Allah is not God (Islams)

[TashaN]

No, they do not accept Jesus as being God. They say Jesus will come back to judge the quick and the dead on Judgement Day.

You are right about that Jesus will come again to spread peace and also i add that he will come to kill the anti-christ. Nevertheless, Jesus will never judge the dead because he, himself will be judged by the judger (Allah) and he will not come on Judgment day but before the Judgment day.

 

[lilithu]

When it comes to gods, who are you to say that they are the same god, when others do not believe it to be so. Similar yes... but the same? Prove it. Historically related, yes... but the same? Prove it.

Look, the only way to "prove" anything when it comes to religion is if we share a commonly held source of spiritual authority. You do not recognize biblical and Qur'anic scripture as a source of spiritual authority so I can't prove anything to you with regards to God, and I have no desire to do so. But Christians and Muslisms do. They can't just go around saying, "In my opinion, Allah is not God" when scripture shows otherwise. Popeyesays has already shown, within scripture, why it's the same God.

That's a rather pretentious position to take don't you think? There are people who believe that all gods are the same God and I personally take offense to that belief. I believe that my gods are true in an of themselves. I do not push my gods on anyone else. What is wrong with people who believe that they don't worship Allah, but still worship the Christian god? It's only your presumptuous opinion that it is out of hatred and I think that is FAR from the truth; and if I was a Christian that held such a belief, I'd be terribly annoyed at your implicit accusations of bigotry.

Your gods have nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of God. Of course, it would be pretentious to overlay this common monotheistic tradition over yours. This argument is not about you Darkdale, tho I find it telling that you choose to make it so.

 

[Darkdale]

I think the eternal nature of God is different from the nature of the universe. Until Creation came to be, there was no time.

I agree that a person with manners and respect for others would never suggest that another's belief is diabolical or FALSE. I also note that Malus did just that and you support him completely.

Regards,
Scott

First of all, you are assuming there was a time before which the Universe existed. I am saying that there was, in fact, no time in which the Universe did not exist. Secondly, my entire point is arguing against the premise that there is a factual basis for making any claim about the truth of whether or not the Christian and Muslim gods/god are the same. Lastly, being as such, you cannot obviously point out a single supportive response I've made to the contrary. So you better have more than accusations if you are going to put words in my mouth.

 

[lilithu]

There are many entities or spirits like Lucifer that have chosen not to come to earth and obtain bodies like we have.

In the Pre-existence or Pre-mortal life we all chose to come to earth and obtain bodies. Lucifer and all who followed him in this same Pre-existence or Pre-mortal life did not choose to come to earth and obtain bodies of flesh and blood. Truely Lucifer was our brother. Lucifer was also a son of God and chose not to follow the plan of God and come to earth and obtain a body. Lucifer convinced many to to the same. A third of the spirits in heaven chose not to come to earth and follow Gods plan. Lucifer and all of his followers are trying there hardest to deceive the billions of people on earth right now in whatever form he can. Movies, music, religion (confusing truths and giving half truths. He is the "father of all lies" Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 2:18

I have seen one of these entities or spirits, that followed Lucifer in the Pre-existence, myself, with my own eyes. He was a man like you and me, only without a body, and he came out of a woman I was dating and tried to grab me and control me..... It was very real and I will never forget it. A spirit who looked like a man but had no flesh and blood. There must be millions and maybe billions of these spirits or entities who would like posses our bodies and who do posses bodies of people on earth (Only those who let them). They may dictate to men what to do and say, if the man or woman they posses allows it.

I believe that one of these spirits dictated to a man to write the Quran to decieve many millions of men. I believe that men can and do eceive personal revelation from God, Lucifer or one of these other spirits that I have previously discussed. Can we not all have an original thought also????? I believe that all religions are the result of either revelation from God, Lucifer, one of these spirits (people who chose not to come to earth and obtain a body), or from an original thought of a man on earth.

It sounds like you believe in Jinn; there's yet another thing that you and Muslims have in common.

So basically what you're saying is that while Muslims may not worhsip THE Devil, they worship A devil.

I believe that the Devil is that which divides us against each other. That which turns our attention away from God in order to villify each other. I'm not so sure that that entity who tied to posess you didn't succeed.

 

[Murf661]

Islam is not the fastest growing religion on Earth. There are more Muslims by a percentage because of birth rates in Muslim countries.

Muslim forces capture Caesarea, forcing the city's estimated 100,000 Jews to follow the Pact of Omar, which meant they had to pray quietly, not build new synagogues and not prevent Jews from converting to Islam. The Jews were also forbidden from riding horses and holding judicial or civil posts, and were forced to wear a yellow patch for identification.

