Qur'an Vs Bible Vs Bhagavad Gita Vs None

[Ella S.]

And rape happens for many secular reason too. Should we take out secular philosophy?

For starters, yes, I would condemn any secular philosophy that promotes rape just as I do religious ones. Don't you?

Secondly, this is a false comparison, because secular philosophers are academics. They submit their ideas to peer-review. This is not the case with scriptural dogma. Contradicting scripture is far more taboo than disagreeing with, say, John Stewart Mill or Jean Paul Sartre.

Because philosophers aren't claiming to speak for God, but providing their own understandings of the world that other people may or may not agree with. If someone uses philosophy to rationalize raping someone, that's completely different from someone who thinks it is their divine duty to rape someone. The former is still acting completely of their own volition, without any divine pressure.

I'm also not advocating that we "take out" religious books. That wasn't the question. The question was whether I felt these books were good, and my answer is, no. Any book that can be misunderstood to promote something so awful is, at best, poorly communicated.

That's why in secular philosophy we have later philosophers who build upon and elucidate the ideas of the philosophers that came before them, even being allowed to outright disagree with them, which is something you don't have with dogma. Scriptural interpretation is always going to be bound by the exact words of the source text, and it's always going to carry the connotations of divine authority, which just aren't problems you see with secular philosophies.

In other words, religion destroys critical thinking by forbidding questions and demanding to be seen as transcendentally correct. That idea alone is corrosive and toxic, and it leads to more harm than just rape.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you don't think burning someone to death is a violent act?

You took that out of context.
I said: That is not a violent act. It is justice for one who has committed a violent act.
No, I do not think it is a violent act, I think it might be justice under certain circumstances.

Arson is damage to property, not violence against a person.

That Law only applies if people were deliberately burned in an arson fire.

But Bahaullah decreed it and he is the infallible messenger of god. You have no doubts about his laws. Even if he said that left is now right, you must simply accept it.
So, how can you claim that a group of Baha'is can change what Baha'u'llah has decreed. You have previously stated that this can never happen.
(As usual, you flip flop your position depending on the circumstances).

The UHJ can legislate on the Laws, when they are to be applied and how to apply them. For example, if Baha'u'llah allowed either capitol punishment or life in prison, they can decide which sentence to impose.

Ah, so you mean that both burning and life imprisonment are the prescribed punishments, not that burning might be abolished.

Burning will remain in the Law as a possible punishment but it might never be the imposed sentence.

Under Bahai law, arsonists can be burned to death.

Only if the UHJ decided that was the appropriate punishment. That might never happen, so why even think about it?

 

[Trailblazer]

There are many countries where capital punishment is not necessary. So where it is used, it is done for its own sake.
It is also known that it is not a deterrent. And due to miscarriages of justice, it is clearly nut a just punishment.
It is simply violent revenge.

Fact: There are many countries where capital punishment is not used.
Fact: Capital punishment is not a deterrent.
Fact: Sometimes there are miscarriages of justice, if an innocent person is put do death.

Opinion: So where it is used, it is done for its own sake.
Opinion: It is simply violent revenge.

"The law of Bahá’u’lláh prescribes the death penalty for murder and arson, with the alternative of life imprisonment (see note 87).

In His Tablets ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explains the difference between revenge and punishment. He affirms that individuals do not have the right to take revenge, that revenge is despised in the eyes of God, and that the motive for punishment is not vengeance, but the imposition of a penalty for the committed offence. In Some Answered Questions, He confirms that it is the right of society to impose punishments on criminals for the purpose of protecting its members and defending its existence.

With regard to this provision, Shoghi Effendi in a letter written on his behalf gives the following explanation:

In the Aqdas Bahá’u’lláh has given death as the penalty for murder. However, He has permitted life imprisonment as an alternative. Both practices would be in accordance with His Laws. Some of us may not be able to grasp the wisdom of this when it disagrees with our own limited vision; but we must accept it, knowing His Wisdom, His Mercy and His Justice are perfect and for the salvation of the entire world. If a man were falsely condemned to die, can we not believe Almighty God would compensate him a thousandfold, in the next world, for this human injustice? You cannot give up a salutary law just because on rare occasions the innocent may be punished.

