Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in the Eyes of Non-Muslims

[Gharib]

I see that you don't know much about idol. It is more than just wood or stone or metal. A person is object as well, especially ancient or historical figure.

yeah probably?

You have such a narrow view on idols that you completely ignored all others.

true, i cant deny it. what do you mean by all others

You have mentioned car...several times already.

you too have mentioned idol many many times

Do you not place your scriptures above yourself, family or friends?

yeah offcourse. i would save them for the others, i would give my life protecting them.

If you do, thence your Qur'an is a idol.

idol as in i look up to it, yes but the other way no

And consider this. This one is really important. So I hope you understand why I think Muslims worshipped Muhammad.
Do or do you not say over and over again:

"there is none but Allah and Muhammed is the slave and messenger of Allah"

Or something like that, but perhaps in Arabic, or whatever. It's like a motto and warcry for all Muslims.
How many times do you say that (or something like that)?
Every single day? More? Every week?

well we (more like me) say it atleast 50 times a day i guess.

Well, if you do, then it is like praying to Muhammad as well as to your Allah. Because this said, like a talisman, your prophet have become god-like especially if you say with your god. Hence, you and others like you, have become idol-worshipper, and your god is as much as Muhammad, as it is with your god.

so are you saying that Muhammed (saws) is equl to Allah, if we mention his name as many times as we do that of Allah? if yes, i'd say wrong.

read this
" there is no god but Allah and Muhammed is the slave and messenger (prophet) of Allah"
we clearly say SLAVE so that this issue/missunderstanding does not arise

Now did ever use this motto in your prayer?

it's not a motto, its a declaration, and yes we do use it, 20 times probably

If so, then need I say more?

if you wish. i'll say this to you just as i did to YmirGF
who can tell the story of Jesus (as) better, a buddhist or a christian?

Do you understand what I am saying?

i do, but still i have to say that you are wrong, otherwise i cannot be a muslim if i accept what you say, just as you cannot be a muslim if you do not accept prophet Muhammed (saws) as the last prophet.
i hope you don't take this the wrong way.

 

[gnostic]

by the way does the title of the thread mean that i cannot oppose you guys or what, i don't get it?

tariqkhwaja provided the quote of someone non-Muslim living in 19th century as a view of Muhammad.

But I and others here are of Muslim sources, because we believed that it is biased, and we gave our views. And I have specifically told tariqkhwaja that if he want he should ask non-Muslim people today, then some of the 19th century.

If you really want to know what non-Muslims see about Muhammad, then you should ask real non-Muslim people today, not someone about a century-and-half ago.

That you would oppose our view is understandable. That's not where we have problem. We have problem that you don't even understand our positions that contemporary Muslim sources (including the Qur'an and Hadiths), and without contemporary non-Muslim sources, there is a huge possibility that a lot of history and bio of Muhammad is exaggerated, embellished and biased.

We have valid reasons for thinking so, because history is often written by the conquerors, and lot of propaganda would be involved, and we don't think Muslims of Muhammad's time and after he passed away are no different to any of the conquerors.

And we are not arguing over the points, which you don't seem to grasp. That independent sources are absence, I don't see how we can fully trust Muslim sources to be genuinely telling not only the truths, but facts.

The thing is that we don't trust the truth, because each religion have their own version of the truth. We need far more conclusive evidences, and only evidences we have are written ones, which don't always represent the whole truth.

 

[gnostic]

it's not a motto, its a declaration

*sigh*

A motto is a declaration.

There are many forms of declaration and that one is a motto. Look it up.

idol as in i look up to it, yes but the other way no

*SIGH*

Idols can take about any form, including the form of human, particularly heroes, leaders, etc.

To me, the Uncle Sam image being used, where the US tried to recruit young Americans into the military can be considered an idol. American leaders, like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, etc, can be considered idols. But Muslims have far more blind devotion to Muhammad than any Americans have with these heroes.

It is strange how Muslims can find find different meanings in what they considered to be prophecies in the bible or find verses in the Qur'an that have scientific meanings, and yet be so narrow-minded that there can't see some words may have more than one meaning. In words such, "worship", "motto", "idol", etc.

 

[Gharib]

tariqkhwaja provided the quote of someone non-Muslim living in 19th century as a view of Muhammad.

yeah i know and i think he is only non muslim who agrees with us muslims.

