Do extremists follow the example of Muhammad?

[Dawnofhope]

This makes more sense.

I watched the video in its entirety. Its a Christian apologist attacking Islamic apologists. The Christian has twisted the verses in question to portray Muhammad and His followers as unjust just as much as Islamic radicals twist the verse to justify terrorism. They are both wrong IMHO.

The context of the verse was a war between Muhammad's followers and various tribes. I find it comparable to the Hebrew peoples and their defence of what they regarded as the land promised to them by Yahweh.

These words make the most sense:

It could be that this severe punishment was at the beginning because the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew that some of the tough and hardened Bedouins who live around Madînah would not refrain from attacking others unless they heard of some of these severe punishments. The desert Bedouins living in the surrounding wilderness were warlike tribes used to toughness and to causing harassment. Allah says: “The dwellers of the desert are very hard in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more disposed not to know the limits of what Allah has revealed to His Messenger; and Allah is Knowing, Wise” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 97] (IslamToday fatwa service)

The American Muslim (TAM)

 

[Dawnofhope]

I hope you don’t mind me asking, but do you honestly believe that?

Context is everything. Abdu'l-Baha along with his father was exiled and imprisoned within the Ottoman empire. He grew up in Persia, now Iran and ended up in Akka the great prison city of the Ottoman empire. It was during a time that thousands of early Baha'is were put to death by Muslims because of their religion. The period he lived was 1844 to 1921. Its not hard to imagine the fanaticism and ignorance of some Muslims then, and it gives insight into some of the fanaticism we see today.

 

[DavidFirth]

So you also believe Muhammad split the moon in half and flew to Jerusalem on a winged donkey?

These actually have much stronger evidence for them given that the only evidence for either is the Islamic tradition and these events are described in mutawatir hadiths (and potentially the Quran if the hadiths are to be believed).

Poppycock.

 

[DavidFirth]

Eh. If you say so.

Me, I know better.

John 9:41
Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Who were major participants in The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade?

Christians...Spaniards, English, Arabs, etc...Please don't challenge me on this I'm way knowledgeable about African diaspora...If you want to discuss this we can do so privately.

 

[LuisDantas]

John 9:41
Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

I have little idea of who that might apply to. Certainly not me.

 

[Augustus]

Poppycock.

It's strange that people trying to attack islam tend to be the staunchest defenders of the Islamic narrative.

There is certainly no contemporary non-Muslim source that supports what you claim. Stating the Islamic narrative as fact is problematic for the reason I just pointed out: it is not reliable.

Of course if I am wrong about this it should be very easy to prove me wrong, although I think 'poppycock' will prove to be your most erudite contribution to this argument as you don't have a great deal left to offer.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My guess is, and it is just a guess, that God judged those godless people after thousands of years and cast them out of His sight the same way does all nations that disobey Him. The good ole USA will come under judgement one day, too, rest assured.

Are you serious? That's a completely awful thing to say. Something is very wrong with you if that's your best guess as to why that happened. Guess again!

 

[England my lionheart]

Quran 5:33 Indeed, the punishment of those who fight Allah and His Messenger and who go around corrupting the land is to be killed, crucified, have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or to be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this life, and in the life to come theirs will be a terrible punishment.

I didn't want to start another thread like this, but I learned a lot in the other threads I started like this, and I'm very curious to see what the answers are.

So, to be fair, it isn't just Islam, it is Abrahamic monotheism that I'm growing increasingly disgusted with.

However, this so called prophet Muhammad makes my blood boil sometimes with his extremist views. I see that I can't fault extremist Muslims for just behaving like the founder of their Religion.

I live with a Muslim. He's an awesome person. I love him and desire that he gets every blessing and good thing in this life. We do studies of the Koran and I present my questions to him. He says "that's not Islam.". I don't force the issue because it won't do any good.

I tried to kid myself into believing Mustafa is the example of a true Muslim and that Muhammad must have been like that.

I've prayed at a mosque and known plenty of Muslims. I think most are good people.

Actually, the Muslims that cut off heads and kill innocent people are doing what Muhammad did. ISIS cuts off heads because Muhammad did. Muhammad participated in and ordered the decapitation of hundreds of Jews, Christians, and Pagans.

He also destroyed what was sacred to the polytheists. I suppose that is why his followers today destroy ancient shrines and temples.

The harsh laws in Saudi Arabia resemble the laws and policies that he laid down. Cutting off the hands of theives is in the Koran.

So, who follows the example of Muhammad better, extremists or moderate Muslims?

Please don't answer the poll unless you have studied the life of Muhammad. You can quickly Google his atrocities. For the record, I don't consider King David or some of the OT figures any better than Muhammad.

Abrahamic monotheism is the Religion I adhere to, but our history makes my hair stand on end!

I would say Isis which is the same as Saudi Arabia,the only difference being the saud royal family who Isis would dispose of.

 

[DavidFirth]

It's strange that people trying to attack islam tend to be the staunchest defenders of the Islamic narrative.

There is certainly no contemporary non-Muslim source that supports what you claim. Stating the Islamic narrative as fact is problematic for the reason I just pointed out: it is not reliable.

Of course if I am wrong about this it should be very easy to prove me wrong, although I think 'poppycock' will prove to be your most erudite contribution to this argument as you don't have a great deal left to offer.

