The Revealed Revelations of God

[Fatihah]

Thank you for furthering my point.

Response: Likewise.

 

[biomystic]

Response:Neither Alexander the Great, Constantine, Caesar, or any of the names in which you've mentioned have ever created a religion. Secondly, neither of them came to power by using their created religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. None of them. Were they conquerers? Yes. Did they conquer nations? Yes. But none of them came into power and conquered anyone in the manner explained to you. None of them created a religion, nor did their followers conquer for them because they were inspired by their made up religion. Thus you have no proof, and the miracle of the qur'an and Muhammad is still valid.

Then you don't know history. Caesar and Romans most definitely were conquerors who spread the Roman pagan religious idea that Roman emperors were descended from God. Rome itself was said to be built by god twins Romulus and Remus. And the Roman Empire was no trifling matter. If that's not starting a religion what is? You are judging Muhammad's religion as a successful conquering by ignoring the religious inspirations of other empire builders. And really, since Muhammad has put himself in the company of men bent on killing others in order to create their empires, don't you think that contradicts Islam as a religion of peace? You Muslims have a tough road trying to sell Islam as a religion of peace because there's so much historical and present day evidence to the contrary.

No man who has killed other men can start a religion of peace. That is another reason why Moses and Muhammad and Paul could not start Abrahamic religions of peace, they were all killers of men and God doesn't favor killers of men with knowledge of peace and how to attain it in human society. Proof? Look at the historical record of Jews in action when they achieve political power, look at the historical record of Pauline Christians in action when they achieve political power, look at the historical record of Muslims when they achieve political power. Jesus Christ alone stands out as the only Abrahamic prophet without blood on his hands.

 

[Fatihah]

Then you don't know history. Caesar and Romans most definitely were conquerors who spread the Roman pagan religious idea that Roman emperors were descended from God. Rome itself was said to be built by god twins Romulus and Remus. And the Roman Empire was no trifling matter. If that's not starting a religion what is? You are judging Muhammad's religion as a successful conquering by ignoring the religious inspirations of other empire builders. And really, since Muhammad has put himself in the company of men bent on killing others in order to create their empires, don't you think that contradicts Islam as a religion of peace? You Muslims have a tough road trying to sell Islam as a religion of peace because there's so much historical and present day evidence to the contrary.

No man who has killed other men can start a religion of peace. That is another reason why Moses and Muhammad and Paul could not start Abrahamic religions of peace, they were all killers of men and God doesn't favor killers of men with knowledge of peace and how to attain it in human society. Proof? Look at the historical record of Jews in action when they achieve political power, look at the historical record of Pauline Christians in action when they achieve political power, look at the historical record of Muslims when they achieve political power. Jesus Christ alone stands out as the only Abrahamic prophet without blood on his hands.

Response: Another statement. Where's the proof? Saying so isn't proof that it "is" so. What religion did Alexander the great create? How about Caesar? What did they name the religion? And what proof do you have that they created it? So far, we have seen none.

 

[biomystic]

Response: Another statement. Where's the proof? Saying so isn't proof that it "is" so. What religion did Alexander the great create? How about Caesar? What did they name the religion? And what proof do you have that they created it? So far, we have seen none.

What religion did Muhammad start? Seems to me he claimed only to be restating the religion of Abraham and Moses for his time and onwards. He gave it an Arabic name instead of a Hebrew one but claimed he was only the last in line of the Abrahamic prophets. And again, why be proud of using conquest involving killing human beings in order to spread your religion? Why be proud of the gross hypocrisy of calling your religion a religion of peace when it is spread by violence?

 

[Fatihah]

What religion did Muhammad start? Seems to me he claimed only to be restating the religion of Abraham and Moses for his time and onwards. He gave it an Arabic name instead of a Hebrew one but claimed he was only the last in line of the Abrahamic prophets. And again, why be proud of using conquest involving killing human beings in order to spread your religion? Why be proud of the gross hypocrisy of calling your religion a religion of peace when it is spread by violence?