But I and others here are of Muslim sources, because we believed that it is biased, and we gave our views. And I have specifically told tariqkhwaja that if he want he should ask non-Muslim people today, then some of the 19th century.

so what do you have to say about it? now don't start with that biased and controlled writting stuff. you say something that doesn't reflect on any of the bieased information or bio's and i'd love to read what you have to say.

That you would oppose our view is understandable.

i'm glad you agree on that.

That's not where we have problem. We have problem that you don't even understand our positions that contemporary Muslim sources (including the Qur'an and Hadiths), and without contemporary non-Muslim sources, there is a huge possibility that a lot of history and bio of Muhammad is exaggerated, embellished and biased.

ok, so tell me who knows more about me? you or me?
who would know more about my best friend you or me? which of us would be able to write his bio without adding any lies you or me?
so this is what you are saying (i see it this way). i'll come to your country take a look at your leader and writte a bio on him 5 days later. or even a year later, who cares?
would my information be accurate? no way.

and saudi arabia was a complete muslim country so if anyone came to write about prophet Muhammed (saws) they would not know everything and so they would ask his frieds and relatives about his past. right. now don't go denying that.

We have valid reasons for thinking so, because history is often written by the conquerors, and lot of propaganda would be involved, and we don't think Muslims of Muhammad's time and after he passed away are no different to any of the conquerors.

so again you are saying that an outsider would be able to write the whole life of someone without even knowing them? i don't think so

And we are not arguing over the points, which you don't seem to grasp. That independent sources are absence, I don't see how we can fully trust Muslim sources to be genuinely telling not only the truths, but facts.

so doy you have something on your mind?

The thing is that we don't trust the truth,

so do you want lies? thats the funniest thing i've heard in a while, what are you saying. so you don't believe us because we are telling the truth, is that it.

because each religion have their own version of the truth. We need far more conclusive evidences, and only evidences we have are written ones, which don't always represent the whole truth.

the best evidence one can have is written on a paper and signed.
and we have that paper, so i don't see what the problem is.
so do you want the hole truth and nothing but the truth?

 

[gnostic]

so do you want lies? thats the funniest thing i've heard in a while, what are you saying. so you don't believe us because we are telling the truth, is that it.

You can't prove the Qur'an for truth, with the Qur'an.

the best evidence one can have is written on a paper and signed.
and we have that paper, so i don't see what the problem is.
so do you want the hole truth and nothing but the truth?

Signed?

Muhammad can't even write.

You have just said a lie.

Or do you mean your god?

No. I don't see his signature too. Your god certainly didn't write it single word.

So this is another lie from you.

Just because you say doesn't make it true.

Tell me. Do you believe in every single word in the Qur'an to be literal truth.

Even the one about Solomon commanding and recruiting djinns, birds and ants into his army?

This is nothing but fable, as imaginative as the stories of Arabian Nights.

Look, Eselam. You're the believer, not me. If we don't agree with each other, then that's fine.

The thing is I don't believe much of the bible too. There are too many variables that the bible, qur'an, and other scriptures, just don't seem logical to me. I am not too trusting with anyone who claimed to be prophets, apostles, saints, and whatever, because their words of truth can mean many things. Your truth is different from the Christian. The Jew's truth is different from both that of Christianity and Islam.

These truths are not conclusive enough, nor factual enough to satisfy me. I would like irrefutable proofs with tons of evidences, not mere words from prophets or from gods, who can't distinguish fantasy from reality.

 

[Gharib]

You can't prove the Qur'an for truth, with the Qur'an.



Signed?

Muhammad can't even write.

You have just said a lie.

Or do you mean your god?

No. I don't see his signature too. Your god certainly didn't write it single word.

So this is another lie from you.

Just because you say doesn't make it true.

Tell me. Do you believe in every single word in the Qur'an to be literal truth.

Even the one about Solomon commanding and recruiting djinns, birds and ants into his army?

This is nothing but fable, as imaginative as the stories of Arabian Nights.

Look, Eselam. You're the believer, not me. If we don't agree with each other, then that's fine.

The thing is I don't believe much of the bible too. There are too many variables that the bible, qur'an, and other scriptures, just don't seem logical to me. I am not too trusting with anyone who claimed to be prophets, apostles, saints, and whatever, because their words of truth can mean many things. Your truth is different from the Christian. The Jew's truth is different from both that of Christianity and Islam.