The details of the Bahá’í law of punishment for murder and arson, a law designed for a future state of society, were not specified by Bahá’u’lláh. The various details of the law, such as degrees of offence, whether extenuating circumstances are to be taken into account, and which of the two prescribed punishments is to be the norm are left to the Universal House of Justice to decide in light of prevailing conditions when the law is to be in operation. The manner in which the punishment is to be carried out is also left to the Universal House of Justice to decide.

In relation to arson, this depends on what “house” is burned. There is obviously a tremendous difference in the degree of offence between the person who burns down an empty warehouse and one who sets fire to a school full of children."

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, pp. 203-204

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe that God knows more about his creations then Bahaullah does.

I believe that Baha'u'llah knew what God knows since He was a Manifestation of God.

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

I believe that the only way we can know anything about what God knows is through a Manifestation of God.

The nice thing about God is that he allows you to continue to follow whom ever you choose and never does he force truth onto anyone who does not wish to believe it.

He is truly worthy of our devotion and our attention.

I agree.

 

[Windwalker]

There is nothing mythical in the macroscopic reality I inhabit. The world in which I operate is quite real.

As is the world to those who live within mythic/magic systems of reality. It's all just created structures based upon language and symbols that we find common reference points within, including the language and systems of science.

Everybody thinks their reality is true reality. Until you reach a certain point and can recognize they are all constructs of reality, and are not necessarily "reality as it is". Everything we believe to be "reality" is a mediated reality through common languages and symbols. All of it.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I didn't mention "fighting" there. I was talking about the punishment for speeding mischief - which the Quran states is death, crucifixion (death by torture), or dismemberment (probable death by torture).

Before the conquest of Mecca, the Quraysh sent an emissary to Muhammad to ask for peace. Muhammad refused to see him and invaded Mecca anyway. So, why didn't Muhammad follow the rules?

Verse 8:39 instructs Muslims to fight disbelievers "until all religion is for Allah". That contradicts the idea of not fighting disbelievers who want to be left alone in their own lands with their own faith. This is confirmed by several sahih hadith where Muhammad states "I have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to islam. Then their blood and property will be protected".

Apparently not. ^

Only if you selectively edit it. If you read it as a whole, the message includes aggressive military action as a means of gaining property, power and converts. There were conditions placed on how those campaigns should be conducted, but the claim of "only fight in self defence" simply does not stand up to scriptural or historical examination. I guess it probably sounds quite comforting though.

You keep playing the same broken record. There are verses that appear conciliatory, and there are verses that are antagonistic. You need to read the Quran as a whole, not just cherry-pick verses out of context to suit your agenda.

We will just have to agree to disagree. We are getting nowhere with this. Of course I read the Quran but I see it differently to you.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I notice you failed to provide an example of me being critical of individual Muslims. Thought as much.

And what about when they cite specific passages from the Quran and sunnah as justification?

"Hatred and animosity towards disbelievers until they accept Islam is a good example to follow" - 60:4
"The punishment for spreading mischief is that they be crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides" - 5:33 ("Evil" is a subjective concept, but torturing people to death is pretty evil in my book. How about you?)
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." - 9:29 (That sounds pretty prejudiced towards non-Muslims, not to say aggressive)

Are you high? I have repeatedly provided detailed arguments and responses, with references. Yet you keep ignoring them.

Two problems there.
1. The Quran was produced by Muhammad to promote his own claim to be a messenger of god, so it is not an objective record.
2. When we consult records from other people recording Muhammad's words and deeds, he was clearly at times violent and intolerant.

Like so many salty apologists, you seem to completely misunderstand the point of religious debate forums. You present your arguments, I present mine, and so forth, trying to identify flaws or weaknesses, presenting evidence, etc, in an attempt to establish which argument is more valid.

