks

No I do not. People sin because they are weak and imperfect. Because weak and imperfect people have arbitrary views of morality, one person's personal morality may be very different from another's.

You complain that Islam advocates violence, but that is Islam's morality. Since you say everyone can have their own morality, stop complaining.

 

[Michael]

No I do not. People sin because they are weak and imperfect. Because weak and imperfect people have arbitrary views of morality, one person's personal morality may be very different from another's.

Probably each person on this planet has a different perspective or degree of difference on at least a few morality issues.

Obviously you would never condone pushing school girls into a burning building, someone else may think allowing school girls out of a burning building uncovered is a sin. They'd see you and your beleif as week and imperfect.

This of course is another reason why I think a secular government that evolves with the changing attitudes of the populous is much better than a dogmatic religous one rooted in another time, another culture and another place.



So to be clear you interpret the verse to mean "sin" but do not think that the verse is referring specifically to Mohammad?

 

[Revolvr]

This of course is another reason why I think a secular government that evolves with the changing attitudes of the populous is much better than a dogmatic religous one rooted in another time, another culture and another place.

Sure, I wouldn't legalize burning little children.

Assuming you are in the US, suppose the majority in power decided to repeal the 6th Amendment (search, seizure, probable cause, wiretapping). This would be OK with you if a majority approved?

Or it's decided that killing to protect private property (murder for cause) is enacted, this would be OK? The constitution is a living, changing document depending on the whims of those in the majority?

Or that homosexuality should be punishable by death? If the majority approves?

You have no moral standard or core values to work from when you say whatever the changing attitude of the populous wants. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Revolvr]

So to be clear you interpret the verse to mean "sin" but do not think that the verse is referring specifically to Mohammad?

I am saying that if you want to argue the "doctrine of the isma of the prophets" is inconsistent with the Qur'an, you'll have to do better than that.

 

[SkinWalker]

Could you quote the verses then? And not just those verses but before and after.

I'm not interested in quoting koranic or biblical mythology in long passages, so I'll just leave a link to the relevant sections and let other look for themselves.

Sura 9, the first half dozen or so verses, clearly indicates that it is okay for Muslim believers to kill those that believe otherwise (unless of course Muslims have struck an agreement with them or they're willing to accept the word of Muslim superstition in place of their own superstitions).

Verses 73 and 123 of the same Sura (linked above) also talk about Jihad and fighting against non-believers. Surely there are many Muslim apologists who will say this doesn't mean war and violence but "fighting" and "striving" in the metaphorical sense.

Unfortunately for the world, there doesn't seem to be any shortage of nutjobs that are willing to accept the literal version of this and a hundred other verses that call for "fighting," "jihad," "war," and out-right killing (9:1-6) of unbelievers.

Those same apologists will quote 4:29 where it says "do not destroy yourselves" when critics of the Muslim superstition bring up suicide bombers, but they conveniently omit (though some *do* try to justify with weak arguments, as we'll no doubt see) Sura 4, 74-78 where koranic mythology encourages fighting the cause of god, promising rich rewards in the hereafter should they die in the process. Many a fanatic cult leader has used this very passage to inspire the suicide bombers that believe they are giving their lives in a holy fight for their god, who will reward them in the afterlife.

So, buried amid hundreds of verses of about how unbelievers are friends of satan and destined for doom and gloom, there are a few -relatively few- passages that promote peace and justice.

And Muslims expect the world to just accept their word for it that a man, who would be considered a pedophile in modern times, hid out in a cave for 23 years, talking to an angel, wrote this "book" of his god's word. Complete and utter poppycock. Not only would this man be considered a pedophile for shacking up with a 9-year old, but any reasonable person today would consider him psychotic and delusional.

Too bad for the 3000 people in the WTC there weren't psychologists in Muhammad's day. A proper diagnosis and treatment might have prevented the evolution of one of the world's most violent religions.

 

[Michael]

Sure, I wouldn't legalize burning little children.

Assuming you are in the US, suppose the majority in power decided to repeal the 6th Amendment (search, seizure, probable cause, wiretapping). This would be OK with you if a majority approved?

Or it's decided that killing to protect private property (murder for cause) is enacted, this would be OK? The constitution is a living, changing document depending on the whims of those in the majority?

Or that homosexuality should be punishable by death? If the majority approves?

You have no moral standard or core values to work from when you say whatever the changing attitude of the populous wants. Be careful what you wish for.

Actually I am living in AU but I am also a Citizen of the USA.

We have three branches of government in the USA so it is no mean feat to make a change as you suggest - in some cases demanding a 2/3 majority of vote PLUS we also have a Bill of Rights as well as checks and balances as well as States rights etc... BUT if somehow the overwhelming majority of Citizens mandated that the system be so utterly changed and then (after managing to change it) mandated that atheism was punishable by death - I would accept it.

