Should we fear Islam?

[Composer]

Actually in the book I read for a college course, the historian argued that like most founders of new religions, Muhammad didn't intend to create a religion and would not recognize "Islam" since it was packaged and crystallized by his followers after his death.

I disagree because IF the Qur'an were truly the legitimate Words of a God and an organisation/group/sect etc. calling itself Islam and were following it and applying it 100% then that would be testimony that Islam is a legitimate representitive of the Qur'an.

Ba'al has now assured us that NO such a group currently exists and ALL that do currently exist are frauds that fail to correctly follow the Qur'an. (See his latest Post here)

 

[.lava]

I disagree because IF the Qur'an were truly the legitimate Words of a God and an organisation/group/sect etc. calling itself Islam and were following it and applying it 100% then that would be testimony that Islam is a legitimate representitive of the Qur'an.

Ba'al has now assured us that NO such a group currently exists and ALL that do currently exist are frauds that fail to correctly follow the Qur'an. (See his latest Post here)

what Ba'al said and what you understood from it are two seperated things. he did not call anyone "fraud". it is your assumption and i personally find it distrubing you're changing the meanings of what other members say. is it too difficult just to accept you disagree? i assure you you won't be the first one or the last

.

 

[Autodidact]

Again the question and your fundamental problem is before you as I stated -

" You have NO legitimate evidence that Allah said anything at all? "

Composer: please take this to another thread, it is not relevant to this one. Thanks.

 

[Composer]

Composer: please take this to another thread, it is not relevant to this one. Thanks.

Ok, I have started a New Thread - http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...al-flaw-common-all-religions.html#post1934275

Thanks for your indulgence here.

 

[Composer]

what Ba'al said and what you understood from it are two seperated things. he did not call anyone "fraud". it is your assumption and i personally find it distrubing you're changing the meanings of what other members say. is it too difficult just to accept you disagree? i assure you you won't be the first one or the last

.

Ba'al has now confirmed he doesn't believe ANY group currently calling themselves Muslems are genuine and strictly follow the Qur'an.

Common sense alone therefore dictates that makes them ALL frauds!

We should therefore be most concerned and fearful of pretenders and frauds proclaiming their own corrupt form of allegd Qur'an based Islam and according to Ba'al's comments, that includes ALL the groups claiming (allbeit falsely) to be legitimate strictly Qur'an believing Muslems today.

 

[McBell]

Ba'al has now confirmed he doesn't believe ANY group currently calling themselves Muslems are genuine and strictly follow the Qur'an.

Common sense alone therefore dictates that makes them ALL frauds!

Um...
What makes Ba'al's opinion on the matter the absolute final answer?

Seems your desperation is poking through again.

 

[Composer]

Um...
What makes Ba'al's opinion on the matter the absolute final answer?

Seems your desperation is poking through again.

So you disagree with Ba'al?

That's interesting also. So much confusion even amongst so called Moslem supporters?

Which group do you believe is the legitimate one then and strictly adheres to ' true Qur'anic teachings? '

This is great!

 

[.lava]

Ba'al has now confirmed he doesn't believe ANY group currently calling themselves Muslems are genuine and strictly follow the Qur'an.

Common sense alone therefore dictates that makes them ALL frauds!

We should therefore be most concerned and fearful of pretenders and frauds proclaiming their own corrupt form of allegd Qur'an based Islam and according to Ba'al's comments, that includes ALL the groups claiming (allbeit falsely) to be legitimate strictly Qur'an believing Muslems today.

what's your point? i don't mean to be rude and maybe it is because English being my 2nd language but things you say seem so schizophrenic to me. you say "We should be most concerned and fearful of pretenders" i would agree with that and if that would be the case then we should be happy if religious people were truly following Qur'an. in the same post you say "Common sense alone therefor dictates that makes them all fraud." so those who would not follow commands of God truly are made "fraud" by common sense which means Qur'an goes hand in hand with common sense OR all those who are frauds are following commands then how could they be frauds? wow i might give myself headache if i talk like this 10 mins a day

.