The only thing I've claimed is that your entire post is poppycock. I didn't attack Islam and I made no argument against such foolishness. Mohammed simply took the Bible, changed or deleted the parts he didn't like and wa-la, you've got Islam.

 

[DavidFirth]

I have little idea of who that might apply to. Certainly not me.

Funny, the Pharisees Jesus was addressing thought the same thing.

 

[Augustus]

The only thing I've claimed is that your entire post is poppycock. I didn't attack Islam and I made no argument against such foolishness.

And the only reason you can say that is because you know very little about the subject.

My point was that there is no evidence that Muhammad chopped off hundreds of heads, other than the same sources that said he split the moon and flew on a donkey. The latter 2 are from the highest class of hadith, while the former (afaik) is simply from sirah literature making the moon splitting far better attested to by the sources you are claiming as reliable.

If they are not reliable then you have no evidence for the head chopping either.

Feel free to present some evidence in support of you claims

Mohammed simply took the Bible, changed or deleted the parts he didn't like and wa-la, you've got Islam.

Poppycock

 

[DavidFirth]

Mohammed basically took Isaac and Ishmael and switched it so that Ishmael was the child of promise instead of Isaac. He did this to convince people to follow him and help him set up his own kingdom. Very sly and very seductive.

 

[Augustus]

I made no claims, I just logically concluded your post is poppycock considering the fact that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God therefore Muhammad chopped off hundreds of heads.

That's an interesting line of argument, although not one which follows the rule of classical logic.

Mohammed simply just changed or deleted the parts of the Bible he didn't like.

Repeating things doesn't make them any less wrong the second time around.

But then again, you just acknowledged that understanding a subject is not a necessary requirement for you to speak authoritatively on it.

 

[Augustus]

Mohammed basically took Isaac and Ishmael and switched it so that Ishmael was the child of promise instead of Isaac. He did this to convince people to follow him and help him set up his own kingdom. Very sly and very seductive.

Actually, the Quran is not clear on which one it was and early Muslims had differing perspectives. The orthodoxy that it was Ishmael seems to be a later development.

 

[DavidFirth]

Jesus Christ is the Son of God therefore Muhammad chopped off hundreds of heads.

That's an interesting line of argument, although not one which follows the rule of classical logic.




Repeating things doesn't make them any less wrong the second time around.

But then again, you just acknowledged that understanding a subject is not a necessary requirement for you to speak authoritatively on it.

Christ is the only real authority. That post makes at least 4 assumptions. I'll just assume you don't know what you're talking about to make it 5.

 

[DavidFirth]

Actually, the Quran is not clear on which one it was and early Muslims had differing perspectives. The orthodoxy that it was Ishmael seems to be a later development.

Opinion noted.

 

[LuisDantas]

Funny, the Pharisees Jesus was addressing thought the same thing.

Funny is indeed the word.

 

[Augustus]

Christ is the only real authority. That post makes at least 4 assumptions. I'll just assume you don't know what you're talking about to make it 5.

John 11:35 - Jesus wept.

To summarise:

You said there was solid evidence Muhammad beheaded hundreds. I said there wasn't other than the Islamic traditions which are unreliable. You said you were right because Jesus is the Son of God. You then said I know nothing because I wasn't persuaded by one of the most flagrant non sequiturs in history.

As for your facile argument about the Quran, this might serve as a basic introduction:

Indeed, a good number of Qur’ānic pericopes look like Arabic ingenious patchworks of Biblical and para- Biblical texts, designed to comment passages or aspects of the Scripture, whereas others look like Arabic translations of liturgical formulas.

This is not unexpected if we have in mind some Late Antique religious practices, namely the well-known fact that Christian Churches followed the Jewish custom of reading publicly the Scriptures, according to the lectionary principle. In other words, people did not read the whole of the Scripture to the assembly, but lectionaries (Syriac qǝryānā, Ǧreading of Scripture in Divine Service”, etymon of Arabic qur’ān), containing selected passages of the Scripture, to be read in the community. Therefore, many of the texts which constitute the Qur’ān should not be seen (at least if we are interested in their original Sitz im Leben) as substitutes for the (Jewish or Christian) Scripture, but rather as a (putatively divinely inspired) commentary of Scripture.

Traces of Bilingualism/Multilingualism in Qur'anic Arabic

 

[Notanumber]

I watched the video in its entirety. Its a Christian apologist attacking Islamic apologists. The Christian has twisted the verses in question to portray Muhammad and His followers as unjust just as much as Islamic radicals twist the verse to justify terrorism. They are both wrong IMHO.

The context of the verse was a war between Muhammad's followers and various tribes. I find it comparable to the Hebrew peoples and their defence of what they regarded as the land promised to them by Yahweh.

These words make the most sense:

It could be that this severe punishment was at the beginning because the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew that some of the tough and hardened Bedouins who live around Madînah would not refrain from attacking others unless they heard of some of these severe punishments. The desert Bedouins living in the surrounding wilderness were warlike tribes used to toughness and to causing harassment. Allah says: “The dwellers of the desert are very hard in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more disposed not to know the limits of what Allah has revealed to His Messenger; and Allah is Knowing, Wise” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 97] (IslamToday fatwa service)

The American Muslim (TAM)

This confirms David’s video - Verse 5:32: All Life is Sacred?