Dude,
No 1..I dont say this much but..I love you....Great post...
No 2..About the whole, wearing yellow patch things (Underlined)..Isnt that what Hitler did when he started Krystal-Nacht...

 

[Sunstone]

The notion that Allah is a devil seems quaintly medieval. Just my opinion.

 

[jamaesi]

I'm going to go with what my boyfriend told me, as he's Muslim and studied his religion quite a bit.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same G-d, and they´re all based on the same religion- there are just cultural things and traditions and so on that are different and they disagree with certain topics- but are all from the same source.

It's not offensive. It's just the way things are.


(Also, this is sort of funny, but he doesn't have a hankering to go kill people of different religions and doesn't detest lesbians and we get along just fine even though he's very Muslim and I'm a bisexual liberal agnostic.)

 

[Darkdale]

Look, the only way to "prove" anything when it comes to religion is if we share a commonly held source of spiritual authority. You do not recognize biblical and Qur'anic scripture as a source of spiritual authority so I can't prove anything to you with regards to God, and I have no desire to do so. But Christians and Muslisms do. They can't just go around saying, "In my opinion, Allah is not God" when scripture shows otherwise. Popeyesays has already shown, within scripture, why it's the same God.

There is nothing in the Christian Bible, which I have read from front to back three times, about Allah. Therefore, neither Christian nor Jew are under any obligation to believe that Allah is the same as their god. Therefore, by your own standards, you have nothing upon which to base your argument.

Your gods have nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of God. Of course, it would be pretentious to overlay this common monotheistic tradition over yours. This argument is not about you Darkdale, tho I find it telling that you choose to make it so.

You find all kinds of nonsense telling don't you, reading into things that which has literally nothing to do with what was said must be a favorite past time of yours. And I find that to be telling. I made it very clear that my position was a matter, not of personal belief, but a matter of logic.

You cannot prove, by any objective standard that the Christian and Muslim gods are the same and therefore it is nothing but your own opinion that this is true and you have no right to claim that it is anything other than your own opinion. Nor do you have any cause to accuse those people that disagree with you to be bigots, by implying that the only reason to think otherwise is based on hatred. On this matter, I am certainly standing alone on the high ground. I am asking you, on behalf of those whose Bible says nothing of Islam or of Allah (being that, you know, it hadn't even existed at the time) and who do not believe that the God of Islam is the God of Christianity, to give them respect and appreciate that this is a matter of opinion, not objective fact. Just saying it doesn't make it true. You cannot prove that they are the same God using a Bible that never mentions Allah or Islam. You just can't.

And somehow you have the nerve to imply bigotry on their part when you are the one being entirely intolerant of their right to dissent. Now how do you justify that?

 

[lilithu]

First of all, you are assuming there was a time before which the Universe existed. I am saying that there was, in fact, no time in which the Universe did not exist. Secondly, my entire point is arguing against the premise that there is a factual basis for making any claim about the truth of whether or not the Christian and Muslim gods/god are the same. Lastly, being as such, you cannot obviously point out a single supportive response I've made to the contrary. So you better have more than accusations if you are going to put words in my mouth.

Popeyesays is merely pointing out an inherent contradiction in your beliefs. If all opinions are equally valid, which you have been arguing, then the opinion that someone else's opinion is not valid is NOT valid.

 

[Darkdale]

Popeyesays is merely pointing out an inherent contradiction in your beliefs. If all opinions are equally valid, which you have been arguing, then the opinion that someone else's opinion is not valid is NOT valid.

Wrong. I did not say that all opinions are equally valid. I said that this is a case where there is no objective reason for making a truth claim and therefore it is presumptuous and somewhat pretentious to insinuate that:

1. You have the ability to make that truth claim &
2. That those who disagree with you only do so out of hatred.

So, let's try to keep this discussion in the ballpark, and not read more into what was said than what was actually said. ok?

 

[TashaN]

ISLAM'S ANSWER TO THE RACIAL PROBLEM http://jamaat.net/race/raceanswer.htm

Muhummed (PBUH) the Greatest
​

To every Muslim on this planet, irrespective of cultural, geographical and political differences, Muhummed (PBUH), is Allah's greatest creation and was sent as a mercy for all mankind. A thousand million Muslims however, do not require any surveys, lists or research to arrive at this conclusion. It is a non-negotiable article of faith that Muhummed (PBUH) is the greatest.

BUT WHAT OF THE NON-MUSLIMS?

Surprisingly, over the centuries many an eminent non-Muslim has rated Muhummed (PBUH) most highly and given due recognition to his greatness. A selection of their quotations appear on page?* 10 and 11.