These truths are not conclusive enough, nor factual enough to satisfy me. I would like irrefutable proofs with tons of evidences, not mere words from prophets or from gods, who can't distinguish fantasy from reality.

in short words this is my answer to you.
Muhammed (saws) was not asked to write the Kur'an when Allah revealed it to him ok.
but since time has passed it was better to write things down rather than to remember them because someone was boud to make a mistake sooner or later. so what i have meant about the written stuff is that the Kur'an is a book from Allah and in todays society people would not believe you about something unless you didn't have it written. so we muslims have the Kur'an written in pages so that everyone can read it not just those who remember it in their heads.
does that asnwer your qustions, my previous post wasn't clear and i knew it would come to this, but anyway.
it wasn't Muhammed (saws) the one who wrote the Kur'an he only remembered it he didn't have to write it he knew it in his head but later after he passed on the leaders and scholars decide it would be best if it is written down in a book so everyone can read it for themself.
is that clear or not, tell me

and by the way i do not tell lies, nor is Allah ever mistaken.
and yes everything is true in the Kur'an, and i do believe it otherwise i could not be a muslim, how can i have faith in my religion if i oppose it.

 

[Gharib]

The thing is I don't believe much of the bible too. There are too many variables that the bible, qur'an, and other scriptures, just don't seem logical to me. I am not too trusting with anyone who claimed to be prophets, apostles, saints, and whatever, because their words of truth can mean many things. Your truth is different from the Christian. The Jew's truth is different from both that of Christianity and Islam.

These truths are not conclusive enough, nor factual enough to satisfy me. I would like irrefutable proofs with tons of evidences, not mere words from prophets or from gods, who can't distinguish fantasy from reality.

so clearly you are saying that your religion is false. now don't go saying thats not true or thats not what i meant because you have said it.
it seems that many people dissagree with somethings from their religion, doesn't that tell you something Gnostic or would you rather have me to give you a BIG HINT

 

[gnostic]

so clearly you are saying that your religion is false.

I don't have a religion, eselam. The Jewish Tanakh and the Christian Bible is not my scriptures.

Don't be confused by nickname, "GNOSTIC". I'm not gnostic, Christian or Jewish. I do have knowledge of Gnosticism, and do tends to sympathize with these gnostic groups. (there are more one form of gnosticism)

I'm both a non-believer and non-theist. For a lack of better term, I am agnostic, leaning in the direction of atheist. Until there are real evidences, I don't believe in the existence of god, until he manifest himself. But agnosticism is not a religion.

The agnostic don't really say who I am, because I am also mixture of other labels, I'm an humanist and cynic; depending on the subject matter, I can be an idealist or a realist. I am a naturalist, and though I don't consider myself as evolutionist, I have tendency to agree with evolution.

now don't go saying thats not true or thats not what i meant because you have said it.
it seems that many people dissagree with somethings from their religion, doesn't that tell you something Gnostic or would you rather have me to give you a BIG HINT

I'm confused by all this.

 

[Gharib]

I'm confused by all this.

many people seem to dissaprove with some aspects of their religion and only us muslims do not have any dissagreements with islam because we can never prove Allah wrong because if we did then he would not be a god, so i'm saying that those other religions aren't from god because the humans have proven their god wrong, so tell me how can that be.
shouldn't god be smarter than humans, shouldn't the creator be more smarter than its creation. how can a human find errors in the scriptures from god. we muslims can't so doesn't that tell you that islam is the ture religion. many have said they have found erors in most scriptures and you certainly did say that or didn't you.

 

[YmirGF]

if you wish. i'll say this to you just as i did to YmirGF. who can tell the story of Jesus (as) better, a buddhist or a christian?

To be perfectly honest, Eselam, there is no reason that a Buddhist or an atheist could not write the most accurate book about Jesus to come along. All they would need are the facts. You imply that the best person to ask about Muhammed would be a Muslim, but frankly, there is no real need, as one can look at any one of a hundred effusive, pristine accounts from Muslim sources, to get the general idea. The point is many of us, flat out, do not believe Muslims are telling the whole truth. This is brought home to us, by how easy it is to upset Muslims when asking questions or making comments about their "Prophet".

