Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Ferd

...1634...


LAST MONTH MUSLIMS KILLED TEN THOUSAND PEOPLE IN THE NAME OF THIER gOD.

Not here. We don't tolerate that.

Yes you stopped. When there was nothing left to take. Now you are raising up against another "enemy".

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

South America, North America, Asia, Africa - A question was asked so long ago. Is there one place that christianity has ever brought peace to? A city, a town, a nation? On what basis do you play "better man" with anyone?

The nature of any religion is to bring division and war. True "spirituality" transcends religion. Modern Islam could learn a lot from their Sufi friends.

Can Sufism Defuse Terrorism?
http://content.time.com/time/world/a...912091,00.html

I can respect Sufism for the most part. In fact, if I were to ever convert to Islam (which I don't see at the moment), Sufism would be the only brand of Islam in which I could find inspiration.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The nature of any religion is to bring division and war. True "spirituality" transcends religion. Modern Islam could learn a lot from their Sufi friends.

Can Sufism Defuse Terrorism?
http://content.time.com/time/world/a...912091,00.html

I can respect Sufism for the most part. In fact, if I were to ever convert to Islam (which I don't see at the moment), Sufism would be the only brand of Islam in which I could find inspiration.

My friend:

Sufism aside it is simply not possible for anyone, anytime to faithfully and genuinely pray daily and also hold unprovoked violence towards others inside.

There is no room for both. One cannot be Muslim and fail to do this basic thing.

I advise any, all of you, to test this. Stop, put everything down, and pray 5 times tomorrow. Or to be different pray 3 times. You will see. There is no, none, room for prayer and hatred or violence. Try it the next day. Make it a habit. This will lift you all.

[Aquila]

[QUOTE=Walks_in_islam;1352298]My friend:

Sufism aside...[ /QUOTE]

Why put Sufism aside? It is a mystic tradition dating back to Mohammad himself.

[shazeep]

hmm, on paper, perhaps. But then why do we have whores, and exotic dance clubs, i wonder. I smell hypocrisy. This nitpicking about lies now, yikes. More pot calling kettle black, imo. All the lies ever told me were by Christians, sad to say. Muslims don't lie. I would leave that for the scoffers and rednecks

[Pliny]

Posted by Pliny
Well I am glad you recognize that I did not agree with the position of the islamic website. I applaud the honesty here. I do however have a “position”. It’s the same one that’s been said over and over. Jesus pointed to the created order when discussing the issue of marriage/divorce

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

(So what? Jesus was outlining the only cause for divorce).

So many misrepresentations! LOL!!! Give yourself a break and stop drinking the Kool-Aid of those Islamic apologists! They have no idea what they are talking about. LOL!

Yes Jesus was outlining the only cause for divorce among whom? He pointed to the created order, the God ordained plan. That being one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship till death parts them. So easy even a cave man can do understand. Only muslims with an agenda to justify their religious ideology refuse to accept it.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

We are way past the Islamic website (with the definitely non-Islamic sources LOL) unless the historical rulings recorded in the Talmud or the words of the bible have become “Islamic”.

The historical and Talmudic quotations are irrelevant. They are often used by Islamic apologists. Apologists who either attempt to make a false moral equivalency, just as you have done multiple times or take them out of context, which you have done multiple times. It would appear that critical thinking skills are not valued among Islamic apologists.




Posted by Pliny
In the created order there was one man and one woman created in maturity. Also, as mentioned so many times we looked at the text YOU brought up – Rebekah’s betrothal/marriage to Isaac. A quick examination of the TEXT reveals she was a mature young woman as the ESV interpreters reveal. BTW that is not a “subjective application”. It’s called exegesis using hermeneutical principles.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Except you add “one” man and “one” woman to the passage. What's a twist here and a tweak there though right? “With the evidence of speaking in other tongues” is a famous addition to apostolic teaching, added to a popular passage that does not actually say that. Actually that is not said ANYWHERE LOL

So you are suggesting that Adam (one man) and Eve (one woman) were not created alone? I guess you know this because you found the same crystal ball of Rashi? Perhaps there is an Islamic crystal ball somewhere that says this. Actually even the quran refers to Adam in the singular:
Surah 15:28 And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: “I am going to create a man (Adam) from dried (sounding) clay of altered mud.