Michael H. Hart, a Christian American, astronomer, mathematician, lawyer, chessmaster and scientist, after extensive research, published an incisive biography of the 100 most influential people of all time. The biographical rankings with explanations describes the careers of religious and political leaders, inventors, writers, philosophers, scientists and artists.

From this research, which included illustrious personalities such as Jesus Christ, Moses, Caesar, the Wright brothers, Napoleon, Shakespeare, Columbus and Michelangelo; Michael Hart rated Muhummed (PBUH), as number one. He concluded the biography with the words "It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhummed to be considered the most influential single figure in human history."

By special arrangement, we are privileged to present to sou the entire chapter on Muhummed (PBUH) from Michael Hart's "The 100". We have also included a summary of the Holy Prophet's (PBUH) farewell sermon delivered at Mount Arafat in the 10th year after Hijra (632 CE).

In an era when the world was awash in rivers of blind prejudices and nonsensical ignorance's, the Prophets (PBUH) divine message and glorious teachings became the purging torrents of spiritual enlightenment. The farewell sermon is an embodiment of the dynamics of Islam.

May Allah Muhummed (PBUH), his family, his companions and all the believers. Insha-Allah!

 

[Popeyesays]

There is nothing in the Christian Bible, which I have read from front to back three times, about Allah. Therefore, neither Christian nor Jew are under any obligation to believe that Allah is the same as their god. Therefore, by your own standards, you have nothing upon which to base your argument.



You find all kinds of nonsense telling don't you, reading into things that which has literally nothing to do with what was said must be a favorite past time of yours. And I find that to be telling. I made it very clear that my position was a matter, not of personal belief, but a matter of logic.

You cannot prove, by any objective standard that the Christian and Muslim gods are the same and therefore it is nothing but your own opinion that this is true and you have no right to claim that it is anything other than your own opinion. Nor do you have any cause to accuse those people that disagree with you to be bigots, by implying that the only reason to think otherwise is based on hatred. On this matter, I am certainly standing alone on the high ground. I am asking you, on behalf of those whose Bible says nothing of Islam or of Allah (being that, you know, it hadn't even existed at the time) and who do not believe that the God of Islam is the God of Christianity, to give them respect and appreciate that this is a matter of opinion, not objective fact. Just saying it doesn't make it true. You cannot prove that they are the same God using a Bible that never mentions Allah or Islam. You just can't.

And somehow you have the nerve to imply bigotry on their part when you are the one being entirely intolerant of their right to dissent. Now how do you justify that?

Do you read Arabic? Did you know that the Bible is translated into Arabic? Did you know that when the Bible is translated into Arabic the word for "GOD" is "Allah"?

The King James translation of the Bible contains the word best translated into English by "GOD" approximatgely 3,650 times.

The Qur'an translated by Palmer contains the word best translated into English by "GOD" approximately 1970 times.

Since the King James Bible is roughly 3 times the page count of the Qur'an, this means that God is mentioned approximately 60% more frequently in the Qur'an than in the King James Bible/

Your silly position that "Allah" does not mean "God" means that those Christians whose native language is Arabic are not allowed to pray to God. I think they would be shocked. I know I am.

You might as well say that unless you speak Hebrew or Greek you are denied the right to pray to God simply by your own language.

Of course, that's a ridiculous position, and you know it is.

Regards, Scott

 

[Darkdale]

Do you read Arabic? Did you know that the Bible is translated into Arabic? Did you know that when the Bible is translated into Arabic the word for "GOD" is "Allah"?

The King James translation of the Bible contains the word best translated into English by "GOD" approximatgely 3,650 times.

The Qur'an translated by Palmer contains the word best translated into English by "GOD" approximately 1970 times.

Since the King James Bible is roughly 3 times the page count of the Qur'an, this means that God is mentioned approximately 60% more frequently in the Qur'an than in the King James Bible/

Your silly position that "Allah" does not mean "God" means that those Christians whose native language is Arabic are not allowed to pray to God. I think they would be shocked. I know I am.

I'm not saying that Allah doesn't mean God or that God doesn't mean God, or anything of the kind. I'm saying that there is literally no way to state, as a fact, that the Christians and Muslims worship the same god. So first, it is not my position that Allah doesn't mean God. I never said that. I refer to Allah, by name, when addressing the Islamic conception of God and to the common english name God, when refereing to the Christian concept of God. The name, by which a divinity is known is not what is being debated here. What is being debated is:

1. Whether or not Christians and Muslims worship the same God: a point I am saying is a matter of opinion. &

2. Whether or not is correct to belittle people who believe that they are not the same God, by saying that only a hateful person would do so.