You don't have to come on here and present your beliefs for examination, but if you do, you can't complain when people examine them.

I know what I’m talking about and have read the Quran but I see it differently to you.

What have you read of the Baha’i perspective of Muhammad and the Quran? Anything? I have been at jihad Watch and such sites for years listening to their arguments so I am aware of both the anti and pro Islam views.

The Baha’i view is based on the infallible Word of God we believe. We believe that each religion prophecies a Promised One and that Baha’u’llah is that One and that His Word is the Word of God and infallible. And He doesn’t uphold all these things your accusing Islam of and He’s a Messenger of God.

His Son Abdul-Baha did say that the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties destroyed Islam but we are also aware that Islam was prophesied in the Bible.

Self assertion and personal interpretation don’t quite supplant what an infallible Prophet of God has stated. It is agreed Muslims committed atrocities but not because of the Quran or Muhammad but in disobedience to it.

I am fully aware of your views which you are fully entitled to, as well as the views of those like Robert Spencer and co, and the Muslim viewpoints Sunni and Shiah and the Baha’i viewpoint. And I believe the Baha’i explanation to be the most credible.

But how did I arrive at this understanding! Years of study including all those I mentioned above and the Baha’i viewpoint. There is a lot of information regarding Islam scattered throughout many Baha’i Books and I had to find them and research them. That took years not just a few posts like between you and I.

So I’m fully aware of the views going around but accept the Baha’i one as the most accurate because I believe it comes from God not just any individual with an opinion. The Quran and it’s interpretation has split Islam into many sects. They each maintain they have the correct interpretation. You are claiming your views are correct.

I am referring not to myself but the Writings of Baha’u’llah and other infallible sources and it’s for you and others to study them if you wish and then decide for yourself whether they are true or not.

But the Baha’i view is simply that Muhammad was a Perfect and flawless Person and that He taught peace and that the Quran is the infallible Word of God without error and was what was in the best interests of the people for that age.

If you dispute this then seek out the Writings of Baha’u’llah, Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi which we Baha’is consider to be infallible.

I’ve done the research including the Baha’i Writings. I don’t believe we are on the same page until you have investigated what the Baha’i Writings say but I am aware of all these views that accuse Islam etc of being violent etc and I reject that view because it’s just an interpretation.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I notice you failed to provide an example of me being critical of individual Muslims. Thought as much.

And what about when they cite specific passages from the Quran and sunnah as justification?

"Hatred and animosity towards disbelievers until they accept Islam is a good example to follow" - 60:4
"The punishment for spreading mischief is that they be crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides" - 5:33 ("Evil" is a subjective concept, but torturing people to death is pretty evil in my book. How about you?)
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." - 9:29 (That sounds pretty prejudiced towards non-Muslims, not to say aggressive)

Are you high? I have repeatedly provided detailed arguments and responses, with references. Yet you keep ignoring them.

Two problems there.
1. The Quran was produced by Muhammad to promote his own claim to be a messenger of god, so it is not an objective record.
2. When we consult records from other people recording Muhammad's words and deeds, he was clearly at times violent and intolerant.

Like so many salty apologists, you seem to completely misunderstand the point of religious debate forums. You present your arguments, I present mine, and so forth, trying to identify flaws or weaknesses, presenting evidence, etc, in an attempt to establish which argument is more valid.

You don't have to come on here and present your beliefs for examination, but if you do, you can't complain when people examine them.

With regards my previous post about Baha’i Writings.

Here are a couple. Baha’is have a different viewpoint based on a Manifestation of God’s exposition but God knows and sees everything. Here Baha’u’llah and Shoghi Effendi are fully aware of problems just that they disagree with you regarding Muhammad and the Quran.