The quran even plagiarized the Biblical account of creation here:
Surah 30:20 And among His Signs is this, that He created you (Adam) from dust, and then [Hawwa (Eve) from Adam’s rib…]
Surah 39:6 He create you (all) from a single person (Adam); then made from him his wife (singular) [Hawwa (Eve)].

Where have I heard about a rib being taken from Adam? Oh yeah, the Bible! LOL! Muhammad plagiarized the the Bible! Hmmm… One man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) were created. Perhaps you should study your own “holy book” some. It really makes you look foolish.

But then again, maybe it’s not your fault. After all the quran contradicts itself quite often. Even in the creation account.

Let’s see Surah 11:61 states that “allah” brought humanity from the earth.
Surah 15:26 states humanity was created from dried clay…

Note: Humanity created from dried clay – check. Wait, that’s not what he said here:
Surah 25:54 And it is He Who has created man from water…
Surah 21:30 Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
Surah 24:45 Allah has created every moving (living) creature from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, and some that walk on two legs…

Note: Hmmm… Dried clay or water? He was as confused as you are! Maybe it would be better to say you are as confused as he was, since he was of an exalted character. Wait! There’s more!

Surah 3:59 Verily, the likeness of Isa (Jesus) before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust…
Surah 30:20 And among His Signs is this, that He created you (Adam) from dust, and then [Hawwa (Eve) from Adam’s rib…]

Note: Ooopppsss now it’s from dust! LOL!

Maybe it’s simply reincarnation?
Surah 30:19 He brings out the living from the dead…

Using your form of exegesis, as demonstrated above, I can understand your confusion. Muhammad could not keep his story straight. Except where he plagiarized the Bible. LOL!

Of course you can’t trust the quran for its reliability. After all it states that the sunset was found and that the sun was “setting” in hot water! ROTFL!!!

Surah 18:86 Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people...

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Let’s see together what the BIBLE says about marriage then we will visit what the LAW at the time of Jesus said about marriage.

There are few laws about marriage in the bible. One of the few is here.
Deuteronomy 21:
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love,
16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.
17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

LOL! I already said Moses allowed this. I also said Moses allowed divorce as well. That does not mean God endorsed it. Unlike in islam where pedophilia is endorsed by your deity and practiced by your “messenger of god”. The man that is supposed to be of exalted character. The man whose example is declared to be a good example. This may be the root of your problem. You think if Muhammad did it then it is ordained by your deity. Therefore, you use the same logic with Moses. Doesn’t work that way.
Did you know Moses murdered a man? That does not mean God endorsed the murder either. Of course you probably know this already but could care less. So if you could care less what else will you lie about?

As mentioned many times Jesus pointed to the created order of one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship. Muhammad even plagiarized this portion of scripture. LOL!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

There is biblical law on bigamy. That law does not say “thou shalt not have two wives”. It says “this is the law of inheritance in a marriage to two wives”. You are in error when you declare that a marriage defined under biblical law excludes marriage to more than one wife.

LOL! It has been shown so often that the God ordained marriage is between one man and one woman that a person must wonder if you can comprehend anything that’s written. Apparently, it’s not just the Bible you cannot comprehend but the quran as well. LOL!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Biblical marriage says what about consent?
Same chapter:
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,
11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails
13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.


This law says nothing about obtaining the consent of the woman. This law says she WILL become your wife UNLESS the husband is displeased with her (after going in to her and consummating the “biblical marriage” whether she consents or not). Where is consent here?

Again trying to understand the Bible with your Islamic paradigm. LOL! You used this before to try to prove prepubescent marriage and now you want to use it to demand it line up with islam, that women are forced into marriages. This logic is so ridiculous it has a name – an argument from silence. Note that it does not say she must be married to the man. See how simple and ridiculous your logic looks! LOL!