On both accounts, I have made it very clear that:

1. There can be no objective truth with regard to the original question, therefore it must be left up to the opinion of the believer &
2. It is important to respect a variety of different beliefs on the subject.

You might as well say that unless you speak Hebrew or Greek you are denied the right to pray to God simply by your own language.

Of course, that's a ridiculous position, and you know it is.

Regards, Scott

I don't think I might as well say anything of the kind and I think that language is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

 

[Popeyesays]

I'm not saying that Allah doesn't mean God or that God doesn't mean God, or anything of the kind. I'm saying that there is literally no way to state, as a fact, that the Christians and Muslims worship the same god. So first, it is not my position that Allah doesn't mean God. I never said that. I refer to Allah, by name, when addressing the Islamic conception of God and to the common english name God, when refereing to the Christian concept of God. The name, by which a divinity is known is not what is being debated here..

A Jew might say Hashem, Adonai, or Elohim meaning "GOD". When Jesus spoke Aramaic, He might have used any of those words. The words of Jesus were put into Greek, because the greater number of believers spoke Greek with greater facility.

When the Greeks translated Hashem, Adonai or Elohim into their language did that mean they stopped praying to the God of Abraham?

No, but you would have it be so for Arabic and Muslims in general. Muslims insist they are praying to the same God, Muhammed insists they are praying to the same God, yet you call them liars.

In my book that is arrogant and hateful.

What is being debated is:

1. Whether or not Christians and Muslims worship the same God: a point I am saying is a matter of opinion. &

2. Whether or not is correct to belittle people who believe that they are not the same God, by saying that only a hateful person would do so.

On both accounts, I have made it very clear that:

1. There can be no objective truth with regard to the original question, therefore it must be left up to the opinion of the believer &
2. It is important to respect a variety of different beliefs on the subject.



I don't think I might as well say anything of the kind and I think that language is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

You have the word of Jesus that Christians are praying to the same God, but you deny the rights of a Muslim to point to the words of Muhammed to show the same thing?

You believe the word of Jesus for you, and insist that Muslims must be ungodly in their prayer and beliefs, and that substantively is calling them liars.

If there is no proof and it is all "a matter of opinion", then expressing the opinion that others are liars by your opinion IS disrespectful toward them.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lilithu]

Wrong. I did not say that all opinions are equally valid.

My apologies. It was presumptuous of me to assume that you would be logically consistent from thread to thread, that if you're going to argue the position of moral relativism in one thread you would still hold that position in another.

I said that this is a case where there is no objective reason for making a truth claim and therefore it is presumptuous and somewhat pretentious to insinuate that:

1. You have the ability to make that truth claim.

I do have the ability to make a truth claim based on a commonly recognized source of spiritual authority. If someone says that they believe what's written in the bible and I can show them something that's written in the bible, then I can make a truth claim to that person. The authority comes from the bible and the person's recognition of that authority. I am not claiming any superior knowledge or insight.

2. That those who disagree with you only do so out of hatred.

Have you even been reading what FIAA has been writing??! That Muslims worship a devil??!

There is nothing in the Christian Bible, which I have read from front to back three times, about Allah. Therefore, neither Christian nor Jew are under any obligation to believe that Allah is the same as their god. Therefore, by your own standards, you have nothing upon which to base your argument.

It says in the bible that the God of the Jews is the God of Abraham. It says in the Qur'an that the God of the Muslims is the God of Abraham. It is the same God. Just because the word "Allah" in Arabic is not literally in the bible does not mean that they are not talking about the same God. By that logic, 21st century English speaking Christians do not worship the same God as Jesus did. Believe it or not, the word "God" in English does not literally appear in the original scriptures.

You find all kinds of nonsense telling don't you, reading into things that which has literally nothing to do with what was said must be a favorite past time of yours. And I find that to be telling. I made it very clear that my position was a matter, not of personal belief, but a matter of logic.

Logically speaking, you've just called your own position "nonsense."

I have been arguing logic but you keep ignoring it. I've asked you how someone who believes that there is only ONE God can believe that someone else is worshipping the wrong God, and you have not replied.

You want to go strictly by logic based on personal opinion, fine. Let's do that. Let's say that the only thing we know for sure is what people's opinions are on this matter and see where that gets us.

FIAA is of the opinion that he worships one god and Muslims worship another god. You want to say that because he is of this opinion, then he is right about his own opinion. I would bet that FIAA also is of the opinion that he worships the same god as other Christians do. Again, his opinion, his right. Now, I go to a university full of Christians who are of the opinion that they worship the same god that the Muslims worship. Every year they hold conferences inviting Muslims and Jews to come speak with them about how they all worship the same god. Logically, if these Christians are of the opinion that they worship the same god as the Muslims, and FIAA is of the opinion that he worships the same god as these Christians, then how can it be that FIAA worships a different god than the Muslims? Logically, someone is wrong here.