Muhammad, the Apostle of God, bewaileth, in the all-highest Paradise, their acts." " (Baha'u'llah)


A day shall be witnessed by My people," their own traditions condemn them, "whereon there will have remained of Islám naught but a name, and of the Qur'án naught but a mere appearance. The doctors of that age shall be the most evil the world hath ever seen. Mischief hath proceeded from them, and on them it will recoil.”

Excerpt From: Effendi, Shoghi. “The Promised Day Is Come.” Bahá’í eBooks

Blessing and peace be upon Him (Muhammad) through Whose advent Bathá is wreathed in smiles, and the sweet savours of Whose raiment have shed fragrance upon all mankind—He Who came to protect men from that which would harm them in the world below. Exalted, immensely exalted is His station above the glorification of all beings and sanctified from the praise of the entire creation. Through His advent the tabernacle of stability and order was raised throughout the world and the ensign of knowledge hoisted among the nations. May blessings rest also upon His kindred and His companions through whom the standard of the unity of God and of His singleness was uplifted and the banners of celestial triumph were unfurled. Through them the religion of God was firmly established among His creatures and His Name magnified amidst His servants. I entreat Him—exalted is He—to shield His Faith from the mischief of His enemies who tore away the veils, rent them asunder and finally caused the banner of Islám to be reversed amongst all peoples. (Baha’u’llah)

 

[loverofhumanity]

I didn't mention "fighting" there. I was talking about the punishment for speeding mischief - which the Quran states is death, crucifixion (death by torture), or dismemberment (probable death by torture).

Before the conquest of Mecca, the Quraysh sent an emissary to Muhammad to ask for peace. Muhammad refused to see him and invaded Mecca anyway. So, why didn't Muhammad follow the rules?

Verse 8:39 instructs Muslims to fight disbelievers "until all religion is for Allah". That contradicts the idea of not fighting disbelievers who want to be left alone in their own lands with their own faith. This is confirmed by several sahih hadith where Muhammad states "I have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to islam. Then their blood and property will be protected".

Apparently not. ^

Only if you selectively edit it. If you read it as a whole, the message includes aggressive military action as a means of gaining property, power and converts. There were conditions placed on how those campaigns should be conducted, but the claim of "only fight in self defence" simply does not stand up to scriptural or historical examination. I guess it probably sounds quite comforting though.

You keep playing the same broken record. There are verses that appear conciliatory, and there are verses that are antagonistic. You need to read the Quran as a whole, not just cherry-pick verses out of context to suit your agenda.

This is a short history about Muhammad from the Baha’i perspective. This is what we Baha’is believe is the real truth regarding Muhammad, the Quran and Islam.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 18-24

 

[loverofhumanity]

I didn't mention "fighting" there. I was talking about the punishment for speeding mischief - which the Quran states is death, crucifixion (death by torture), or dismemberment (probable death by torture).

Before the conquest of Mecca, the Quraysh sent an emissary to Muhammad to ask for peace. Muhammad refused to see him and invaded Mecca anyway. So, why didn't Muhammad follow the rules?

Verse 8:39 instructs Muslims to fight disbelievers "until all religion is for Allah". That contradicts the idea of not fighting disbelievers who want to be left alone in their own lands with their own faith. This is confirmed by several sahih hadith where Muhammad states "I have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to islam. Then their blood and property will be protected".

Apparently not. ^

Only if you selectively edit it. If you read it as a whole, the message includes aggressive military action as a means of gaining property, power and converts. There were conditions placed on how those campaigns should be conducted, but the claim of "only fight in self defence" simply does not stand up to scriptural or historical examination. I guess it probably sounds quite comforting though.

You keep playing the same broken record. There are verses that appear conciliatory, and there are verses that are antagonistic. You need to read the Quran as a whole, not just cherry-pick verses out of context to suit your agenda.

Another accusation is that of intolerance when the Quran teaches the exact opposite!

Do Jews or Christians accept Muhammad? Who is being really intolerant here because this is what the Quran teaches.

