Triumphant_Loser
Libertarian Egalitarian
Saint Paul did not necessarily create Christianity per se, but he did kind of hijack Christianity and turned it into the dogmatic, organized religion we see today.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was Muhammad a good man?
- Thread starter kassault37
- Start date
Saint Paul did not necessarily create Christianity per se, but he did kind of hijack Christianity and turned it into the dogmatic, organized religion we see today.
gnostic
The Lost One
ryujin said:
That's not strictly true.
Although, science and technology was lost in the West (western Europe), due to the rise of Christianity and the Dark Ages had impeded what used to be the Western Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire didn't suffer this Dark Ages.
Also, before the Sassanid Empire (Persian) had fallen to the Muslim Arabs (651), Persia were influenced by the science and technology of past empires (Hellenistic and Roman), and were only just declining from their Golden Age (498-622).
A lot of Muslim converts from Byzantine Syria and Egypt, and Persia, were people who retained their knowledge in science and technology. So Muslims had inherited these knowledge from these regions.
Yes, it is true that Muslims were ahead of the rest of civilisations in matter of science and technology, from 9th century to 15th century, but these knowledge didn't come from nowhere. But since then (since the 15th century), Muslims made no new scientific discoveries. They were overtaken by western Europe, during the height of the Renaissance.
The western (European) kingdoms do owe Muslims for some of their own discoveries, but they were going to new grounds that left Muslim scientists far behind.
mahasn ebn sawresho
Well-Known Member
To faruk
Dear friend You fled to answer questions
And your questions ask do not belong to this subject
If you given to me my answer how is the best among the three ---
I will continue the dialogue with you ----
And without any winding and not rotation ----
The question is clear ---
the Old mistakes or sin --
Center did not mistake or sin
The new mistakes or sin
Who is the best among the three ----
or in another method
You have three children
Big boy mistakes or sin
The middel boy did not mistake or sin
The small boy mistakes or sin
Which is better between the three ----
Answer me mentality and not without winding rotation ---
Then I will continue the dialogue with you ---
Dear friend You fled to answer questions
And your questions ask do not belong to this subject
If you given to me my answer how is the best among the three ---
I will continue the dialogue with you ----
And without any winding and not rotation ----
The question is clear ---
the Old mistakes or sin --
Center did not mistake or sin
The new mistakes or sin
Who is the best among the three ----
or in another method
You have three children
Big boy mistakes or sin
The middel boy did not mistake or sin
The small boy mistakes or sin
Which is better between the three ----
Answer me mentality and not without winding rotation ---
Then I will continue the dialogue with you ---
farouk
Active Member
Peace to all
Mahasn friend
What you are claiming is definately false.You are claiming that Jesus(PBBUH) did not make any mistakes.Now how can anyone answer your question when they cannot accept your false claims.
Hence my object regarding my questions is directly related to prove to you that Jesus(PBBUH) did make mistakes.Now read the ff very carefully.
Jesus(PBBUH) was born of a woman and born under law.All who rely on observing the law are under a curse.
Who says so?
Your bible says so.Go and read your bible.
Hence Jesus(PBBUH) born of a woman and is also under the curse is blamed for that original sin.
Who says so?
Your Christian doctrine says so.
Now if any man born of a woman claims that he has no sin then he is deceiving himself and the truth is not in him.
Who says so?
Your bible says so.
Note i have told you many times and i repeat it.You have absolute no knowledge of whats inside your bible nor do you have knowledge of the teachings of Islam.All your claims is based on heresay.Its time you study your own scriptures before attacking others.
Finally i know the questions i asked is difficult to answer because it will expose the truth on your false claims.Now if you don't want to answer than i do understand.
Peace
Farouk
farouk
Active Member
Peace to all
Ye I can see you having problem with Arabic language because of bias stance.
Firstly you quote wrong verse.The verse you mention is 4:34 and not 4:35.
Now let me explain to you so you see the truth.
The word you having problem understanding is Nushoozan.
English meaning is rebellion/arrogance/animosity/aloofness.Now if you do not understand this English words then use dictionary.
The root in this word is N-SH-Z and it means elevated that it becomes seen and apparent and noticeable.Note it is used for anything that is elevated or for when a person elevates themselves above others,as in rebellion or arrogance or disdaining others.In the verse in question it can also mean animosity.
Now let me discuss the verse.
For any one to say he understands Islamic Marriage Law and quote only this verse means he has a dishonest agenda or he knows absolutely nothing about Islam.
This verse is also linked with verse 4:128.
4:34 is about Nushooz on the part of wife and 4:128 is about Nushooz on the part of husband.In both the verses it deals with aloofness and distancing that is not sufficient to lead for divorce but that is distressing enough for the continuing of marriage.
In verse 4:34 the wife has Nushooz but the husband is not considering divorce and his desire is to continue the marriage.His wife is also not asking for divorce.
In verse 4:128 the wife is worried about her husbands Nushooz.He has not yet sought divorce and she wants to preserve the marriage.
Both these verses is about giving both parties husband and wife space or time in working out their differences for a reconciliation during a marital discord.
Now lets look into each verse.
4:34
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
Now read the verse with understanding.