And somehow you have the nerve to imply bigotry on their part when you are the one being entirely intolerant of their right to dissent. Now how do you justify that?

I find it hard to believe that I have to spell out for you the logical constraints of the nature of monotheism.

If you believe that there is only ONE true God, then when you make the claim that someone else is worshipping something other than the ONE true God, you are automatically saying that they are worshipping a false god. Even if FIAA didn't say that Muslims are worshipping a devil, it would be directly implied. It's not just a matter of a right to dissent. He is condemning an entire group of people.

The only thing that a UU can't tolerate is intolerance. I have no problem with justifying that.

 

[Darkdale]

A Jew might say Hashem, Adonai, or Elohim meaning "GOD". When Jesus spoke Aramaic, He might have used any of those words. The words of Jesus were put into Greek, because the greater number of believers spoke Greek with greater facility.

When the Greeks translated Hashem, Adonai or Elohim into their language did that mean they stopped praying to the God of Abraham?

No, but you would have it be so for Arabic and Muslims in general. Muslims insist they are praying to the same God, Muhammed insists they are praying to the same God, yet you call them liars.

In my book that is arrogant and hateful.

I never called them liars... what the hell is wrong with you people (and by you people, I mean the people in this thread)? Can you not fumble together a post without putting words in my mouth? How are we supposed to have a meaningful conversation if you are incapable of responding to what I said and instead respond to something else entirely?

I never said that the Christian God and the Muslim God are different Gods. I don't personally view either with much regard, or the Abrahamic one with much regard, however you choose to look at it. What I said, simply, directly and frankly clear as day is that it is a matter of opinion. If Muslims believe that Allah is the same God that the Christians worship and if Christians think they worship the same God as the Jews and if the Mormons think they worship the same God as the Muslims, Christians and/or Jews is a matter of opinion. In this one particular situation, it is a subjective matter and it is therefore your intolerance which is uncalled for, it is your intolerance of those who believe differently that is the crux of the disagreement. Christians, Mormons, Jews and Muslims have every right to believe according to their scriptures and there is no mention of Muslims or Mormons for that matter, in the Bible that modern Christians read, nor in the Torah of the Jews, and you sir, have no justification for forcing your beliefs on them, or to call them hateful or bigoted simply because they are happy in believing their scripture sufficient. That, is what is being discussed here.

Your right to believe they are the same god is not in question, at least not in question by me. Just as Christians and Jews have the right to believe that they are different gods, and they should be given the right to express that view with you people called them hate mongerers and bigots. Do you or do you not believe in respect and tolerance?

You have the word of Jesus that Christians are praying to the same God, but you deny the rights of a Muslim to point to the words of Muhammed to show the same thing?

You believe the word of Jesus for you, and insist that Muslims must be ungodly in their prayer and beliefs, and that substantively is calling them liars.

If there is no proof and it is all "a matter of opinion", then expressing the opinion that others are liars by your opinion IS disrespectful toward them.

Regards,
Scott

Again, you continue to put words in my mouth and I do not appreciate it. I have been anything if not clear. So, I shall again state that Muslims have every right to believe, if they wish or as they are instructed, that they worship the same God as the Christians, the Mormons and Jews.

Furthermore, I don't believe in almost any words of Jesus. I think Jesus was a bad spiritual leader and I believe his world view and his philosophies to be corrupting and disadvantageous to civilization and society. But I respect a Christians right to believe in Jesus Christ as God and I enjoy debates with Christians about the nature of Christs' spirituality. I enjoy reading books of scholarship on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, if not to better appreciate the foundations of Christian Faith. I am tolerant of other religions and when a matter is subjective, I respect all points of view. I do not respect intolerance. I do not respect you insinuating that people who take a different position are hateful. That is uncalled for and it is unkind and you should apologize.

 

[Darkdale]

My apologies. It was presumptuous of me to assume that you would be logically consistent from thread to thread, that if you're going to argue the position of moral relativism in one thread you would still hold that position in another.

I'm sorry, but I am not arguing a position of moral relativism. I am arguing a specific position of subjective perspective. There are things that are true and others that are false and these things, as I'm sure you know, can be verified objectively. In a matter of subjective opinion however, it is ignorant (meant as a negative verb) to harass people of a different and equally valid opinion.

I do have the ability to make a truth claim based on a commonly recognized source of spiritual authority. If someone says that they believe what's written in the bible and I can show them something that's written in the bible, then I can make a truth claim to that person. The authority comes from the bible and the person's recognition of that authority. I am not claiming any superior knowledge or insight.