Truly those believers in this message, as well as the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabeans, whoever believes in God and in the Last Day and does righteous deeds will have their reward from their Lord, and will not have fear, nor will they grieve.(2:62

To become a Muslim one must accept all the Prophets gone before such as Moses and Jesus. You will not find anywhere Muslims condemning Jesus but anywhere in Christian Bible commentaries and articles they condemn Muhammad as ‘Satan’ and evil etc. The intolerance is taught by Christian priests not Jesus. But the Quran praises Jesus. There is absolutely no case whatsoever against the Quran or Muhammad promoting intolerance.

Further, the Constitution of Medina, the first constitution in human history protecting the rights of religious minorities 1300 years before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a tolerant act.

So much of western democracies is based upon ideas taught by Muhammad and much scientific knowledge was transmitted to the west via Andalusia.

Focusing solely on a view of violence is a gross injustice to the significant contribution Islam has gifted to humanity. Rather than be honest and grateful, unfortunately some seem to feel it an act of moral bravery to go on a witch hunt in order to demean and slander one of the greatest gifts God has given humanity Prophet Muhammad and the Quran.

But humans as we are, we are free to believe what we will. So if you feel Islam is evil or violent then that’s your opinion. I and others choose differ.

 

[joelr]

The Gita is what I was referring to with regards to the war within. My personal view is that prayer helps us psyche ourselves up more acutely to fight this inner battle.

Meditation may as well. Whatever works.

 

[ppp]

Another accusation is that of intolerance when the Quran teaches the exact opposite!

Just like the NT and the Torah, the Koran is a big bag of multiple choice. It teaches tolerance in some places and it teaches intolerance and others. As a result readers cherry pick the parts they want to tout and ignore all of the text that does not support their views.

Further, the Constitution of Medina, the first constitution in human history protecting the rights of religious minorities 1300 years before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a tolerant act.

So much of western democracies is based upon ideas taught by Muhammad and much scientific knowledge was transmitted to the west via Andalusia.

The concepts of religious tolerance come from many places. The pre-fundamentalist Islamic Empire is certainly one of those places. But I suspect that the pre-Christian Roman Empire was more proximate in time and space. Also Greek Alexandria and that Persian empire that was active against the Babylonians were certainly of influence..

 

[KWED]

This is a short history about Muhammad from the Baha’i perspective. This is what we Baha’is believe is the real truth regarding Muhammad, the Quran and Islam.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 18-24

Sorry, but that is just a propaganda piece. It is some way removed from the details in the oldest, most authentic Islamic and historical records available.
Of course, I understand why Bahais would want to sanitise Muhammad's story. However, the unquestioning acceptance of such an obvious puff piece contradicts Bahais claims of "thorough investigation".

I don't want to clutter up this thread with a long critique of that essay, so I will start a new thread later and tag you.

 

[KWED]

Another accusation is that of intolerance when the Quran teaches the exact opposite!

But I quoted passages that preach intolerance, so you claim that it teaches only tolerance is without merit or evidence.

To become a Muslim one must accept all the Prophets gone before such as Moses and Jesus.

Nut you must also accept that Muhammad was the last prophet. Jews and Christians do not do that.

You will not find anywhere Muslims condemning Jesus

But they always condemn the Christian idea of Jesus - which is absolutely central to Christianity.

but anywhere in Christian Bible commentaries and articles they condemn Muhammad as ‘Satan’ and evil etc.

I have never seen Muhammad referred to in any way in any Bible commentary. References please.

The intolerance is taught by Christian priests not Jesus.

I agree that Christianity is also intolerant of those who reject Jesus as saviour, just as Islam is intolerant of those who reject Muhammad as god's final prophet.

But the Quran praises Jesus. There is absolutely no case whatsoever against the Quran or Muhammad promoting intolerance.

So because Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet of god, therefore it cannot be intolerant of disbelievers?

Further, the Constitution of Medina, the first constitution in human history protecting the rights of religious minorities 1300 years before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a tolerant act.