Let me be perfectly clear. If there were even slight blemishes on the reputation of Muhammed, in the accounts of devout Muslims, I would be far more inclined to believe that this man was who he said he was. That might sound odd, but the idea that he was exemplary, in every conceivable way, is highly unrealistic to many non-Muslims. THAT is the point.

I hope you understand what I am saying. It's not that we think you are all a pack of liars, per se, but rather, Muslims, en masse, are utterly convinced that the story they are telling IS the god's honest truth. In THOSE terms, they are not lying. Further to this, and what makes a good number of non-Muslims uncomfortable, is that it is an article of faith for you to accept the stories that have been handed down for many, many generations.

This is specifically hilighted in the following quote from you:

i do, but still, i have to say that you are wrong, otherwise i cannot be a muslim if i accept what you say,

This really sums up the whole discussion. Muslims simply cannot admit to any error, whatsoever, without it shaking their thinking to its very foundations. It is almost a gamble, really, in that you either win big or lose big.

just as you cannot be a muslim if you do not accept prophet Muhammed (saws) as the last prophet.

I would go so far as to say I utterly and completely reject the idea that Muhammed was a prophet, let alone a prophet of the highest order. Personally speaking, I could not imagine a more defeatist mentality than to accept Muhammed and become a Muslim. The idea of becoming a Muslim has about as much appeal as being dragged over several fields of broken glass.

i hope you don't take this the wrong way.

Me too. There isn't really any way to pretty up my sentiments on the issue of becoming a Muslim however. I guess an issue that Muslims, in general, need to try to wrap their collective heads around is the simple fact that Muslims have not contributed much to the betterment of mankind in well over 500 years. There is no way to sugar-coat that fact. It doesn't take much thought to realize that Islam stifles any kind of creativity or original intellectual expression. If anything, it would seem to actively discourage either... and so we sit... being told fables about the splitting of the moon...

Frankly, it wouldn't be so sad if it wasn't for the fact that Muslims are serious about their weak assertions.

 

[gnostic]

Let me be perfectly clear. If there were even slight blemishes on the reputation of Muhammed, in the accounts of devout Muslims, I would be far more inclined to believe that this man was who he said he was. That might sound odd, but the idea that he was exemplary, in every conceivable way, is highly unrealistic to many non-Muslims. THAT is the point.

I could not have said it better. And that how I feel about scriptures and the so-called historical accounts of Muhammad.

It seemed he is even too perfect to be real.

And that's when I suspects this is like more legend than historical.

I wished I could give you more frubals here.

shouldn't god be smarter than humans, shouldn't the creator be more smarter than its creation. how can a human find errors in the scriptures from god. we muslims can't so doesn't that tell you that islam is the ture religion. many have said they have found erors in most scriptures and you certainly did say that or didn't you.

Eselam, eselam, eselam.

You're the one who believe that your god wrote the Qur'an. Not me.

From my perspective, your god didn't write a single word. If Muhammad couldn't write, then he spoke to his disciples, and they wrote them down. I believe that Muhammad or the disciples have diverge from the Tanakh, they invented some of their own stuff into the story.

I can give you an example, of Muslims inventing fables.

If the Qur'an doesn't have any errors, then do you expect me to believe that Solomon could speak to birds and ants, and command them as if they were part of his army?

Do you expect me that Solomon could also control an army of djinns, which I believed don't exist? A creature of fires and smokes?

Do you believe these about Solomon's skills literally as the Qur'an stated? Do you believe that Solomon can listen and understand what the ants are saying, and talk to them, like Doctor Dolittle?

I don't. There's definitely something about the bit of the Qur'an that don't sounds true.

It sounds too much like fable or fairytales. I love reading of mythology and fables and done quite extensive, but personal research of my own on the subjects, and the things about Solomon have all the hallmark of myth and fable.

There are parallel of this "skill" in Greek mythology. Seers (equivalent to your prophet), who not only prophecise, have visions, foretell the future, etc, but also talk to animals, like Melampus (who could talk to woodworms), Tiresias (who could communicate with snakes), and Mopsus (have the ability to communicate with birds).

Have you read the Tanakh or the Bible, eselam?

There not a single hint about Solomon can speak to animals. There is nothing to indicate he could control demons or djinns.

Either you prophet is telling a lie, or it one of the scribes' fault for including such ridiculous claims about Solomon.

You have to realize what non-Muslims might think of those passages about Solomon. Only a child could believe in something so unrealistic like this.