But that Bible does not make mention of Muslims, nor does it discuss their faith or the nature of their god; thus you cannot possible make a claim or an argument on that account.

Have you even been reading what FIAA has been writing??! That Muslims worship a devil??!

I don't believe that. I think Muslims have been pretty clear throughout this thread and others that they do not worship a devil.

It says in the bible that the God of the Jews is the God of Abraham. It says in the Qur'an that the God of the Muslims is the God of Abraham. It is the same God. Just because the word "Allah" in Arabic is not literally in the bible does not mean that they are not talking about the same God. By that logic, 21st century English speaking Christians do not worship the same God as Jesus did. Believe it or not, the word "God" in English does not literally appear in the original scriptures.

Again, this is not a matter of language. It is a matter of a subjective interpretation, of which has many different conclusions that should each be given your respect. And if you don't have respect for the ones you don't like, you could at least be polite to those who have them, instead of claiming that they only think that way because they are hateful.

Logically speaking, you've just called your own position "nonsense."

I have been arguing logic but you keep ignoring it. I've asked you how someone who believes that there is only ONE God can believe that someone else is worshipping the wrong God, and you have not replied.

You want to go strictly by logic based on personal opinion, fine. Let's do that. Let's say that the only thing we know for sure is what people's opinions are on this matter and see where that gets us.

FIAA is of the opinion that he worships one god and Muslims worship another god. You want to say that because he is of this opinion, then he is right about his own opinion. I would bet that FIAA also is of the opinion that he worships the same god as other Christians do. Again, his opinion, his right. Now, I go to a university full of Christians who are of the opinion that they worship the same god that the Muslims worship. Every year they hold conferences inviting Muslims and Jews to come speak with them about how they all worship the same god. Logically, if these Christians are of the opinion that they worship the same god as the Muslims, and FIAA is of the opinion that he worships the same god as these Christians, then how can it be that FIAA worships a different god than the Muslims? Logically, someone is wrong here.

You have a skewed view of logic. Only if you accept any of the premises as actually being true, being a fact, can you place any trust in a logical conclusions. None of these premises can be verified as fact and therefore no logical conclusion can be drawn. A conclusion can only be considered true if and only if all the premises are true. You learn that on day one. That is why, to prove an argument you try to find contradictions in the premises. Please go back and restudy logic. No logical conclusion can be drawn from such dubious, vague, ambiguous, unprovable premises. (granted, if we assume that these premises are true, then it is a different matter, but I don't think you can prove any of the premises to be true).

I find it hard to believe that I have to spell out for you the logical constraints of the nature of monotheism.

If you believe that there is only ONE true God, then when you make the claim that someone else is worshipping something other than the ONE true God, you are automatically saying that they are worshipping a false god. Even if FIAA didn't say that Muslims are worshipping a devil, it would be directly implied. It's not just a matter of a right to dissent. He is condemning an entire group of people.

The only thing that a UU can't tolerate is intolerance. I have no problem with justifying that.

You are intolerant. Consistently.


Now, I think you know where I am coming from and I think that you know that I am right, and I think you are being stubborn just to argue with me. If that is the case... fine. If not.. I'm worried.

 

[Popeyesays]

I never called them liars... what the hell is wrong with you people (and by you people, I mean the people in this thread)? Can you not fumble together a post without putting words in my mouth? How are we supposed to have a meaningful conversation if you are incapable of responding to what I said and instead respond to something else entirely?

I never said that the Christian God and the Muslim God are different Gods. I don't personally view either with much regard, or the Abrahamic one with much regard, however you choose to look at it. What I said, simply, directly and frankly clear as day is that it is a matter of opinion. If Muslims believe that Allah is the same God that the Christians worship and if Christians think they worship the same God as the Jews and if the Mormons think they worship the same God as the Muslims, Christians and/or Jews is a matter of opinion. In this one particular situation, it is a subjective matter and it is therefore your intolerance which is uncalled for, it is your intolerance of those who believe differently that is the crux of the disagreement. Christians, Mormons, Jews and Muslims have every right to believe according to their scriptures and there is no mention of Muslims or Mormons for that matter, in the Bible that modern Christians read, nor in the Torah of the Jews, and you sir, have no justification for forcing your beliefs on them, or to call them hateful or bigoted simply because they are happy in believing their scripture sufficient. That, is what is being discussed here.

Your right to believe they are the same god is not in question, at least not in question by me. Just as Christians and Jews have the right to believe that they are different gods, and they should be given the right to express that view with you people called them hate mongerers and bigots. Do you or do you not believe in respect and tolerance?