As long as you submit to Islam.
You seem to have ignored those passages from the Quran that I quoted that clearly exhibit intolerance towards those who reject Islam.

So much of western democracies is based upon ideas taught by Muhammad

Such as?

and much scientific knowledge was transmitted to the west via Andalusia.

And so much scientific knowledge was transmitted to Andalusia via the Muslim conquest of Persia. Was there a point?

Focusing solely on a view of violence

Dear god! How many times do I have to repeat this. Islam is a religion of peace and violence, tolerance and intolerance, equality and discrimination.
You are the one insisting that it is only peace, tolerance and equality.

is a gross injustice to the significant contribution Islam has gifted to humanity.

"Islam" has provided little of benefit to humanity. However, there was a period in the 8th-9th centuries when "Muslims" preserved and added to the knowledge they acquires through the conquest of Persia, where the body of Greek knowledge had been preserved and built upon. Those advances were based on rational enquiry, observation, experimentation, not on scripture.

Rather than be honest and grateful, unfortunately some seem to feel it an act of moral bravery to go on a witch hunt in order to demean and slander one of the greatest gifts God has given humanity Prophet Muhammad and the Quran.

Repeating dogmatic platitudes does not constitute an argument.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You mean, like . . . days of the week, months, holidays, wind chimes, wedding rings, tombstones, planets, movies, TV shows, theatre, novels, video games, Midas tires, Trident gum, constellations, Orion Pictures, Ajax household cleaner, Apollo Theater, Mercury, Mars candy bars, the Olympics, Phoenix Arizona, Atlas Van, Nike shoes, FTD Florist logo, Spartans sports teams, Cereal, Apollo Space Program, Pandora Jewelry, Amazon, male names like Jason, Troy, Damon, Michael, Elijah, female names like Rhea, Penelope, Phoebe, Helen, car names like Apollo, Eos, Titan, Taurus, Versace label, the symbol for Medicine, architecture, Battlestar Galactica, Frankenstein, geometric art, astronomy . . . do you think that the primitive superstitious people who were allegedly trying to figure out what the world around them was all about didn't formulate some compendium of knowledge which permeated every aspect of all cultures that ever existed or just pottery shards and a few cave paintings? they weren't trying to figure the world out they were creating it. You're surrounded by the mythical everyday and you don't even know it? Good luck (another mythological concept) with the reality you inhabit. Science, education, medicine, evolution, law. philosophy, ethics, morality, marriage . . . where do you think those things come from?

Fascinating that you should mention marriage, your last one!

The fact that the concept has permeated every society, extending back through millennia, though many of these cultures are unrelated, stands as a testament to the Bible and it’s divine origin. Coupled with the Bible’s guidelines on how husbands should love their wives, and vice versa.

IMO.

And its benefit to society can be appreciated, as we observe more and more people embracing promiscuity, straying away from marital unions….and this has resulted in children suffering, being unloved and unwanted.

 

[KWED]

The concepts of religious tolerance come from many places.

The ultimate irony here is that pre-Islamic Mecca was a paragon of religious tolerance. Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Arab Pagans all worshiping peacefully alongside each other. It was a place of pilgrimage for many different faiths. Another one was not a big deal.
It wasn't until Muhammad started attacking the existing system and blaspheming against people's gods, insulting their ancestors, etc, that people started to get pissed off.
Even then they offered compromises that Muhammad rejected but even so it took over 10 years for things to finally come to a head.

Can you imagine what would happen to someone behaving like that in Muhammd's Medina? They wouldn't have lasted 10 days, never mind 10 years!

 

[loverofhumanity]

Just like the NT and the Torah, the Koran is a big bag of multiple choice. It teaches tolerance in some places and it teaches intolerance and others. As a result readers cherry pick the parts they want to tout and ignore all of the text that does not support their views.



The concepts of religious tolerance come from many places. The pre-fundamentalist Islamic Empire is certainly one of those places. But I suspect that the pre-Christian Roman Empire was more proximate in time and space. Also Greek Alexandria and that Persian empire that was active against the Babylonians were certainly of influence..