Response: Yes, Muhammad is the last a final prophet of Allah(God). His religion is the same as all the previous prophets, including Moses, Abraham and Jesus. That religion is islam. However, Muhammad brought a new practice to islam, which is the sunnah, and a new revelation of inspiration, which is the qur'an.

As for his violence, there is nothing wrong with violence when you act in self-defense, which is what Muhammad did.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Response: Yes, Muhammad is the last a final prophet of Allah(God). His religion is the same as all the previous prophets, including Moses, Abraham and Jesus. That religion is islam. However, Muhammad brought a new practice to islam, which is the sunnah, and a new revelation of inspiration, which is the qur'an.

As for his violence, there is nothing wrong with violence when you act in self-defense, which is what Muhammad did.

Fatihah,
WHat is it about the Quran that qualifies it as a THE reveled revelation above all others.

 

[Fatihah]

Fatihah,
WHat is it about the Quran that qualifies it as a THE reveled revelation above all others.

Response: Please refer to post 65 of page 7.

 

[YmirGF]

Response: Please refer to post 65 of page 7.

Ahhh yes, the unfair test. Right-o.

Response: The taurat (the revelation revealed to Moses) and the injil (the revelation revealed to Jesus) and the qur'an are revelations from Allah(God).

This is supposition that is supported by only one other religion, that quite curiously has been persecuted by Muslims since its dawn in the mid 1800's.

We know so from the qur'an, which itself is a living miracle. What makes it miraculous is because it is the only revelation which can be proven to be the authentic and truthful word of Allah(swt). What is that proof?

Another supposition with little merit.

In the qur'an we read:
"Will they not then, meditate upon the Qur'an. Had it been from any one other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy". (4:82).

And indeed we find many discrepancies, so many in fact, that it takes Muslims page after page after page to explain why a given discrepancy is not actually a discrepancy. We call this act of psychological gymnastics moving the goalposts.

"And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to our servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers, beside Allah, if you are truthful". (2:23).

And yet Muslims are not able to agree on the parameters of what this so-called "challenge" are. We flogged this one pretty well a few times and ended up with no clear definitions or guidelines and the lack of clear guidelines renders the challenge as being meaningless.

Here we have two tests that proves that the qur'an is from Allah. For not only is it free of discrepancy, but it is impossible to produce a chapter like the qur'an because every chapter is miraculous. That miracle being, that it is absolutely impossible for a person/s to create their own religion and use their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation.

It's all about conquest with you, isn't it, Fatihah. Curiously I don't recall any other Muslim stating that conquest was a part of the challenge, so your suggestion that it does is unreasonable.

This is the miracle of the qur'an. This is the miracle of Muhammad. Because Muhammad did in fact use the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation.

Heaven forbid that he teach them to live in peace. No it is much better to vanquish and conquer. How terribly peaceful. Muhammad is hardly a Gandhi-esque figure.

So to those who claim that this was the act of a man made religion, then why don't you do the same? Why don't you create your own religion and see how far you get? And when you do, you will fail. Not only will you will fail, you will fail miserably.

This is what renders the "challenge" meaningless in my view. Why do I have to conquer nations? It makes no sense whatsoever. The Qur'an says nothing about conquering nations, so Fatihah is simply inserting this to make the challenge completely impossible because people are no longer quite as ignorant as they were when Islam was in its teething phase.

Muhammad conquered Arabia. I guarantee you, you won't even be able to conquer your own neighborhood. And once you fail, you will be forced to ask yourself the question "why was it possible for Muhammad but impossible for me and anyone else?"

Because many people are not imbeciles any longer and would not be fearful of the consequences of NOT believing. In Muhammad's day, the average person was almost totally ignorant, extremely superstitious and believed in supernatural explanations for reality. That just doesn't cut it any longer.

That is when you will come to realize that it was the help of Allah that made it possible for Muhammad. Without Allah, even Muhammad would have failed. You disagree, the 1400+ year challenge still stands.

It was never a serious challenge though, Fatihah. Both the Mormon church and the Bahai's have their own revealed books and a strong following. Religion in the post modern era cannot grow as they once did without relying on the unwashed masses of relatively ignorant followers that seem to be in some abundance in many Third World countries.

