Christianity vs Islam

[Surya Deva]

But England, that is just self-defense no

 

[Gharib]

Qur’an:9:5 - “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Qur’an:9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”
Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”
Ishaq:587 “Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace.”

well that was very clever of you.

what about the joining parts?
the parts that say do not attack unles you are attacked. before or after each of those verses it says do not attack unless you are attacked. but you weren't going to mention that were you. thats clever you now, very nice

and what about the verses that say do not harm the children, the women, and the elderly, only attack that wich has come to attack you and to take your freedom

 

[England my lionheart]

well that was very clever of you.

what about the joining parts?
the parts that say do not attack unles you are attacked. before or after each of those verses it says do not attack unless you are attacked. but you weren't going to mention that were you. thats clever you now, very nice

OK did Muhammed with his followers conquer other countries using a sword or a feather duster,and did people have to pay taxes to practice other religions.

 

[England my lionheart]

Or how about the unprovoked attacks on other countries,where does this leave the "do not attack unless you are attacked" so does this mean muhammed and his followers were actually going against the Quran and his own dictation.

 

[Gharib]

OK did Muhammed with his followers conquer other countries using a sword or a feather duster,and did people have to pay taxes to practice other religions.

ok first of all you know nothing about Muhammed (saws) nor about what happened while he was alive.
they never started wars ok. but when the muslims were just a minority other tribes would go to them and they would say we will fight with you and we are agains the people who are agains you, but when it came to war all those people attacked the muslims (the never one because we have Allah on our side) and os after the muslims formed the islmic country they went and tolled the traitors join islam or fight to death for you tratory, so there were 2 outcomes to chose from, do you understand that.
would you go in a war with a duster feather? no you wouldn't. no one had to pay taxes, because the land of the muslims had only muslims in it.

hees a story for you to remember:
prophet Muhammed (saws) sent a messenger to a king after they won mecca. the brother of that king killed the messenger of Muhammed (saws) before he could meet the king. so they want to war for that, the muslims were 6 000 and the opposition were 200 000 and do you know what happened, with the leadership of Halid ibn Welid and with the help of Allah they won that war. it was 6 000 agains 200 000.
and if you wish to read that for yourself then i can give you the name of the war and you can see for your self on the net.
i'll give you the name some other day, i don't have time to go reading a book at the moment.

 

[Gharib]

Or how about the unprovoked attacks on other countries,where does this leave the "do not attack unless you are attacked" so does this mean muhammed and his followers were actually going against the Quran and his own dictation.

read the bove story in post #105
not many countries knew why they fought about that war, because i wont tell the world if i'm going to send a messenger to you.

 

[England my lionheart]

ok first of all you know nothing about Muhammed (saws) nor about what happened while he was alive.
they never started wars ok. but when the muslims were just a minority other tribes would go to them and they would say we will fight with you and we are agains the people who are agains you, but when it came to war all those people attacked the muslims (the never one because we have Allah on our side) and os after the muslims formed the islmic country they went and tolled the traitors join islam or fight to death for you tratory, so there were 2 outcomes to chose from, do you understand that.
would you go in a war with a duster feather? no you wouldn't. no one had to pay taxes, because the land of the muslims had only muslims in it.

hees a story for you to remember:
prophet Muhammed (saws) sent a messenger to a king after they won mecca. the brother of that king killed the messenger of Muhammed (saws) before he could meet the king. so they want to war for that, the muslims were 6 000 and the opposition were 200 000 and do you know what happened, with the leadership of Halid ibn Welid and with the help of Allah they won that war. it was 6 000 agains 200 000.
and if you wish to read that for yourself then i can give you the name of the war and you can see for your self on the net.
i'll give you the name some other day, i don't have time to go reading a book at the moment.

OK so what went wrong when Chrles Martell defeated and an army of invading army of Muslims at the battle of tours even though outnumbered And as for taxes i think it was called Jizyah,i also think it is in the Quran but i am not a Muslim so how should i know.

 

[England my lionheart]

Those who reject our signs, we shall soon cast them into the fire. As soon as their skins are wasted through; we shall change them for fresh skins that they may taste the penalty, for God is exalted in power wise....…." (Vol. 1 Pg. 197)

"Verily God has cursed the un-believers and prepared for them a Blazing Fire.
To dwell therein for ever, no protector will they find." (Vol. 3 Pg. 1121) "The day that their faces will be turned upside down in fire, they will say:-
"Woe to us, would that we had obeyed God and obeyed the Apostle." (Vol.3 Pg.1121)
How about this or is their something else i missed.

 

[England my lionheart]

Actually Islam has been pretty rubbish at war,since Sahaladin who was undoubtedly the best the tactics only evolved to blowing up people on buses etc.

