Mohammed - Prophet of Peace

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That was my point. He's not God... Jesus is.

So you're pointing to a fallible man and faulting him for being fallible.

We can do without the snide remarks for once, thanks...

I don't think we can. You're diving in some really deep stuff that you don't seem to understand.

It doesn't take a PhD in Islamic studies to read about Islam. I thought you read the Koran? You'd know where all the violent verses came from...
Well, yes, the violent versus come later in the book, which is not surprising, and Muhammed became more and more vicious and warlike as his life went on... Let me Godwin this by saying, much like Hitler.

And there I have you. You know what you need to have studied Islamic Thought to understand which verses are the abrogated ones? Because the Quran isn't organized chronologically, it's organized by the length of the Suras.

I'm not qualified to know which, and neither are you. You know who is? An Alim. So you can't point to "all the bad ones at the end" and say that that's what Islam truly is, because you don't know when they were revealed to Mohammed. The ones you think are influential and defining might be abrogated!

You seriously expect me to know why one person's ideas changed over the course of a clearly intense life? And then, also the ideas of followers of his?
Sorry, but I can't measure up to this.

My point being, that I'm not aware of this sudden transformation by Mohammed, I've never heard of it, and I can find nothing about it. Given the story of his life and what the Quran says about Christians, I find it safe to assume that it did not happen and is a fabrication.

True. It is part of the paradox of the faith, as I see it. It teaches us what is right, but that often goes against everything we think/feel/etc. It's tough. People have spent many lives philosophizing about it, and we are no closer to the answer.

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, right?

Those are ideas also found in communism... sure, but Jesus said do it out of a religious/spiritual way...
Not quite the same there, since Marx (anyhow) taught that religion was in place to subjegate people...
They have the same ends, by different means.

Marx didn't teach that. He taught that religion makes people tolerate worldly evils longer because they are convinced that greater reward becomes them if they do so.

I think that you may have slightly misintrepreted that...
It means more, if you spend your life in the pursuit of wealth instead of God, chances are you're not going to make the final cut...

In retrospect, I think you are right.

 

[kochman]

I would imagine quite a few. Sola scriptura is the major theological principle that separates Protestants from Catholics.

As a Protestand, that's not where I am coming from at all...

So you're pointing to a fallible man and faulting him for being fallible.

There is a difference between "being fallible" and being a bloodthirsty tyrant. See Joseph Stalin for examples.

I don't think we can. You're diving in some really deep stuff that you don't seem to understand.

Oh, so because you think I don't understand something, you can just be snide? Do you do that in face to face conversations? I doubt it...

And there I have you. You know what you need to have studied Islamic Thought to understand which verses are the abrogated ones? Because the Quran isn't organized chronologically, it's organized by the length of the Suras.
I'm not qualified to know which, and neither are you. You know who is? An Alim. So you can't point to "all the bad ones at the end" and say that that's what Islam truly is, because you don't know when they were revealed to Mohammed. The ones you think are influential and defining might be abrogated!

No, you don't. You've assumed, incorrectly, that I am not aware of that, despite neither of us having PhDs in Islamic Studies... you also know. Please, stop assuming what I do and don't know. I didn't think Mohammed got bored and put the shortest books at the end, with a cramped wrist. The proper order is posted on this thing called the internets... you don't have to be an Alim.

My point being, that I'm not aware of this sudden transformation by Mohammed, I've never heard of it, and I can find nothing about it. Given the story of his life and what the Quran says about Christians, I find it safe to assume that it did not happen and is a fabrication.

It's hard to know what is going on inside a person from centuries ago, it's generally not documented, and this who line of questioning is irrelevant.

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, right?

No. Again, you are making assumptions about me, what I think, what I know... without the slightest clue as to the reality of that. You seem to have "faith" in your assumptions.

Marx didn't teach that. He taught that religion makes people tolerate worldly evils longer because they are convinced that greater reward becomes them if they do so.

Semantics. We are saying basically the same thing, though you might vehemently deny that...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

There is a difference between "being fallible" and being a bloodthirsty tyrant. See Joseph Stalin for examples.

So Mohammed was a Stalinesque bloodthirsty tyrant? What are you even on about now?

Oh, so because you think I don't understand something, you can just be snide? Do you do that in face to face conversations? I doubt it...

I don't think most people behave on the internet as they would in person, or vice-versa.