Even that carnal man Josephus recognizes the woman’s consent:
“But now, if any man take captive, either a virgin, or one that hath been married, (See note below) and has a mind to marry her, let him not be allowed to bring her to bed to him, or to live with her as his wife, before she hath her head shaven, and hath put on her mourning habit, and lamented her relations and friends that were slain in the battle, that by this means she may give vent to her sorrow for them, and after that may betake herself to feasting and matrimony; for it is good for him that takes a woman, in order to have children by her, to be complaisant to her inclinations…”

Note: Here it is supposed that this captive's husband, if she were before a married woman, was dead before, or rather was slain in this very battle, otherwise it would have been adultery in him that married her.
Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus, Book 4, Chapter 8, Section 23.

I know you have read this before because I have posted it before. That means you refuse to accept the truth. The God approved marriages in the Bible were marriages of one man and one woman who were mature. Also, the woman had a choice. Just like the passage you brought up with Rebekah. She was given the option. Just as in this event she would be given the option.

The Bible is not the quran. It does not say anyone found the setting sun sitting in a pool of hot water. LOL!!! What was acceptable to Muhammad cannot be forced upon the Biblical text no matter how much you huff and puff.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

You are in error when you say that a biblical marriage requires consent of both parties.
What else will you lie about?

You are in error when you attempt to say there were more than one man and one woman created by God in the beginning. Apparently you don’t even know the quran! LOL! What else will you lie about?

I know. You will lie by attributing a quote to me that was in reality from the Islamic apologetic site you appear to use. What else will you lie about?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I was thinking that you might study a little bit and adjust your position. You won’t, and that’s your fail and that’s your problem. Instead, you have BUTCHERED passages out of context to twist them to fit your position and every positon you have taken and every sin you have declared will systematically be yanked right out from under your feet.

LOL!!! So says the muslim apologist wannabe that struggles with reading comprehension. I will not “adjust” the truth or invent it as is the case with islam. Just as you have tried to invent more than one man and one woman in the Biblical creation narrative that Muhammad plagiarized. Oh well. No worries. Critics have come and critics have gone but the bible is still the standing. LOL!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Yes one man and one woman, that is your position. The bible however conflicts your position has several other arrangements, all blessed by God. Either they were “sinful” as you say (but God and everyone else did not mention it) or they were not “sinful” and were accepted.

Well! After so many pages you finally figured out I do have a position. So when did you figure this out? Before now? If so then you lied before when you said I

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

OK You did NOT agree with that. So you still do not have a position…

Well… What else will you lie about?
Like I said, Moses allowed polygamy and even divorce. Moses, not God. That’s the problem with critics. They have no understanding of Hermeneutics or exegesis. They think they find a contradiction and they can’t get past it. You’re not the first critic and won’t be the last. Yet the Bible still says what it says.

It’s clear that you refuse to acknowledge truth in any form. You will argue against one man and one woman in the created order even when your quran affirms the same thing. I suppose you can argue you were just “inventing” information to support your religion. Where I was raised that was called lying. There is no intellectual integrity and only a desire to justify your religion by sacrificing truth on the altar of justification. Have at it. It’s your right.

Lessons that have been learned.
Islam declares Muhammad to be a man of exalted character, an example to be followed.
He consummated a marriage with a nine year old little girl.
Mohammedans across the globe follow that “good example” and “exalted character” by marrying prepubescent girls today.
Muslim apologists will use anything to justify their religion while sacrificing truth on the altar of justification.
False moral equivalencies, straw men and a host of other logical fallacies go to show that islam cannot contend with the God of the Bible.
I may or may not post more. It’s pointless to answer a fool according to his folly… (Proverbs 26:4)

[Aquila]

Islam is inherently political, Christianity isn't. In fact, Christians are to live peaceably within any culture they find themselves in. Christianity's statutes are only binding upon... Christians themselves. Islam inherently will seek to subjugate any culture or political system to it's demands and expectations. Islam also inherently desires to assert itself as a form of law over all, including unbelievers. For this reason, I believe we need to stop looking at Islam as though it is a "religion". Instead, we should see it as a religious "politic". Islamic communities should be viewed no differently than communist cells were viewed during the cold war or how fascist political groups were viewed during WWII.