 

[Gharib]

Those who reject our signs, we shall soon cast them into the fire. As soon as their skins are wasted through; we shall change them for fresh skins that they may taste the penalty, for God is exalted in power wise....…." (Vol. 1 Pg. 197)

this is in hell. not on earth to be done by the muslims.

"Verily God has cursed the un-believers and prepared for them a Blazing Fire.
To dwell therein for ever, no protector will they find." (Vol. 3 Pg. 1121) "The day that their faces will be turned upside down in fire, they will say:-

again this is for hell too, not on earth.

"Woe to us, would that we had obeyed God and obeyed the Apostle." (Vol.3 Pg.1121)
How about this or is their something else i missed.

these are telling about the punishment in hell. whats your point in this.
heres something else if you wish: the occupants of hell will drink their own melted skin. the fuel of the hell fire are humans and roks

do you want more, whats the point in this anyway

 

[Gharib]

Actually Islam has been pretty rubbish at war,since Sahaladin who was undoubtedly the best the tactics only evolved to blowing up people on buses etc.

correction.
the muslims go to war not islam. well go and complain to the queen about it.
if you wish to speak about relligious wars please open a thread in the comparative religions and we may disccus it there.

 

[England my lionheart]

this is in hell. not on earth to be done by the muslims.



again this is for hell too, not on earth.



these are telling about the punishment in hell. whats your point in this.
heres something else if you wish: the occupants of hell will drink their own melted skin. the fuel of the hell fire are humans and roks

do you want more, whats the point in this anyway

This is surely another threat that if you do not convert this is what will happen to you,its easy to see becouse Christianity used it first.

 

[England my lionheart]

correction.
the muslims go to war not islam. well go and complain to the queen about it.
if you wish to speak about relligious wars please open a thread in the comparative religions and we may disccus it there.

OK i will not mention war again as its a touchy subject for Muslims.

 

[Gharib]

This is surely another threat that if you do not convert this is what will happen to you,its easy to see becouse Christianity used it first.

so are you going to convert? i don't think so.
so even if i wright everything about hell to you, you wont accept it,

so why didn't the christians put a copyright mark on it.

islam is a verifyer of christianity and judaism, both of these religions have made changes to the srcipture which spoke about the prophet that wolud come last. the jews changed the parts about Jesus (as) and that about Muhammed (saws) then the christians chnged the verses that spoke of Muhammed (saws) as the last prophet. they are similar because they are from the same god. why can't you understand this

 

[Gharib]

OK i will not mention war again as its a touchy subject for Muslims.

it's not a touchy subject, but it's not the right place to speak about it. but if you wish to continue here then be my guest, make a start.

 

[England my lionheart]

so are you going to convert? i don't think so.
so even if i wright everything about hell to you, you wont accept it,

so why didn't the christians put a copyright mark on it.

islam is a verifyer of christianity and judaism, both of these religions have made changes to the srcipture which spoke about the prophet that wolud come last. the jews changed the parts about Jesus (as) and that about Muhammed (saws) then the christians chnged the verses that spoke of Muhammed (saws) as the last prophet. they are similar because they are from the same god. why can't you understand this

Who told you this and where is your proof,the Christians changed this the Jews changed that nonsense,honestly i've heard it all on this forum,Adam was a Muslim etc who are Muslims trying to convince us or themselves.
Anyway goodnight

 

[Gharib]

=England my lionheart;1339768]

Who told you this and where is your proof,the Christians changed this the Jews changed that nonsense,honestly i've heard it all on this forum,Adam was a Muslim etc who are Muslims trying to convince us or themselves.
Anyway goodnight

look i as a muslim also have a mission to tell people about islam, but if you do not wish to accept my arguments or believe me then thats fine but we do it so that every person has a witness in judgment day, this is not another threat for you to convert ok, i though i would tell you that i am your witness. so are your eyes and your brain because you will read with your eyes and you will understand it with your brain.
it's good day in my country or maybe still good morning

 

[Sui]

I am a non-Muslim, so I have no obligation to accept the authority of what Islam says in response to objections I level at it. You cannot refute my objections against Islam with what Islam says, that is called begging the question. I am interested in only secular information. Please try to look outside of Islam to see what secular historians are saying.

You must also try to understand that when confronted with information that contradicts Islam, naturally I am going to consider it in a very guarded manner. In any case, I understand where you're coming from and I will try to avoid using Muslim sources if possible.

A king is a servant of its subjects. He speaks on behalf of the state, not on his own behalf. If you are saying Allah is just like a king, then Allah is our servent. But this goes against Islamic theology which claims Allah is the supreme, one without a second, answerable to no one, then why would Allah say "We" Why does he not say "I created man from an extract from clay"

As a non-Muslim I think that Allah was nothing more than Mohammed's servant, catering to his every need and wish and when the plural we is used, I think it means, "Allah and Mohammed" it is the most direct evidence of the subconscious process behind the Qurans compositon. If you read non-Muslim discourses, the idea that Allah was an alter-ego of Mohammed is a widely discussed one.

