How on earth can the Qur'an be considered the perfect book?

[Shad]

You were talking about "Muhammad's examples" .. so I'll leave thia issue for now..

I await the typical apologist copy/paste.

..and the proof of this? How do you conclude that Muhammad's intentions were not honourable, and of defence only

Considering he sent armies to conquer areas in Arabia without cause. Read the Mizan in which God gave divine permission for him to conquer other Arabians, polytheists, Jews, etc. Hence he started those wars rather than being attacked. "God told me to" has been the excuse of religious tyrants for centuries.

 

[FearGod]

And I asked another. Simple as that.

If you want to leave mine to answer after you receive the answers to yours, it is up to you.

But surely it is not too much of a thing to ask?

OMG, she said "until i have read it"
So i just wanted to ask if she meant that she finished reading the whole quran.

 

[LuisDantas]

And that invalidates my own question? Why?

 

[FearGod]

Considering he sent armies to conquer areas in Arabia without cause. Read the Mizan in which God gave divine permission for him to conquer other Arabians, polytheists, Jews, etc. Hence he started those wars rather than being attacked. "God told me to" has been the excuse of religious tyrants for centuries.

Yes the target was to end the oppression of the Roman and the Persian empire and he did.

 

[FearGod]

And that invalidates my own question? Why?

Because you think i'm asking her that reading parts of the quran isn't enough which wasn't my intention of the question,
but if i had to answer your question, then no, you don't need to read the whole quran.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because you think i'm asking her that reading parts of the quran isn't enough which wasn't my intention of the question,

I stand corrected in my assumption, but I don't see how that would invalidate the question.

but if i had to answer your question, then no, you don't need to read the whole quran.

Thanks.

 

[Shad]

Yes the target was to end the oppression of the Roman and the Persian empire and he did.

So says every tyrant. Yet all he did was replace one form of oppression with another. He taxed people based on religion, banned proselyting of other religions, banned renovation of non-Muslim religious buildings and even construction, banned religious building nears mosque and those larger than mosques.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

When it comes to war, it's a really a question of "who started it?" .. Your conclusion is too simple.

1. "Allah does not like those who start aggression"

And in numerous cases the Muslims were the aggressors. The Byzantine Empire, the Sassanid Empire, the Berber tribes, southern Spain, India. All instances of Muslims launching attacks on others.

This means that the call for violence against non-muslims is only against those who start aggression .. seems reasonable to me

Which indicates either a willingness on the part of Muslims to disregard their own religious beliefs; or an attempt to whitewash your religion's historical actions.

2. "Muhammad's examples" , peace be with Him, do not show us that he was an aggressor .. he was a defender of the realm. If you hear that a large army from a nearby nation is marching on you, you have a choice .. take action, or wait until it arrives!

How do you explain Muhammed's raids on Mecca's trade caravans - a city that wasn't attacking him at the time - then? They were offensive, designed to cripple the Quraysh's wealth. After conquering Mecca and forcibly Islamising it, Muhammed then marched on and laid siege to the city of Ta'if where he ordered the city's famous vineyard destroyed to demoralise the defenders. After an unsuccessful siege, he withdrew and vowed to return later but Ta'if surrendered. Muhammed demanded as part of their surrender that they convert to Islam.

 

[muhammad_isa]

How do you explain Muhammed's raids on Mecca's trade caravans - a city that wasn't attacking him at the time - then? They were offensive, designed to cripple the Quraysh's wealth. Muhammed then marched on and laid siege to the city of Ta'if where he ordered the city's famous vineyard destroyed to demoralise the defenders. After an unsuccessful siege, he withdrew and vowed to return later but Ta'if surrendered. Muhammed demanded as part of their surrender that they convert to Islam.

Wow! Is that right?
I prefer not to learn Islamic history from an atheist, mind you. I wonder who started this war?
My opinion is that the Quraish wanted to kill Muhammad and his followers and had to leave Macca because of it. The quraish felt threatened .. not from violence .. no .. but that they might lose some power & wealth.

Isn't it always the same. Atheists or hypocrites with some kind of agenda, that wish to kill Almighty God's chosen prophets. ie. 'put the light out' Well .. on this occasion, they were not successful.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you choose to define "atheists or hypocrites" as being "those who hold a less than stellar view of Muhammad and of the Qur'an", then sure, it will always be the same.

What else could possibly happen.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Wow! Is that right?
I prefer not to learn Islamic history from an atheist, mind you.

How is that relevant?

I wonder who started this war?

Muhammed. Exiling a citizen is not an act of war. Attacking trade caravans & damaging a society's economy, however, is. Exile is a civic action typically reserved for punishing criminals. Well, that's going by older societies such as the Athenians' use of exile. I could be wrong.

My opinion is that the Quraish wanted to kill Muhammad and his followers and had to leave Macca because of it. The quraish felt threatened .. not from violence .. no .. but that they might lose some power & wealth.

I agree with this. Wealth & power are things people are generally reluctant to let go of.

Isn't it always the same. Atheists or hypocrites with some kind of agenda, that wish to kill Almighty God's chosen prophets. ie. 'put the light out' Well .. on this occasion, they were not successful.

Again with the atheism charge. Why do you keep levelling that?