Islam also advocates lying to one's enemies. Lying to do what? Advance Islam, it is part of Jihad.

Therefore, Islam is a political enemy. It isn't a religious enemy. Islam is a threat to the stability and social fabric of every nation it advances in. Even peaceful Muslims are advancing a faith that is inherently able to be radicalized. Therefore, peaceful Muslims and militant Muslims are the right and left hands of the same animal. Due do the political nature of Islam, it brings with it the inherent clash of civilizations. The radicalized groups within Islam pose the greatest danger to the world. Should they acquire nuclear weapons, they can set off a war that will blow the entire world back into the stone age.

Also, within the United States, Islam is the greatest threat to our liberties. Seeing that in order to defend our nation from home grown terrorist cells, the government is going to have to take measures that violate our ideas of liberty. A significant network of radical cells within our nation, conducting devastating and high profile attacks could lead to regional martial law. This is NO joke.

This threat is serious. Perhaps the most serious threat we've ever faced. Never before in human history could so few, privately pose a danger to the entire world. If someone cannot see this, they are blind to the facts and reality itself. How any liberty minded Westerner can continue to practice and believe in Islam is beyond me. In fact, I'm going to step forward and say that a liberty minded Westernized individual cannot be a Muslim. For to do so would mean to throw out the very notion of Sharia law, the foundation of Islam. Therefore, it might be safe to say that Islam is a threat to liberty, peace, and freedom of conscience.

We have to stop looking at it like a religion. It is a politic. It is a political enemy and must be dealt with as such.

"When there's this many bad apples, there's something wrong with the orchard." ~ Bill Maher

[BrotherEastman]

WII To be fair, I did google this so feel free to take it with a grain of salt, lol.

Was Muhammad Illiterate?

For me that is not a very important question since Muhammad's illiteracy doesn't prove anything. The famous classical Greek poet Homer was blind and hence couldn't read or write either. But he composed one of the most famous pieces of literature.

Nobody would conclude that he was therefore a prophet. One can say anything orally that one could write by hand. One can hear anything read or narrated by others that one could read with one's own eyes.

Whether Muhammad had the technical ability to read and write or not, doesn't not imply anything about the source of his speech or the possibility of having been informed by others orally.

As such, taking this criterion as a proof of his prophethood is not very strong.

Also, Muslims tell emphasize that the Qur'an and the Muhammad in some hadith stress learning and to seek knowledge. The process of learning and growing in knowledge is certainly much easier if one can read and write.

If Muhammad indeed put such a strong emphasis on learning, why would he for all of his life insist to not learn himself? First of all: Not learn to read and write, second to use reading to learn more? Is he disobedient to his own exhortations?

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

WII To be fair, I did google this so feel free to take it with a grain of salt, lol.

Was Muhammad Illiterate?

For me that is not a very important question since Muhammad's illiteracy doesn't prove anything. The famous classical Greek poet Homer was blind and hence couldn't read or write either. But he composed one of the most famous pieces of literature.

Nobody would conclude that he was therefore a prophet. One can say anything orally that one could write by hand. One can hear anything read or narrated by others that one could read with one's own eyes.

Whether Muhammad had the technical ability to read and write or not, doesn't not imply anything about the source of his speech or the possibility of having been informed by others orally.

As such, taking this criterion as a proof of his prophethood is not very strong.

Also, Muslims tell emphasize that the Qur'an and the Muhammad in some hadith stress learning and to seek knowledge. The process of learning and growing in knowledge is certainly much easier if one can read and write.

If Muhammad indeed put such a strong emphasis on learning, why would he for all of his life insist to not learn himself? First of all: Not learn to read and write, second to use reading to learn more? Is he disobedient to his own exhortations?

The Hadith (stories exampling what Mohammed did here and there throughout his life) seem to imply that Mohammed was literate. At least there are many Hadith referring to letters written or documents written by Mohammed.