This "we" issue shouldn't even be an issue at all. It is a form of language. The best advice I can give you is to pay attention to the context of the usage. Allah does not always refer to Himself as "We" or "Us". Compare the following verses:

[2:186] And when My servants ask thee concerning Me, surely I am nigh. I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he calls on Me, so they should hear My call and believe in Me that they may walk in the right way.

[50:38] And certainly We created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six periods, and no fatigue touched Us.

In the first verse, the words emit feelings of mercy, grace, security, etc. Then in the second, Allah is portrayed as Mighty, Self-Sufficient, and Powerful - hence we find the majestic plural to reinforce this.

I can see why would not be impressed, but a secular non-Muslim would find no reason to reject what this man is saying. That is because the author is producing real evidence to support what he is saying. He even challenges Muslims to prove him wrong, and if they do, he will take down the site. Besides, anyone with knowledge in the history of the Middle east, knows clearly that Allah was originally a pagan god. This is secular knowledge, partial to no religion.

If someone is seriously and wholeheartedly convinced that they are right, proving them wrong in their eyes is not simple. The articles there are just absurd and I find it difficult to take them seriously, especially when the site is clearly biased. As for Middle Eastern history, Allah was not clearly a pagan moon god, as non-Muslim scholars continue to refute this claim.

You have a burden of proof to prove the Kabah was built by Abraham, and saying that "Mohammed says so" is begging the question i'm afraid.

I understand that, yet I doubt there is going to be a concrete answer to this anytime soon. Abraham and Ishmael (pbut) were the first to build the Kabah, yet the first foundations of it were provided by the angels and then Adam (pbut). Furthermore, the Kabah has been rebuilt about a dozen times. What sort of definitive proof do you expect to encounter?

Please try to see this from a non-Muslim perspective and you will understand why we are incredulous. A man claims he is a prophet of god from the linage of other prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus. He reveals passages from the Quran which is apparently coming from god directly. Then he reveals another passage, and his followers detecting the contradiction are angry and infuritated. Noticing this the man says, "Oh wait, sorry I was under the influence of Satan for that verse" and retracts it. That to us sounds like conveniance and brings the credibility of Muhammed into severe scrutiny. Even if we accept that his man was under the influence of Satan at times, then how do we know he was not under the influnce of Satan at others time, or the rest of the times, or all of the time?

The entire history of this alleged event is completely obscure. The reports from which this story originates from have untrustworthy chains of narration. The claim that Muhammad (pbuh) was under the influence of Satan is a direct contradiction of a hadith related by Ibn Mas'ud (ra) which basically states that Allah helped him over any evil influences. Now, if Muhammad (pbuh) could never come under such influence, then we would conclude that he either revealed the alleged verse by his own free will or the event never happened at all. It wouldn't be through free will, as Muhammad (pbuh) was firmly against idolatry and even in his weakest moments never compromised the message of Islam. The hadiths that have become the source of this story are not considered sahih (authentic); in fact, they are weak.

What you are describing is idol worship. This is idol worship. If this particular black stone is considered a sign of Allah, what about the countless other black stones that were worshipped through pre-Islamic Arabia, were they all signs of Allah? In that case Allah is none other than the Arabic Pagan god Manat, the moon god. Which means that Islam of today is nothing more than reformed paganism.

A secular historian can clearly see that just like Judaism went from polytheism to monotheism, but there are still traces of polytheism in it. Likewise, Arabic Paganism went from polytheism to monotheism, and there are still traces of polytheism in it.

No, it isn't idolatry. Idol worship distracts a person from the Supreme Being. When I kiss the Quran, am I worshiping it? Of course not, for the appreciation of the words inside it do not distract my worship of God. It is the same with the Black Stone - kissing it is not worshiping it since the stone does not divert my attention from Allah. In fact, it is a reminder of Him.

Suraj, you come off as inconsistent when you tell me Allah was one thing to the Arabs, then you tell me he was supposedly something else. Was he a moon god? Was he Muhammad's servant? Was he Muhammad's alter-ego? Or was he Manat (who was actually their goddess of fate, not a moon god)? In fact, I've even read in an article that Allah apparently was a sun god, too. What am I supposed to think about that?

 

[Elessar]

It was polytheistic. Google it.

Oh, so now the almighty Google is more knowledgeable than 2,500 years of collected Jewish scholarship in the Talmud and its commentaries?

 

[StripperClown]

Oh, so now the almighty Google is more knowledgeable than 2,500 years of collected Jewish scholarship in the Talmud and its commentaries?

It holds much more information, so it kind of is