My understanding is that one can only do this if they take verses out of context. For example a famous quote used by anti Islamists ‘kill them wherever you find them’. But the verses before say ‘do not attack unless attacked first’. So playing on peoples ignorance it’s easy to fool them into thinking the Quran teaches violence and hatred but it doesn’t when studied in context.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Sorry, but that is just a propaganda piece. It is some way removed from the details in the oldest, most authentic Islamic and historical records available.
Of course, I understand why Bahais would want to sanitise Muhammad's story. However, the unquestioning acceptance of such an obvious puff piece contradicts Bahais claims of "thorough investigation".

I don't want to clutter up this thread with a long critique of that essay, so I will start a new thread later and tag you.

Ok. Thanks for reading it even though you don’t agree.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But I quoted passages that preach intolerance, so you claim that it teaches only tolerance is without merit or evidence.

Nut you must also accept that Muhammad was the last prophet. Jews and Christians do not do that.

But they always condemn the Christian idea of Jesus - which is absolutely central to Christianity.

I have never seen Muhammad referred to in any way in any Bible commentary. References please.

I agree that Christianity is also intolerant of those who reject Jesus as saviour, just as Islam is intolerant of those who reject Muhammad as god's final prophet.

So because Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet of god, therefore it cannot be intolerant of disbelievers?

As long as you submit to Islam.
You seem to have ignored those passages from the Quran that I quoted that clearly exhibit intolerance towards those who reject Islam.

Such as?

And so much scientific knowledge was transmitted to Andalusia via the Muslim conquest of Persia. Was there a point?

Dear god! How many times do I have to repeat this. Islam is a religion of peace and violence, tolerance and intolerance, equality and discrimination.
You are the one insisting that it is only peace, tolerance and equality.

"Islam" has provided little of benefit to humanity. However, there was a period in the 8th-9th centuries when "Muslims" preserved and added to the knowledge they acquires through the conquest of Persia, where the body of Greek knowledge had been preserved and built upon. Those advances were based on rational enquiry, observation, experimentation, not on scripture.

Repeating dogmatic platitudes does not constitute an argument.

Yes I agree we need to respect the OP and if we wish to continue this then create another thread.

Apologies to the OP. I didn’t mean to hijack this thread.

 

[joelr]

Fascinating that you should mention marriage, your last one!

The fact that the concept has permeated every society, extending back through millennia, though many of these cultures are unrelated, stands as a testament to the Bible and it’s divine origin. Coupled with the Bible’s guidelines on how husbands should love their wives, and vice versa.

IMO.

And its benefit to society can be appreciated, as we observe more and more people embracing promiscuity, straying away from marital union, and children suffering.

How could marriage possibly stand as a testament to the Bibles divine origin? Marriage goes way back before the Israelites and all religions starting with the Sumerians had marriage and laws about marriage? Why would that make one religion that is full of re-worked stories from older cultures the "divine" one?

I knew the
myths were just taken from other religions but even Proverbs isn't original:

The Book of Proverbs is an example of the biblical wisdom literature,
" The third unit, 22:17–24:22, is headed "bend your ear and hear the words of the wise". A large part of this section is a recasting of a second-millennium BCE Egyptian work, the Instruction of Amenemope, and may have reached the Hebrew author(s) through an Aramaic translation.
The "wisdom" genre was widespread throughout the ancient Near East, and reading Proverbs alongside the examples recovered from Egypt and Mesopotamia reveals the common ground shared by international wisdom."

I just heard Hebrew Bible Professor Fransesca Stravopolou talking about how the way Yahweh is described in Exodus and older books is exactly the way all deities were written about for thousands of years before that. After Israel was attacked there is writings about how Yahweh has to "wake up" from his slumber. She showed similar older writings (by thousands of years) about people trying to awaken Inanna from her slumber.