I'd also just say I'm a theist - much like has happened in many Islamic societies were some people pretend to be fair square Muslim and are really atheists. I actually have one "Muslim" atheist as a close friend. He said if his neighbors in Iran knew he was atheist he'd probably be murdered.

This is a good example of why theistic AND atheistic societies are self-limiting. Which sucks because I personally think free-thinking is better than superstitious but I accept that such is the case for now.

I'll tell you this Revolvr, I'll let free-thinking stand on it's own merit rather than legislate it into dominance via some sort of coercive tax scheme.

We can see how poorly "Islamic Republics" function and how poorly "Atheistic Communist Republics" function. Forcing people to beleive may work but it doens't benefit society in the long run.

 

[Michael]

I am saying that if you want to argue the "doctrine of the isma of the prophets" is inconsistent with the Qur'an, you'll have to do better than that.

OK, but I'm still not sure of your stance - what exactly does the verse even mean to you?

 

[Sleepless]

Where does what say what?

48.2. That Allah may forgive you your sins of the past and the future, and complete His favor on you, and guide you on the straight path,

What does "sins of the past and the future" mean to you?


Do you think that there are other religous books that are "perfect" as in they do not contradict themselves, do not propagate hate nor violence and do not contradict science? If I were to write a small book that met those criteria would you consider it perfect?


If the Qur'an is "perfect" how can some people recite verses found in it to justify murdering other people?

1. Thats just arguing for the sake of arguement, not very smart. And

2. Ive already told you translation and interpretation are two different things and only if you are well studied in fiqh and hadith can you pass judgments on the nature/meaning of the verse. Unfortunately, many people take these verses out of context, and misinterpret them or take them literally. Obviously people need to get educated. It is their problem if they want to disregard all that and interpret the verses as they see fit. You cant blame the religion for the stupidity of a few misguided followers

 

[Michael]

1. Thats just arguing for the sake of arguement, not very smart. And

Actually I`m trying to get you to think about what you really mean when you say something is "perfect". You see it really doesn`t mean anthing. Suppose an Arab poet re-wrote small parts of the Qur`an so that certain passages are more clearly understood - then it`d be more "perfect" compared with the one in your hand.

You probably don`t know it but the oldest Arabic Qur`an are not identical to the one in your hand. Your Qur`an has small differences here and there all throughout it. Which is more "perfect"? The oldest Qur`an or the newer version in your hand?

2. Ive already told you translation and interpretation are two different things and only if you are well studied in fiqh and hadith can you pass judgments on the nature/meaning of the verse.

This is a logical fallacy formally called "appeal to authority".

 

[Arsalan]

No, it's not. Notice that I posted the passages you referenced earlier. As long as they're relevant to the discussion, they should be fine. If anything, assuming what you post directly supports your claims, and you did get banned, I would try to get in touch with whoever it is that banned you to clear up any misunderstanding.

Well, ok then. I submit the following verses in support of the Prophet not having sinned:

7:158

33:22

53:3

68:5

Which is more perfect a book that can never be used to justify killing innocent people or a book with can be used to justify killing innocent people?

The Quran is a guidance for mankind to live in harmony with eachother. Whenever that harmony is disrupted, the cause has to be identified and dealt with. It can be dealt with by minor punishments or major.

You and I both know that isn't necessary and would prove nothing. The teachings are clear. And Maududi speaks for most of Islam doesn't he? Islam is for the entire world; the entire world should be under Sharia Law. Or does your group not believe that?

It's fine to say your group doesn't believe these things. But can you argue your community speaks for all of Islam?

Maududi has been rebutted countless times and shown up for the moron that he really is. His God is not Allah, rather it is himself. The only reason that he is seen as some kind of great teacher is because he plays into the hands of the orientalists who use him to justify their positions. Fortunately there are objective orientalists as well.

So you are saying societies that are not Islamic can live better lives than Islamic ones?

Yes they can. Doesnt mean they are atm.

To tell you the truth I would NOT want to live in any Islamic societies even if I were a Muslim. I can't think of one that seems to be all that great to live in. Funny enough, I have a good Aussie Muslim friend who just couldn't wait to move to the middle east. He's really become more and more religous lately and he just went on and on about how great it was going to be. He even spent a couple years really getting his Arabic down (he speaks it with his family but he wanted to really get it down). Well he went there a few months ago. He didn't say much except he didn't want to move there anymore. And he went to UAE - imagine if he had gone to Iran or Lebanon?

I, as an Ahmadi, am not allowed to perform Hajj by the Saudi Mullahs. I wont be allowed in if they find out I am one. By Pakistani Law I can be killed anytime or put in jail for trumped up charges. Some Muslim countries are horrible places, much like some non-Muslim countries. But it doesnt mean that I suddenly stopped being a Muslim and hating Islam because of what they did. I know they are wrong. And I know that the real power in those countries lies with the ignorant clerics.