If you believe that a god would write something like this, then I must say that your god seemed to love writing falsehood, and spinning fantasy or fairytale.

 

[Gharib]

To be perfectly honest, Eselam, there is no reason that a Buddhist or an atheist could not write the most accurate book about Jesus to come along. All they would need are the facts.

oh, so it came to the facts now. well guess what???
there are facts about Muhammed(saws) and you fail to accept them so what else do you want me to say.

how would a buddhist be able to write about Jesus (as)?
he would start by reading the christian scripture,
so how do you know that the christian scripture hasn't been tampered with whent it comes to Jesus (as) just as you say we muslims have done about Muhemmed (saws) or instead Muhammed (saws) has done it himself.

you are proving your self wrong. why do that?

 

[Gharib]

It seemed he is even too perfect to be real.

well there is only one prophet named Muhammed (saws) not 100 so it does sound too good to be true if you do not believe in him.

And that's when I suspects this is like more legend than historical.

whats the difference?

I wished I could give you more frubals here.

too bad huh.

Eselam, eselam, eselam.
You're the one who believe that your god wrote the Qur'an. Not me.

god wrote the Kur'an, what are you saying? didn't i say that the scholars wrote it after Muhammed (saws) passed on. go read my previous posts again.

From my perspective, your god didn't write a single word. If Muhammad couldn't write, then he spoke to his disciples, and they wrote them down. I believe that Muhammad or the disciples have diverge from the Tanakh, they invented some of their own stuff into the story.

well if i was Muhammed (saws) and if i believed all of the verses of the Kur'an then what in the hell would i acheive if i changed some of the others around?
please wright something that makes sense, don't just write what comes to mind.

I can give you an example, of Muslims inventing fables.

what is that, i don't get it, please explain

If the Qur'an doesn't have any errors, then do you expect me to believe that Solomon could speak to birds and ants, and command them as if they were part of his army?

yeah ofcourse. you believe that jesus came back to life don't you. which of them is harder to accept? and please do not say that which i think you are.

Do you expect me that Solomon could also control an army of djinns, which I believed don't exist? A creature of fires and smokes?

yes again, he knew their language too by the way.
so tell me what do believe in. isn't religion part of faith, part of belief. religion isn't science there is no proof in religion there are only arguments. but one needs to be smart to understand them

Do you believe these about Solomon's skills literally as the Qur'an stated? Do you believe that Solomon can listen and understand what the ants are saying, and talk to them, like Doctor Dolittle?

yes i do believe that. you too believe that jesus is a god or son of god, don't you? so he is like Evan Almighty isn't he?

I don't. There's definitely something about the bit of the Qur'an that don't sounds true.

well the Kur'an isn't a made up story, and some things in it are hard to accept especially if you are a non muslim.
and by the way what bit of the Kur'an doesn't sound ture can you tell me, or did you just say that?

It sounds too much like fable or fairytales. I love reading of mythology and fables and done quite extensive, but personal research of my own on the subjects, and the things about Solomon have all the hallmark of myth and fable.

heres another myth for you. Jesus (as) came back to life after dying.
do you want another one? why not hey
prophet Jonah or something like that (i'm not very good at their names in english)
he lived inside a whale for quite some time and then came out. does that sound like Pinochio to you?

There are parallel of this "skill" in Greek mythology. Seers (equivalent to your prophet), who not only prophecise, have visions, foretell the future, etc, but also talk to animals, like Melampus (who could talk to woodworms), Tiresias (who could communicate with snakes), and Mopsus (have the ability to communicate with birds).

well if you base the islamic prophets to that then, then too bad for you

Have you read the Tanakh or the Bible, eselam?

why do you wish to ask a question about them? go ahead
i havn't read them and to tell you the truth what is the Tanakh i do not know

There not a single hint about Solomon can speak to animals. There is nothing to indicate he could control demons or djinns.

well who built his palace then. when a queen qent to his palace once she though that the floors were flooded but instead there were shining like mirrors. she lifter her dress so it doesn't get wet but then she got embarrased when she walked on it and saw that it wasn't water. he had the djins who did all the work for him.
and do you believe the "myths" about prophet Dawud (as), Solomons father.

Either you prophet is telling a lie, or it one of the scribes' fault for including such ridiculous claims about Solomon.

why haven't you said this my friend
Either your prophet is telling a lie or he is telling the truth and i cannot distinguish between them.
that is a more accurate answer and it doesn't make you look bad.