Again, you continue to put words in my mouth and I do not appreciate it. I have been anything if not clear. So, I shall again state that Muslims have every right to believe, if they wish or as they are instructed, that they worship the same God as the Christians, the Mormons and Jews.

Furthermore, I don't believe in almost any words of Jesus. I think Jesus was a bad spiritual leader and I believe his world view and his philosophies to be corrupting and disadvantageous to civilization and society. But I respect a Christians right to believe in Jesus Christ as God and I enjoy debates with Christians about the nature of Christs' spirituality. I enjoy reading books of scholarship on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, if not to better appreciate the foundations of Christian Faith. I am tolerant of other religions and when a matter is subjective, I respect all points of view. I do not respect intolerance. I do not respect you insinuating that people who take a different position are hateful. That is uncalled for and it is unkind and you should apologize.

My original comments along thisline of argument were directed to "Steve" and "Malus", and FTAA. Where we got diverted arguing with one another is beyond me.

I apologize if my points directed to the other posters who DO take the attitude the applies torque to my crankshaft, bounced off you. And I will take my portion of the blame for it.

Malus is probably chuckling at our expense.

Will that do?

Regards,
Scott

 

[lilithu]

I'm sorry, but I am not arguing a position of moral relativism. I am arguing a specific position of subjective perspective. There are things that are true and others that are false and these things, as I'm sure you know, can be verified objectively. In a matter of subjective opinion however, it is ignorant (meant as a negative verb) to harass people of a different and equally valid opinion.

Moral relativism and the supremacy of subjective opinion are essentially the same thing.

But that Bible does not make mention of Muslims, nor does it discuss their faith or the nature of their god; thus you cannot possible make a claim or an argument on that account.

You keep deleting my arguments for how I can make the claim and then saying that I have no basis by which to make the claim.

Again, this is not a matter of language. It is a matter of a subjective interpretation, of which has many different conclusions that should each be given your respect. And if you don't have respect for the ones you don't like, you could at least be polite to those who have them, instead of claiming that they only think that way because they are hateful.

It is not a matter of subjective interpretation to state that both Muslims and Jews (and thereby Christians) worship the God of Abraham. That is stated quite clearly in both scriptures.

You have a skewed view of logic. Only if you accept any of the premises as actually being true, being a fact, can you place any trust in a logical conclusions. None of these premises can be verified as fact and therefore no logical conclusion can be drawn. A conclusion can only be considered true if and only if all the premises are true. You learn that on day one. That is why, to prove an argument you try to find contradictions in the premises. Please go back and restudy logic. No logical conclusion can be drawn from such dubious, vague, ambiguous, unprovable premises. (granted, if we assume that these premises are true, then it is a different matter, but I don't think you can prove any of the premises to be true).

So you are saying that is is not verifiable that FIAA is of the opinion that he worships a different god than the Muslims? It's quite verifiable, all we have to do is look at his posts.

You are intolerant. Consistently.

I try to stand on the side of what is right consistently. I will not tolerate intolerance. So in this case, I take your assessment as a badge of honor. And in any case, your opinion of me does not affect my position.

Now, I think you know where I am coming from and I think that you know that I am right, and I think you are being stubborn just to argue with me. If that is the case... fine. If not.. I'm worried.

Be worried. And honestly, claiming that your opponent secretly thinks you're right is far more suspect than accusing them of bigotry.

 

[TashaN]

1 MUHAMMAD​

​

570-632


​

From the 100, a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History

by Michael H. Hart


​

My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.


Of humble origins, Muhammad founded and promulgated one of the world's great religions, and became an immensely effective political leader. Today, thirteen centuries after his death, his influence is still powerful and pervasive.

The majority of the persons in this book had the advantage of being born and raised in centers of civilization, highly cultured or politically pivotal nations. Muhammad, however, was born in the year 570, in the city of Mecca, in southern Arabia, at that time a backward area of the world, far from the centers of trade, art, and learning. Orphaned at age six, he was reared in modest surroundings. Islamic tradition tells us that he was illiterate. His economic position improved when, at age twenty-five, he married a wealthy widow. Nevertheless, as he approached forty, there was little outward indication that he was a remarkable person.

Most Arabs at that time were pagans, who believed in many gods. There were, however, in Mecca, a small number of Jews and Christians; it was from them no doubt that Muhammad first learned of a single, omnipotent God who ruled the entire universe. When he was forty years old, Muhammad became convinced that this one true God (Allah) was speaking to him, and had chosen him to spread the true faith.