 

[gnostic]

Wow! Is that right?
I prefer not to learn Islamic history from an atheist, mind you. I wonder who started this war?
My opinion is that the Quraish wanted to kill Muhammad and his followers and had to leave Macca because of it. The quraish felt threatened .. not from violence .. no .. but that they might lose some power & wealth.

Isn't it always the same. Atheists or hypocrites with some kind of agenda, that wish to kill Almighty God's chosen prophets. ie. 'put the light out' Well .. on this occasion, they were not successful.

There were no war between Medina and Mecca, until Muhammad began leading raids upon the Meccan trade caravans, from 623 to 624.

Why shouldn't the Meccans defend their goods from Muslims who acted nothing more than robbers or pirates. This is not the act of self defence, but Muslims trying to gain wealth, not through honest employment, but from harassing trades just as pirates would do.

Muhammad began the war, not the Meccans.

And Muhammad's persecution in Mecca before his exile, was the direct result of Muhammad threatening the pagan Meccans with the destruction of idols, with his sermon or preaching. Muhammad was the one who was inciting those who would follow him to destroy religion of people who disagree with his religion.

Muhammad's persecution and exile to Medina was his own doings. If Muhammad make hostile speech, do you seriously think that the Meccans wouldn't feel threatened?

Like A Greased Scotsman wrote, Muslims were the ones who took hostile and aggressive action against Ta'if before his death. And the Ta'if were given much of choice when the Muslims came at them the 2nd time, and the condition of accepting surrender were that the people of Ta'if had to convert. This make the whole no compulsion in Islam, a meaningless farce.

After his death, they (Muslims) were the ones who attacked the Byzantines and the Persians, and these were not the acts of self defence. The whole "we will only fight in defence" is nothing more than a ploy and propaganda.

And the history is that are mainly from Muslim sources. There are no atheist sources.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you choose to define "atheists or hypocrites" as being "those who hold a less than stellar view of Muhammad and of the Qur'an", then sure, it will always be the same.

Well I don't .. neither does the dictionary. The quarish weren't atheists, actually .. but they were ignorant and had fallen into polytheism.

Jesus and John the baptist were also despised by those in power. What happens is that people start feeling that religion belongs to them, and somebody who is sent to correct them is not welcome!

 

[muhammad_isa]

Muhammed. Exiling a citizen is not an act of war.

Don't be ridiculous .. there was a serious decision from the quraish to kill him once and for all. He only narrowly escaped .. you could say a miracle..

 

[muhammad_isa]

Muhammad's persecution and exile to Medina was his own doings. If Muhammad make hostile speech, do you seriously think that the Meccans wouldn't feel threatened?

That's the crux of the matter. He was not threatening violence, but they did not like the fact that he was preaching and gaining ground. Naturally, a lot of atheists would be on the side that held the status quo. Believers, on the side of those who love God.

There we have it..

 

[LuisDantas]

That's the crux of the matter. He was not threatening violence, but they did not like the fact that he was preaching and gaining ground. Naturally, a lot of atheists would be on the side that held the status quo. Believers, on the side of those who love God.

There we have it..

That is incredibly biased a view, you know. Why would anyone believe in it.

 

[gnostic]

That's the crux of the matter. He was not threatening violence, but they did not like the fact that he was preaching and gaining ground.

When you have Muhammad preaching to tear down idols from the Kaaba, then he is threatening other people's religion.

That was one of the reasons why his own tribe persecuted him, because the Quraysh were at that time the caretaker of the Kaaba.

When a person preach with denunciation of other traditional religion, then that person is threatening. And Muhammad was publicly condemning the traditional Arabic pagan religion that existed at that time. Condemning is threatening.

Are you denying that Muhammad would denunciate or condemn pagan religion?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Are you denying that Muhammad would denunciate or condemn pagan religion?

Of course not .. Reforming society and establishing truth from Almighty God is a very serious business. However, the quraish weren't interested in truth .. many people aren't .. they are concerned with their status in this life, and that's that!

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course not .. Reforming society and establishing truth from Almighty God is a very serious business. However, the quraish weren't interested in truth .. many people aren't .. they are concerned with their status in this life, and that's that!

Were I doing it for the sport, I would find it too easy to be worth the trouble...

 

[gnostic]

Of course not .. Reforming society and establishing truth from Almighty God is a very serious business. However, the quraish weren't interested in truth .. many people aren't .. they are concerned with their status in this life, and that's that!

Then the whole "no compulsion" in Islam as stated in the Qur'an is nothing more than a total BS and propaganda.

Hitler and Stalin provided society that you either accept their policies or face the consequences of rejecting it.

The Banu Qurayza surrendered to Muhammad, and those men who don't convert were beheaded and women and children were sold as slaves. Muhammad didn't leave them with much of choice. Those that did convert, did so in the face of death; that's compulsion.

After Mecca surrender, the first time Muslims attacked Ta'if, the Muslim army retreated because of the unsuccessful siege. The threat was accept Islam or suffer similar fate as the Banu Qurayza. The Ta'if chose to surrender, but they have to convert and give up their old religion. That's compulsion.

So everything about the Qur'an saying that there is no compulsion, is a lie.