You have to realize what non-Muslims might think of those passages about Solomon. Only a child could believe in something so unrealistic like this.

well only a child could beleive that the dead can awake but you believe that too don't you. are you making your self equal to a child?

If you believe that a god would write something like this, then I must say that your god seemed to love writing falsehood, and spinning fantasy or fairytale.

well didn't you ever think that it was god ho gave Solomon (as) that gift, the gift to talk to animals, to controll the djinns. so why would god be writting falsehood information.

 

[gnostic]

heres another myth for you. Jesus (as) came back to life after dying.
do you want another one? why not hey
prophet Jonah or something like that (i'm not very good at their names in english)
he lived inside a whale for quite some time and then came out. does that sound like Pinochio to you?

Did I say that I believe in the bible about Jesus' resurrection? Or about Jonah?

As I have stated to you before, eselam, I am not a Christian.

Do I believe that the resurrection is a myth? I'd say yes.

Do you believe in resurrection? Obviously you do, since you believe in going to paradise or hell.

I also believe that the creation, the flood and Abraham are all myths.

You haven't answer some of my earlier questions.

Have you ever read the bible?

If you have then you would find no where does it say that Solomon can speak to the animals as your Qur'an have claim.

Do you believe Solomon can speak and listen to ants?

 

[YmirGF]

oh, so it came to the facts now. well guess what???
there are facts about Muhammed(saws) and you fail to accept them so what else do you want me to say.

You just don't get it, do you, Eselam. What would I like you to say? How about - "I, Eselam, don't really have the foggiest idea what I am talking about." That might be a good start.

how would a buddhist be able to write about Jesus? he would start by reading the christian scripture. So how do you know that the christian scripture hasn't been tampered with whent it comes to Jesus, just as you say we muslims have done about Muhemmed (saws) or instead Muhammed (saws) has done it himself.

You are mixing ideas here, friend. First you asked who would be best to write about such legendary personalities, making the assumption that one of their devout followers would be the best choice. The point you seemed to miss in your enthusiasm to ever-correct the thinking of others is that there is no obstacle in the way of a Buddhist or Scientologist from becoming the world's foremost authority on the subject. Since there is no way to verifiy authenticity in either case (Jesus or Muhammed) one should err on the side of caution and treat them as somewhat fanciful tales. In theory, only abject fools would accept these ancient accounts as being accurate.

you are proving your self wrong. why do that?

Ok, how... in your mind... am I proving myself wrong? Is this a weak attempt at suggesting that you have somehow managed to defeat my thinking?

 

[Gharib]

I also believe that the creation, the flood and Abraham are all myths.

i think you need to revise this. it wasn't Araham (as) it was Noah (as)

You haven't answer some of my earlier questions.

Have you ever read the bible?

i thought i answerd this. no i havn't

If you have then you would find no where does it say that Solomon can speak to the animals as your Qur'an have claim.

well the Kur'an is the scripture of Islam where as the Bible is the scripture of Christianity. why would you expect them to be that similar. they do have similarities but not word by word. was this going to be your second question

Do you believe Solomon can speak and listen to ants?

didn't i say yes. if i didn't then here goes, yes he did talk/hear the animals

 

[gnostic]

i think you need to revise this. it wasn't Araham (as) it was Noah (as)

No. You've misunderstood me. I don't believe in the Flood AND Abraham.

well the Kur'an is the scripture of Islam where as the Bible is the scripture of Christianity. why would you expect them to be that similar. they do have similarities but not word by word. was this going to be your second question

For most texts in the Old Testament, I relied on not the Bible, but the Hebrew Tanakh. I got myself a copy of the Tanakh a few years ago.

didn't i say yes. if i didn't then here goes, yes he did talk/hear the animals

In any case, both scriptures were the same. It speak of Solomon gaining wisdom, not gaining the ability of speaking to animals.

If Solomon had actually known to speak to animals, don't you think that the Hebrew scholars would have included in the Book of Kings or the Chronicles? But it was completely silence about it.

Except for the one time, when the serpent talked to Adam and Eve and the serpent was talking in human tongue, there were no other incidents where man and animals could communicate with one and another in the Bible.

So I think it was Muhammad's invention or the scribes' invention and inclusion into the myth of Solomon.