No, you don't. You've assumed, incorrectly, that I am not aware of that, despite neither of us having PhDs in Islamic Studies... you also know. Please, stop assuming what I do and don't know. I didn't think Mohammed got bored and put the shortest books at the end, with a cramped wrist. The proper order is posted on this thing called the internets... you don't have to be an Alim.

Mohammed didn't accumulate the Quran, the Third Caliph, Uthman, did.

And if you look it up, you'll see that they're all dispersed throughout. There are old ones at the end, and new ones at the beginning, and everywhere in between.

Face it, you got caught saying something that wasn't true and are trying to save face.

No. Again, you are making assumptions about me, what I think, what I know... without the slightest clue as to the reality of that. You seem to have "faith" in your assumptions.

Erm, I asked a question. I didin't make an assumption about you.

Semantics. We are saying basically the same thing, though you might vehemently deny that...

Of course I'm going to deny it. You're wrong. If we agreed then I wouldn't have disputed it. Marx was not anti-religion, he simply lamented the opiatic social effect that organized religion had on people.

 

[kochman]

So Mohammed was a Stalinesque bloodthirsty tyrant?

More or less, yes.

I don't think most people behave on the internet as they would in person, or vice-versa.

So, that makes it ok?

Mohammed didn't accumulate the Quran, the Third Caliph, Uthman, did.
And if you look it up, you'll see that they're all dispersed throughout. There are old ones at the end, and new ones at the beginning, and everywhere in between.
Face it, you got caught saying something that wasn't true and are trying to save face.

Um, nothing to face, you don't know what I knew... you aren't teaching me something here. I'm sorry to tell you, you aren't the smartest person on the internet and other people sometimes have done research into topics and yet come up with different opinions than you do.

Erm, I asked a question. I didin't make an assumption about you.

Sure you did, you assumed I don't know as much as you do about Islam...

Of course I'm going to deny it. You're wrong. If we agreed then I wouldn't have disputed it. Marx was not anti-religion, he simply lamented the opiatic social effect that organized religion had on people.

Oh boy... minutia disagreements are a forte of yours? I find this to be quite irrelevant.

 

[Traitorfish]

There is a difference between "being fallible" and being a bloodthirsty tyrant. See Joseph Stalin for examples.

Taken literally, this suggests that Stalin was infallible. A revelation indeed!

Sure you did, you assumed I don't know as much as you do about Islam...

Given that you think that Muhammad compiled the Qur'an, I wouldn't put that down as a contentious assumption.

 

[kochman]

Ok, who cares who put it in the order it is in...
Knowing the order it is in is not chronological, and that you can access the chronological order is what matters...

You guys get hung up on the most irrelevant points... jeez.

 

[Traitorfish]

The point isn't that who compiled it is particularly pertinent to the discussion at hand, it's that it's a very basic item of Qur'anic history that you were apparently oblivious of. And that casts some doubt on your claim to be just as well-informed on the Qur'an as Cheezy is.

 

[kochman]

The point isn't that who compiled it is particularly pertinent to the discussion at hand, it's that it's a very basic item of Qur'anic history that you were apparently oblivious of. And that casts some doubt on your claim to be just as well-informed on the Qur'an as Cheezy is.

So what? Irrelevant.

I'm not a PhD, but I know enough, way more than most. I've studied this topic long and hard to come to my conclusions, including talks with Muslims while over there in that lovely part of the world.

My point stands, abrogation has been addressed in the Koran, and says that specifically later versus trump.

The later versus are more warlike... as Moham had gotten the upper hand.

The fact that it was compiled OUT of order is mighty convenient when one wants to misunderstand the religion... as most people don't know about the order situation... I did.

 

[Traitorfish]

My point stands, abrogation has been addressed in the Koran, and says that specifically later versus trump.

The later versus are more warlike... as Moham had gotten the upper hand.

I was under the impression that abrogation dealt specifically with points of contradiction, not just with tone or thematic content.

 

[kochman]

I was under the impression that abrogation dealt specifically with points of contradiction, not just with tone or thematic content.

I didn't say it didn't... the latter is speculation on my part... who knows what made him so violent, to be honest. Power corrupts, though, so it is fair to think that his new found power corrupted him.

 

[LordRahl]

'Mohammed - Prophet of Peace'
Quite an Orwellian phrase, given the last decade...