 

[McBell]

So you disagree with Ba'al?

That's interesting also. So much confusion even amongst so called Moslem supporters?

Which group do you believe is the legitimate one then and strictly adhers to ' true Qur'anic teachings? '

This is great!

I disagree with your desperate conclusion that Ba'al's opinion on it is some sort of absolute final answer.

However, I cannot help but notice that in your desperation you jump to all sorts of faulty conclusions based upon your assumptions.

Of course, it could just be your prejudice showing.

Either way, it is most entertaining watching you make a complete arse of your self in your futile quest.

Carry on.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

Which group do you believe is the legitimate one then and strictly adheres to ' true Qur'anic teachings? '

Sunni , as simple as this , and since Im sure you'll be asking me why , I'll tell you that in order to know you must have studied Islam seriously, but to give you an approximate approach on why, and I wont go beyond this since its not my field:
If Muhamad peace be upon here was here, can you imagine that he'll be insulting his own companions? No, therefore he wont be shi'.
If he was here,do you think he would spend his time connecting between Allah's attributes and comparing to humans? No, therefore he wont be an asha'arri (or mutazili as far as my knwoledge goes)
If he was here, do you think he will be adoring God by performing dances and singing songs, or going into circles believeing that it will make him closer to Allah? No, therefore he wont be a sufi.
And the list goes on, but this time you'll have to do your own homework, as Im still working on mine

Best regards

 

[.lava]

Sunni , as simple as this , and since Im sure you'll be asking me why , I'll tell you that in order to know you must have studied Islam seriously, but to give you an approximate approach on why, and I wont go beyond this since its not my field:
If Muhamad peace be upon here was here, can you imagine that he'll be insulting his own companions? No, therefore he wont be shi'.
If he was here,do you think he would spend his time connecting between Allah's attributes and comparing to humans? No, therefore he wont be an asha'arri (or mutazili as far as my knwoledge goes)
If he was here, do you think he will be adoring God by performing dances and singing songs, or going into circles believeing that it will make him closer to Allah? No, therefore he wont be a sufi.
And the list goes on, but this time you'll have to do your own homework, as Im still working on mine

Best regards

we are Sufis and we don't dance or sing. all the people here who's belong to Tasavvuf are considered to be Sufi.
Sunni is a section in Islam too. if it was a section that embraces all sections then it would be different. But most of Sunni people would consider members of other sections as people who follow wrong path. just like Qur'an says. section itself is wrong. no name like Sunni mentioned in Qur'an. only name Mumin mentioned. there are Mumin people in every section. i personally would not dare to say there are not. only God knows who is who and who really follows the right path that leads to God

.

 

[Composer]

what's your point? i don't mean to be rude and maybe it is because English being my 2nd language but things you say seem so schizophrenic to me. you say "We should be most concerned and fearful of pretenders" i would agree with that and if that would be the case then we should be happy if religious people were truly following Qur'an. in the same post you say "Common sense alone therefor dictates that makes them all fraud." so those who would not follow commands of God truly are made "fraud" by common sense which means Qur'an goes hand in hand with common sense OR all those who are frauds are following commands then how could they be frauds? wow i might give myself headache if i talk like this 10 mins a day

.

Ba'al said that ALL current groups claiming to be Muslems DO NOT FOLLOW the Qur'an legitimately. Therefore he is saying they are frauds OR pretend Muslems.

The second problem remains that even IF any group were following the Qur'an then they still have NO legitimate evidence to say it is the Words of a literal God/Allah.

The third problem is that according to Ba'al, Mahomet would NOT join any of them because they do NOT follow the Qur'an correctly.

Does that help you understand better now? (I would be in a worse position if I were trying to speak Arabic, so I am most sympathetic to your English difficulties and pleased to rephrase when or if necessary to help you understand better.)

 

[Gharib]

Facts prove Islam is not beautiful -

In fact, the Muslim Prophet Muhammads famous dictum, baddala deenahu, faqtuhulu. " If anyone changes his religion, kill him ” is amply attested in Islamic tradition (cf. Bukhari vol. 9, bk. 84, no. 57)

if you were so happy to post that hdith then please post the commentary of that hadith.