 

[Gharib]

You just don't get it, do you, Eselam. What would I like you to say? How about - "I, Eselam, don't really have the foggiest idea what I am talking about." That might be a good start.

well are you copying my replies then. i said something similar to gnostic and you used that on me. still i think it is a clever thing to do though. you know most people are good at making questions but when one gives them a taste of their own medicine they hate it i think. well i don't, i just think that was a clever thing.

You are mixing ideas here, friend. First you asked who would be best to write about such legendary personalities, making the assumption that one of their devout followers would be the best choice. The point you seemed to miss in your enthusiasm to ever-correct the thinking of others is that there is no obstacle in the way of a Buddhist or Scientologist from becoming the world's foremost authority on the subject. Since there is no way to verifiy authenticity in either case (Jesus or Muhammed) one should err on the side of caution and treat them as somewhat fanciful tales. In theory, only abject fools would accept these ancient accounts as being accurate.

sorry i don'tget this

Ok, how... in your mind... am I proving myself wrong? Is this a weak attempt at suggesting that you have somehow managed to defeat my thinking?

this is a good reply too, i was just messing with you, sorry.
i wanted to see your reply to it.

 

[Gharib]

No. You've misunderstood me. I don't believe in the Flood AND Abraham.

sorry for missing that, friend

For most texts in the Old Testament, I relied on not the Bible, but the Hebrew Tanakh. I got myself a copy of the Tanakh a few years ago.

oh, can i ask you a question?
here goes: is there anything mentioned in the Tanakh about Muhammed (saws) or i think he is refferd to as Ahmed (saws) in the Tanakh. Ahmed is another name of Muhammed (saws) so is Mustafa and some others as well.
and what does the Tanakh say about heaven, the after life,
i think it would be a good idea if a new thread was oppened in comparative religion i like to know some jewish perspectives on some things, i just like to know what they think.

In any case, both scriptures were the same. It speak of Solomon gaining wisdom, not gaining the ability of speaking to animals.

yeah so you see how they are the same, from Allah but they have some extra added information. they aren't completely the same but some similarities.
he got the wisdom ever since he was a child, when his father was a prophet still and a ruler of that time.

If Solomon had actually known to speak to animals, don't you think that the Hebrew scholars would have included in the Book of Kings or the Chronicles? But it was completely silence about it.

well they would have but guess what?
the jews didn't accept Solomon nor his father. Solomon was chosen as a prophet many years after Musa (as) / Moses (as) but because he was not born to one of their tribes (an islraeli tribe or jewish tribe) they did not accept him, just as they didn't accept Isa (as) and Muhammed (saws). Musa (as) was born inot their tribe in egypt along with them. and by my guess i am pretty sure that thay mya reffer to Musa (as) as their father or something like that, a father figure maybe.
but they do mention the other prophets too.
and hang on why would the jewish scholars add that information that book, the book is from god isn't it. or are the jews adding information to is as time goes.
god may have explain it in a different way then so that people understand it. i mean if you tolled a jew or anyother person who lived during that time that people will go to space, who would have believed that? or that people would be able to fly (with the aid of machinery)

Except for the one time, when the serpent talked to Adam and Eve and the serpent was talking in human tongue, there were no other incidents where man and animals could communicate with one and another in the Bible.

well if you accept that then why not accept the other? if Allah was able to make the snake to talk in human language then how can you say that Allah cannot make humans speak and/or understand an animal language or the djinn language. its the sme thing.

So I think it was Muhammad's invention or the scribes' invention and inclusion into the myth of Solomon.

look it's not a myth. it's true but you do not accept it. so say that you do not accept it instead of calling it a myth.
and no one added or invented anything. why is this so hard to accept. Muhammed (saws) only passed on that wich was passed down onto him through Jebraeel (as)/Gabriel (as), thats it.

 

[gnostic]

well if you accept that then why not accept the other?

But I don't accept it.

You see, the comparison with the literature between the Judaeo-Christian and Muslim scriptures differed widely, and because the Islamic scripture was written centuries after the others, Islam was bound to do make change to suit Muhammad and his Arabic followers, that won't include Jews and Christians.

The beauty of it, is that Muhammad can fabricate whatever he want, even make up foolish and nonsensical story of Solomon speaking to ants and controlling army of djinns, that only a child would believe.