I'd suggest that the Moron's and the Bahai's have more than met the Qur'anic challenge, by your definition. Both have their prophets, revealed works and strong followings. Neither is showing any signs of death and will undoubtedly continue to grow well into the future. The days of religious conquest are over.

 

[Fatihah]

Ahhh yes, the unfair test. Right-o.

This is supposition that is supported by only one other religion, that quite curiously has been persecuted by Muslims since its dawn in the mid 1800's.

Another supposition with little merit.

And indeed we find many discrepancies, so many in fact, that it takes Muslims page after page after page to explain why a given discrepancy is not actually a discrepancy. We call this act of psychological gymnastics moving the goalposts.

And yet Muslims are not able to agree on the parameters of what this so-called "challenge" are. We flogged this one pretty well a few times and ended up with no clear definitions or guidelines and the lack of clear guidelines renders the challenge as being meaningless.

It's all about conquest with you, isn't it, Fatihah. Curiously I don't recall any other Muslim stating that conquest was a part of the challenge, so your suggestion that it does is unreasonable.

Heaven forbid that he teach them to live in peace. No it is much better to vanquish and conquer. How terribly peaceful. Muhammad is hardly a Gandhi-esque figure.

This is what renders the "challenge" meaningless in my view. Why do I have to conquer nations? It makes no sense whatsoever. The Qur'an says nothing about conquering nations, so Fatihah is simply inserting this to make the challenge completely impossible because people are no longer quite as ignorant as they were when Islam was in its teething phase.

Because many people are not imbeciles any longer and would not be fearful of the consequences of NOT believing. In Muhammad's day, the average person was almost totally ignorant, extremely superstitious and believed in supernatural explanations for reality. That just doesn't cut it any longer.

It was never a serious challenge though, Fatihah. Both the Mormon church and the Bahai's have their own revealed books and a strong following. Religion in the post modern era cannot grow as they once did without relying on the unwashed masses of relatively ignorant followers that seem to be in some abundance in many Third World countries.

I'd suggest that the Moron's and the Bahai's have more than met the Qur'anic challenge, by your definition. Both have their prophets, revealed works and strong followings. Neither is showing any signs of death and will undoubtedly continue to grow well into the future. The days of religious conquest are over.

Response: And once again, we see your denial loud and clear. Denial doesn't prove the challenge wrong, it only confirms that even you acknowledge that the qur'an is the truth.

 

[YmirGF]

Response: And once again, we see your denial loud and clear. Denial doesn't prove the challenge wrong, it only confirms that even you acknowledge that the qur'an is the truth.

Response: Quite the contrary, pet.

 

[biomystic]

Response: Yes, Muhammad is the last a final prophet of Allah(God). His religion is the same as all the previous prophets, including Moses, Abraham and Jesus. That religion is islam. However, Muhammad brought a new practice to islam, which is the sunnah, and a new revelation of inspiration, which is the qur'an.

Then the same can be said of the founder of Ba'ha'i. And of Joseph Smith and any of the latter prophets starting new religions. It would include me if God hadn't told me from the beginning not to create a new organized religion. After all, I've got a BOOK too..

As for his violence, there is nothing wrong with violence when you act in self-defense, which is what Muhammad did.

Then it becomes a matter of what constitutes a religion's idea of "self-defense", doesn't it? When Muslims are making threats to take the lives of cartoonists are they acting in "self-defense" of Muhammad's reputation? "Self-defense" can easily be seen by those with organizations to defend as justifying violence against anyone who they see threatening the organization in any way.

I am glad I am a Christian and follow the path of non-violence even when it means being a human shock-absorber at times so that the vicious revenge cycle of eye-for-an-eye gets broken. If those with spiritual knowledge fail to provide a model of non-violence, who will lead the people to peace?