Hmmm I thought Buddha sat under a tree for a few years before he reached an epiphany?

You might find the following books interesting to read:

Where Did Jesus Die?

Jesus In India

There are accounts from Buddhist writings and city histories which seem very valid and point to Jesus travelling to India and spending time amongst the Buddhists.

I guess that's a difference between the Qur'an and a Math book. Math has mathematical proofs and I can "prove" you wrong. The people will simply tell you that you don't know what you are talking about and that you do not understand what innocent means. There is no "proof" you can present.

On the contrary, it is clearly said when and who you are allowed to fight. The proof is there. Some people just wont read it.

Sura 9, the first half dozen or so verses, clearly indicates that it is okay for Muslim believers to kill those that believe otherwise (unless of course Muslims have struck an agreement with them or they're willing to accept the word of Muslim superstition in place of their own superstitions).

Unfortunately you are wrong. I'd suggest you and anyone else who wants to keep bringing up Sura 9 read this first before going on to make outrageous allegations.

Verses 73 and 123 of the same Sura (linked above) also talk about Jihad and fighting against non-believers. Surely there are many Muslim apologists who will say this doesn't mean war and violence but "fighting" and "striving" in the metaphorical sense.

Once again, I suggest you and anyone else that is interested in reading what those verses are about read this and this. it is easy to take 1 verse without providing the other verses and say AHA! But in the end youll just be proven wrong.

Unfortunately for the world, there doesn't seem to be any shortage of nutjobs that are willing to accept the literal version of this and a hundred other verses that call for "fighting," "jihad," "war," and out-right killing (9:1-6) of unbelievers.

First of all, read the relevant verses and their tafseer in the link I gave above. Secondly, there are many reasons people are willing to do that stuff. It is not always because of their religion. Hell, most of them cant even read! My view is that although there are people that are fuelled by blatant misreadings of verses (Because they cant read themselves), it is not the only reason that they are willing to do all that. You have to take into account a lot of other variables as well.

Those same apologists will quote 4:29 where it says "do not destroy yourselves" when critics of the Muslim superstition bring up suicide bombers, but they conveniently omit (though some *do* try to justify with weak arguments, as we'll no doubt see) Sura 4, 74-78 where koranic mythology encourages fighting the cause of god, promising rich rewards in the hereafter should they die in the process. Many a fanatic cult leader has used this very passage to inspire the suicide bombers that believe they are giving their lives in a holy fight for their god, who will reward them in the afterlife.

4:27-28 and 4:29-30.. . What verse are you exactly talking about here?

Also, lets look at the verse 4:74-77 and 4:78 After reading those verses and the tafseer in those links, what exactly is your gripe with them?

Also, nice to see you said fanatic

So, buried amid hundreds of verses of about how unbelievers are friends of satan and destined for doom and gloom, there are a few -relatively few- passages that promote peace and justice.

Strange how you have failed to provide a hundred verses or at least links to them.

And Muslims expect the world to just accept their word for it that a man, who would be considered a pedophile in modern times....Not only would this man be considered a pedophile for shacking up with a 9-year old

I take it you are taking about Aisha, who is incredibly revered throughout the Muslim world for her knowledge and is called the Mother of the Faithful. I also take it that you have done quite some study on her age havent you? So regardless of the fact that she wasnt 6 or 9, and regardless of the fact that she has called the Holy Prophet more modest than a virgin, and regardless of the fact that he did not marry or even look at anyone for 25 years while he was married to someone 15 years older than him for 25 years, regardless of the fact that his wives, except for Aisha, were not known for their beauty or young age, you still have the nerve to say that he was some kind of paedophile or sex craved maniac? Seriously I cant help you then.

..hid out in a cave for 23 years, talking to an angel, wrote this "book" of his god's word.

It wasnt all written in a cave mind you and Im pretty sure he didnt write it.

Complete and utter poppycock. , but any reasonable person today would consider him psychotic and delusional.

Strange, I consider my father to be a perfectly reasonable person who just happens to work as a psychiatrist and yet he does not consider him that. There also many other, reasonable minded people that dont.

Too bad for the 3000 people in the WTC there weren't psychologists in Muhammad's day. A proper diagnosis and treatment might have prevented the evolution of one of the world's most violent religions.

The attacks on the WTC had nothing to do with Islam, they were politically motivated. Also, most violent religion? Hmm, how many people have been killed in countries like Communist Russia or Communist China or any other non-religios or non-Islamic country? Oh well, I guess they are far less than 3000 :shrug:

 

[(Q)]

The attacks on the WTC had nothing to do with Islam, they were politically motivated.

"Islam may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers..."

Also, most violent religion? Hmm, how many people have been killed in countries like Communist Russia or Communist China or any other non-religios or non-Islamic country?

In order for communism to work, it MUST replace the gods of religion as the god of the people, hence it is still based of the same ideologies as religion.