 

[Gharib]

Your Islamic problems remain that we know for certain by historical records what Mahomet said - e.g. - the Muslim Prophet Muhammads famous dictum, baddala deenahu, faqtuhulu. " If anyone changes his religion, kill him ” is amply attested in Islamic tradition (cf. Bukhari vol. 9, bk. 84, no. 57)

But your problem is that you have NO legitimate evidence that Allah said anything at all?

liar.

Muhammed (saws) has said that the quran is from Allah, are you now going to say that is not evidence.

 

[Gharib]

Again the question and your fundamental problem is before you as I stated -

" You have NO legitimate evidence that Allah said anything at all? "

we have legitimate historical evidence of Muhammed (saws) sayig that Allah is the author of the Quran.

 

[Gharib]

The proofs so far in my excellent and legitimate arguments demonstrate that the man Mahomet was NOT a legitimate prophet and history and his own testimony condemns him.

We can have a bit of fun discussing your story book (Qur'an) if you wish?

My first question therefore is : " IF Mahomet were alive today, which Islamic Group would he join and presumably then head, because obviously he considers that group correctly follows the Qur'anic teachings and then no doubt attempt to get the others from the other groups to change and join his initially preferred group?

And " Do you currently belong to that Group he would join? "

Cheers!

that is a flawed question. these groups exist due to the prophet not being around and scholars having different oppinions. if 4 people look at the same house from the 4 different sides, then who is really looking at the house correctly and who is describing it correctly? so if Muhammed (saws) was here these groups would unite under him he would not be following any sect.

 

[Gharib]

Why would you want to discuss and defend a story book from a religion you don't believe is legitimate and haven't joined yourself?

the truth is the truth no matter who says it and we must be in support of it. but not you unfortunately.

 

[Gharib]

The proofs so far in my excellent and legitimate arguments demonstrate that the man Mahomet was NOT a legitimate prophet and history and his own testimony condemns him.

We can have a bit of fun discussing your story book (Qur'an) if you wish?

that is really interesting, i missed it the first time i replied. so when it comes to quoting hadith that are in your favour, they are legitimate historical proof. but when it comes to hadith that are not in your favour such as Muhammed (saws) saying he is the prophet of Allah (swt) then such hadith are not legitimate historical proof.

thank you composer.

 

[Gharib]

Actually in the book I read for a college course, the historian argued that like most founders of new religions, Muhammad didn't intend to create a religion and would not recognize "Islam" since it was packaged and crystallized by his followers after his death.

what do you mean he would not recognise 'islam'

are you saying he never recognised the name 'islam' of the religion he was calling people to?

 

[Gharib]

Untrue!

The legitimate evidence I have already presented was taken from -

Decline & Fall of Roman Empire, which is historical truth founded upon legitimate historical bona fide records.

&

So to with ' The Life of Mahomet ' by William Muir.

&

Mahomet's own testimony and infamous dictum, baddala deenahu, faqtuhulu. " If anyone changes his religion, kill him " is amply attested in Islamic tradition (cf. Bukhari vol. 9, bk. 84, no. 57)

&

Here's another extract from the Qur'an itself besides the wife bashing one (004.034) -

009.029
YUSUFALI: 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.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.


#All_current_Islamic_groups_faulty: So according to you the non-Muslem, the current Muslems are all faulty and Mahomet would reject them all, thanks for that!

This is a special keeper for me!

Let's see how the various groups react to you telling them they are all in error and do not preach according to the Qur'an?


What evidence did you base your belief upon that the Qur'an was worth supporting as the literal Words of a God?


You already have a full time job correcting every Muslem? (See: All_current_Islamic_groups_faulty above) so it is strange you question anti-Islam posts because fundamentally you just told us that you don't believe any current muslem groups/sects either?

you know i always got angry by those anti-islamists like you, but i don't see a point in it now. please do go on.