 

[Fatihah]

Then it becomes a matter of what constitutes a religion's idea of "self-defense", doesn't it? When Muslims are making threats to take the lives of cartoonists are they acting in "self-defense" of Muhammad's reputation? "Self-defense" can easily be seen by those with organizations to defend as justifying violence against anyone who they see threatening the organization in any way.

I am glad I am a Christian and follow the path of non-violence even when it means being a human shock-absorber at times so that the vicious revenge cycle of eye-for-an-eye gets broken. If those with spiritual knowledge fail to provide a model of non-violence, who will lead the people to peace?

Response: If allowing yourself to be slapped and not slap back is fine with you, that's your business. And if this is the logic behind christianity, I am surely glad I am not a christian. For allowing myself to be slapped, yet never defending myself definately does not bring peace. It only brings a sore jaw.

 

[YmirGF]

Response: If allowing yourself to be slapped and not slap back is fine with you, that's your business. And if this is the logic behind christianity, I am surely glad I am not a christian. For allowing myself to be slapped, yet never defending myself definately does not bring peace. It only brings a sore jaw.

Rather than striking out, wouldn't it be wiser to try to understand what prompted the slap in the first place?

Last time I checked, two wrongs do not equal a right, even if it is your right.

 

[Fatihah]

Rather than striking out, wouldn't it be wiser to try to understand what prompted the slap in the first place?

Last time I checked, two wrongs do not equal a right, even if it is your right.

Response: Last time I checked, self-defense is a right, not a wrong. Even if it is your wrong.

 

[YmirGF]

Response: Last time I checked, self-defense is a right, not a wrong. Even if it is your wrong.

You're not getting it.

What I am saying is that if you are in a position where someone has struck you, you should really be paying attention to your actions. The idea being that it was likely your actions that precipitated being struck and the striker is merely the conduit. Striking back at the person hitting you is somewhat akin to killing the messenger... and "killing the messenger" shouldn't sit well with any Muslim.


Realistically though, I would say that self-defense is a conditional right, not a god given right. Under some circumstances one does have the right to neutralize an attacker, but many a time it is a far better policy to "turn the other cheek" and learn something from the event.

 

[Fatihah]

You're not getting it.

What I am saying is that if you are in a position where someone has struck you, you should really be paying attention to your actions. The idea being that it was likely your actions that precipitated being struck and the striker is merely the conduit. Striking back at the person hitting you is somewhat akin to killing the messenger... and that shouldn't sit well with any Muslim.

Response: One should not pay attention to my actions because they were struck. You should pay attention...period.

 

[YmirGF]

Response: One should not pay attention to my actions because they were struck. You should pay attention...period.

The point is, if one is truly paying attention to their actions there is little possibility that anyone will think to strike them, thus, self-defense become moot...

 

[biomystic]

Response: One should not pay attention to my actions because they were struck. You should pay attention...period.

"An eye for eye makes the whole world blind."--Mahatma Gandhi

Is this wisdom lost on Muslims? If so, no wonder Islam remains a most hypocritical of Abrahamic religions in its false claim to be a religion of peace when Muslims seem to have no idea how peace is achieved and understand only retribution.

 

[biomystic]

To my Muslim friends, as a prophesy bearer I bear a warning from God that Islam must either change to reflect the root meaning of its name derived from Salaam, peace, or it too will face its End Times when historical discovery topples the myth of Abraham. Now, you don't have to pay any attention to this prophesy if the story of Abraham survives historical discovery linking Abraham and Sarah to Brahma and Sarasvati, but if the story of Abraham doesn't survive historical scrutiny then perhaps you should pay attention to what needs to be done to keep Islam alive as universal religious model. "Islam" currently means "surrender to the will of God" but it should have meant all along "surrender to the will of God as peace" for the word, Salaam, is derived from the name of the god of peace worshiped in ancient Jerusalem as Salim or Shalom in Hebrew.

 

[Fatihah]

The point is, if one is truly paying attention to their actions there is little possibility that anyone will think to strike them, thus, self-defense become moot...

Response. Then you must surely have never heard of gangs or pay much attention to the news, or of homicides, rape, etc. There are many acts of violence in this world that happens to innocent people.