 

[Mind]

Islam is the religion of truth, so real believers r given peace at the house of peace (Jannah), checkout: http://www.aboutjihad.com/terrorism/quran_misquote_part_1.php for the verses/narrations in the way that they are circulated by the Islam-haters, so that the poor translation and other deceptive tactics of the Islam-Haters may be exposed.

 

[Ajidica]

'Mohammed - Prophet of Peace'
Quite an Orwellian phrase, given the last decade...

I suppose, but a far better Orwellian phrase is that Ayn Rand was rational or objective.

 

[aronnax]

I didn't say it didn't... the latter is speculation on my part... who knows what made him so violent, to be honest. Power corrupts, though, so it is fair to think that his new found power corrupted him.

I think we are done here. I can argue with you on and on but I don't think you can be detached enough from Christianity to look at thing objectively with an open mind, especially since when I read your points, they obviously come from anti-Islamic website. Searching 'abrogation' and 'Islam' on Google, gives you more anti-Islamic hits than either neutral or pro-Islamic hits. You also have a Jesus VS Mohammad tone to your argument which to a Muslim, is strange.

The only thing I will concede is that, on paper, there are more lines in the Quran calling for violence in self-defense than in the New Testament. However, in practical terms and especially in context, it's a pointless discussion in how many more heads sliced off. Even the concept of non-violence VS self-defense makes it an argument in paradigm rather than actual outright wrong or right.

In the end, both the Quran and the Bible preach peace. Neither of them are very peaceful. Both of them are open to endless interpretation in either favour for violence or peace.

 

[Arakhor]

I didn't say it didn't... the latter is speculation on my part... who knows what made him so violent, to be honest. Power corrupts, though, so it is fair to think that his new found power corrupted him.

Yet you consider Jesus to be God and your Saviour and you cannot tolerate criticism towards him. As Arronax says, you clearly aren't detached enough to argue the relative merits of Christianity versus Islam.

 

[wolfigor]

What is implied in many statements here is that in the Quran there is plenty of calls for violence.
The Quran is the official "position" of Mohammed, so we can all agree that the initial stament of the OP is not true.
Mohammed was not a "Prophet of Peace".

 

[aronnax]

What is implied in many statements here is that in the Quran there is plenty of calls for violence.
The Quran is the official "position" of Mohammed, so we can all agree that the initial stament of the OP is not true.
Mohammed was not a "Prophet of Peace".

It can be argued that initially as least, Mohammad preached for peace but due to the bad reception of Islam and it's persecution and having tried every option from reasoning, bargaining, non violence and emigration, it became the religion of fighting back.

A bit like Sikhs.

 

[kochman]

I think we are done here. I can argue with you on and on but I don't think you can be detached enough from Christianity to look at thing objectively with an open mind, especially since when I read your points, they obviously come from anti-Islamic website. Searching 'abrogation' and 'Islam' on Google, gives you more anti-Islamic hits than either neutral or pro-Islamic hits. You also have a Jesus VS Mohammad tone to your argument which to a Muslim, is strange.

The only thing I will concede is that, on paper, there are more lines in the Quran calling for violence in self-defense than in the New Testament. However, in practical terms and especially in context, it's a pointless discussion in how many more heads sliced off. Even the concept of non-violence VS self-defense makes it an argument in paradigm rather than actual outright wrong or right.

In the end, both the Quran and the Bible preach peace. Neither of them are very peaceful. Both of them are open to endless interpretation in either favour for violence or peace.

This really isn't about Christianity vs Islam, as you are trying to frame it. I believe you brought in the comparisons of Christ and Mohammed... which I simply defended the reality that they were NOTHING alike... nor should they be.
Comparing the two... it's laughable really.
They are not equal... at all.

It is about the complete and total crock that Islam/Mohammed is meant to be peaceful. There are peaceful Muslims, and individuals should be considered on their merits...
But Islam, is a violent religion, fundamentally speaking.

I showed you how, with the abrogation teachings. Your response? Well... you got your info from anti-Islam websites.

I posted the VERSE that tells how the Koran should be considered. It's in the Koran. You tell me, I must have got that from an anti-Islam source? If you think the Koran is anti-Islam (I must agree, it is an awful, evil book in the end), then that's fine... but I quoted directly buddy.

Close your eyes to the truth if you like.