For three years, Muhammad preached only to close friends and associates. Then, about 613, he began preaching in public. As he slowly gained converts, the Meccan authorities came to consider him a dangerous nuisance. In 622, fearing for his safety, Muhammad fled to Medina (a city some 200 miles north of Mecca), where he had been offered a position of considerable political power.

This flight, called the Hegira, was the turning point of the Prophet's life. In Mecca, he had had few followers. In Medina, he had many more, and he soon acquired an influence that made him a virtual dictator. During the next few years, while Muhammad s following grew rapidly, a series of battles were fought between Medina and Mecca. This was ended in 630 with Muhammad's triumphant return to Mecca as conqueror. The remaining two and one-half years of his life witnessed the rapid conversion of the Arab tribes to the new religion. When Muhammad died, in 632, he was the effective ruler of all of southern Arabia.

The Bedouin tribesmen of Arabia had a reputation as fierce warriors. But their number was small; and plagued by disunity and internecine warfare, they had been no match for the larger armies of the kingdoms in the settled agricultural areas to the north. However, unified by Muhammad for the first time in history, and inspired by their fervent belief in the one true God, these small Arab armies now embarked upon one of the most astonishing series of conquests in human history. To the northeast of Arabia lay the large Neo-Persian Empire of the Sassanids; to the northwest lay the Byzantine, or Eastern Roman Empire, centered in Constantinople. Numerically, the Arabs were no match for their opponents. On the field of battle, though, the inspired Arabs rapidly conquered all of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. By 642, Egypt had been wrested from the Byzantine Empire, while the Persian armies had been crushed at the key battles of Qadisiya in 637, and Nehavend in 642.

But even these enormous conquests-which were made under the leadership of Muhammad's close friends and immediate successors, Abu Bakr and 'Umar ibn al-Khattab -did not mark the end of the Arab advance. By 711, the Arab armies had swept completely across North Africa to the Atlantic Ocean There they turned north and, crossing the Strait of Gibraltar, overwhelmed the Visigothic kingdom in Spain.

For a while, it must have seemed that the Moslems would overwhelm all of Christian Europe. However, in 732, at the famous Battle of Tours, a Moslem army, which had advanced into the center of France, was at last defeated by the Franks. Nevertheless, in a scant century of fighting, these Bedouin tribesmen, inspired by the word of the Prophet, had carved out an empire stretching from the borders of India to the Atlantic Ocean-the largest empire that the world had yet seen. And everywhere that the armies conquered, large-scale conversion to the new faith eventually followed.

Now, not all of these conquests proved permanent. The Persians, though they have remained faithful to the religion of the Prophet, have since regained their independence from the Arabs. And in Spain, more than seven centuries of warfare 5 finally resulted in the Christians reconquering the entire peninsula. However, Mesopotamia and Egypt, the two cradles of ancient civilization, have remained Arab, as has the entire coast of North Africa. The new religion, of course, continued to spread, in the intervening centuries, far beyond the borders of the original Moslem conquests. Currently it has tens of millions of adherents in Africa and Central Asia and even more in Pakistan and northern India, and in Indonesia. In Indonesia, the new faith has been a unifying factor. In the Indian subcontinent, however, the conflict between Moslems and Hindus is still a major obstacle to unity.

How, then, is one to assess the overall impact of Muhammad on human history? Like all religions, Islam exerts an enormous influence upon the lives of its followers. It is for this reason that the founders of the world's great religions all figure prominently in this book . Since there are roughly twice as many Christians as Moslems in the world, it may initially seem strange that Muhammad has been ranked higher than Jesus. There are two principal reasons for that decision. First, Muhammad played a far more important role in the development of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity. Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of Christianity (insofar as these differed from Judaism), St. Paul was the main developer of Christian theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the New Testament.

Muhammad, however, was responsible for both the theology of Islam and its main ethical and moral principles. In addition, he played the key role in proselytizing the new faith, and in establishing the religious practices of Islam. Moreover, he is the author of the Moslem holy scriptures, the Koran, a collection of certain of Muhammad's insights that he believed had been directly revealed to him by Allah. Most of these utterances were copied more or less faithfully during Muhammad's lifetime and were collected together in authoritative form not long after his death. The Koran therefore, closely represents Muhammad's ideas and teachings and to a considerable extent his exact words. No such detailed compilation of the teachings of Christ has survived. Since the Koran is at least as important to Moslems as the Bible is to Christians, the influence of Muhammed through the medium of the Koran has been enormous It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. On the purely religious level, then, it seems likely that Muhammad has been as influential in human history as Jesus.

Furthermore, Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was a secular as well as a religious leader. In fact, as the driving force behind the Arab conquests, he may well rank as the most influential political leader of all time.





​

​