Yet you consider Jesus to be God and your Saviour and you cannot tolerate criticism towards him. As Arronax says, you clearly aren't detached enough to argue the relative merits of Christianity versus Islam.

I can tolerate realistic criticism... but when you try to tell me nonsense, I'm not going to sit there and let it fly.

I love the judgment that I can't possibly talk about the subject...

I've used verses of the Koran to support my claims, but that's just too attached to Christianity?

What have you guys shown to refute my points? Nothing, just claim that I can't be right, no sources... Aronnax's source was, "searching abrogation and islam lead to more anti- or neutral sites towards Islam"... so the hell what?! Look in the Koran, as I did, read the verse... consider it...

This idea that all religions are created equal or have the same merit is ridiculous, AND completely unsupported scripturally...

What is implied in many statements here is that in the Quran there is plenty of calls for violence.
The Quran is the official "position" of Mohammed, so we can all agree that the initial stament of the OP is not true.
Mohammed was not a "Prophet of Peace".

Absolutely...
But, now, you are anti-Islam... anyone who dares criticize is bad!!!
I'm putting a jihad on you.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

More or less, yes.

I wonder how many people you think take you seriously?

Um, nothing to face, you don't know what I knew... you aren't teaching me something here. I'm sorry to tell you, you aren't the smartest person on the internet and other people sometimes have done research into topics and yet come up with different opinions than you do.


Sure you did, you assumed I don't know as much as you do about Islam...

Oh there is no assumption in that. I've caught you in several mis-statements which you pretended to know after I told you. Who complied the Quran, the order of the Suras and its lack of relation to their chronology, where the abrogating verses are...it's very clear that you don't know a whole lot about what you're talking about and are just spouting talking points probably taken from someplace like thereligionofpeace or refutingislam.com, or are just making things up as you go along, else you would not have stumbled into such silly statements as these:

I thought you read the Koran? You'd know where all the violent verses came from...

Remember the rules of Islam...
1) The Koran trumps
2) What comes later in the Koran trumps anything early when there is a contradiction

Well, yes, the violent versus come later in the book, which is not surprising, and Muhammed became more and more vicious and warlike as his life went on

I didn't think Mohammed got bored and put the shortest books at the end, with a cramped wrist.

All of which reflect a very clearly incorrect view of things. Corrections to which I have made and you have tried to play off as something you knew, but by your statements its clear that you didn't.

Oh boy... minutia disagreements are a forte of yours? I find this to be quite irrelevant.

It's not a minutia disagreement, you said that a man held a position which he did not. That's a pretty big deal, the difference between "did" and "did not" believe something.

I'm not really surprised that you find it irrelevant, you seem to regard most facts and truths as such.

 

[wolfigor]

It can be argued that initially as least, Mohammad preached for peace but due to the bad reception of Islam and it's persecution and having tried every option from reasoning, bargaining, non violence and emigration, it became the religion of fighting back.

So he tried initially to preach peacefully, given that nobody cared he decided to use more persuasive methods... again, this does not vouch for prophet of peace.
More like prophet of peace if you are, prophet of war if you don't.

I don't know about the Sikhs but it reminds me of "resistance is futile prepare to be assimilated"

Can we close the thread with agreement on "Mohammed: NOT Prophet of Peace" ?

This really isn't about Christianity vs Islam, as you are trying to frame it. I believe you brought in the comparisons of Christ and Mohammed... which I simply defended the reality that they were NOTHING alike... nor should they be.
Comparing the two... it's laughable really.
They are not equal... at all.

I am not Christian and, even I, find the comparison Jesus-Mohammed simply risible.
How many wars or military actions Jesus led personally or planned or blessed?
What people may have done centuries later in his name is pretty much irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

I posted the VERSE that tells how the Koran should be considered. It's in the Koran. You tell me, I must have got that from an anti-Islam source? If you think the Koran is anti-Islam (I must agree, it is an awful, evil book in the end), then that's fine... but I quoted directly buddy.

Close your eyes to the truth if you like.

I will be never able to understand why perfectly intelligent people stop reasoning as soon as a religious topic gets discussed.
Any rationale criticism becomes a direct mortal offense...

]
Absolutely...
But, now, you are anti-Islam... anyone who dares criticize is bad!!!
I'm putting a jihad on you.

This is typical of religious people in general not only Muslim, just they go down on it more raw then others.