Men are the boss in the house.The man has a responsibility in his marriage.He has to clothe and provide food and shelter to his family.The wife has her responsibility and she has to take care of the children and protect her husbands wealth and be righteous to her husband.Now if a women is disloyal and rebels against her husband then the Noble Quraan gives you a solution in saving the marriage.Offcourse if the women wants out of the marriage that is divorce then she is free.
Verse 4:128
If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.
The verse confirms that a women is free to divorce her husband via an amicable settlement.
Now I dont see why you having a problem with Islamic Marriage Law.Please read the whole of Surat An-Nisa and you will have a better understanding of Islamic Law.Reading from what I read from your sources so far it sounds like you describing some kind of tribal laws in some remote Islamic countries.
Peace
Farouk
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Even if this was true it would be a testament to a truth so powerful that it could completely conquer even it greatest enemies.
Triumphant_Loser
Libertarian Egalitarian
The organized religious hive-mind mentality has shown to do more harm than it has good. Crusades, Inquisitions, witch trials, jihad, religious war, etc. Everything Jesus of Nazareth himself, as a pacifist, stood against.
McBell
Unbound
:biglaugh:
Sabour
Well-Known Member
Why are you laughing ? Do you take who is posting the questions seriously ?
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Triumphant Loser said:
1robin said:
There is not a necessary, and logical correlation between the truth, and the military, or economic power of any group of people. It would take many months, or years, to effectively debate such a topic, and even debating it for ten years could easily accomplish nothing, and would involve a vast number of diverse arguments including arguments relating to history, and sociology.
Anyway, Christianity is off topic in this thread since this thread is about Muhammad.
Sabour
Well-Known Member
What I find incoherent is that someone has to die for other person's sin.
Jesus peace be upon him was teaching the same Islamic salvation. And by the way it is not okay let us go steal, we will ask for forgiveness later if that is what you are thinking of
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
1robin said:
The story is fiction. No action could cost an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God anything since he could not have free will, and the freedom of choice, and could never be harmed by anyone, and could never suffer physically, or emotionally. Your God demands that people suffer, but he cannot suffer. Without choice, morality has no meaning. It would be impossible for an Omni God to ask people to love him since he always has to do what he does, and can only do good things. Therefore, the God of all of the Abrahamic religions does not exist.
If the God of the Bible had free will, then there are circumstances under which he would not have kept his promise to give believers eternal life, but that would be impossible for an Omni God. In other words, if the God of the Bible had free will, he would have the option not to keep his promise to give believers eternal life, but that would be impossible for an Omni God.
You have said that God did not have to create humans, but no logic supports such an absurd notion. If God did not create humans, and offer eternal life to believers, and keep his promise to give eternal life to believers, he would not be God.
John 3:16 says that one of God's motives for giving his Son to mankind was love. According to you, God did not have to manifest his love by creating humans, and offering them eternal life. That is ridiculous. An Omni God must always do the best possible thing since his omnibenevolent nature controls his thoughts, and actions.
Sacrificing animals, and people to God has been historically practiced by many people as a means to try to please God, but no God has ever made such an absurd request. A God making a sacrifice is even more ridiculous than humans making sacrifices. It is an absurd notion that during Old Testament times, God wanted humans to make sacrifices, and thousands of years later God made a sacrifice, and no longer wanted humans to sacrifice animals to him.
Christians criticize Judas, but why since the New Testament says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin? If bad people had not killed Jesus, who else would have killed him, good people?
The vast majority of people have always chosen to believe in Gods since that is typical for humans. If Christianity had not come along, the vast majority of today's Christians would follow other religions, and would not be atheists, or agnostics. If theisticly minded people will usually choose some religion whether it is true or not, that proves that if one religion is true, and all other religions are false, God has not set up a system where people who honestly want to find the truth can always find it.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
I know of no way to explain without violating forum rules.
Sabour
Well-Known Member
Well I am not sure if you understood what I was saying in the proper way, but in case you didn't, I wasn't referring to you by my reply. I was referring to the person who originally was asking FearGod. If you track down the replies you would know who I am talking about.
Anyways I didn't mean to offend you. If you have any question we would be more than happy to answer because I know that your intention is not attacking Islam and not care for the answers, like the person I was referring to by my previous comment.
McBell
Unbound
You are correct, my laugh has nothing to do with Islam or Muslims.
It has to do with a specific statement made by a specific person.
Sabour
Well-Known Member
mahasn ebn sawresho
Well-Known Member
mahasn ebn sawresho
Well-Known Member
No. verse does not matter is important to the meaning of verse ----
Verse, in which the following words ---
Nushuz and meaning of rebellion or disobedience ---
The word اضربوهن meaning beating
I speak of complete knowledge in Islamic law ---
The wife does not have the right to divorce
Ask the wife to differentiate ----read Personal Status Law in Iraq is an Arab Islamic state -----
And you will know the difference between divorce and separation ---
Nushuz Islamic legal system
If the husband's refusal to request separation judge ruled Balnchoz ---
That is why women give up their rights ---
Even accept the man ---
Why twisting and turning verse clear where the order of the God of Islam, the wife beating
If you hit a light ---
His name struck -----
mahasn ebn sawresho
Well-Known Member
to faruk
Men are in charge of women
This right to take away the rights of women all -----
Stewardship means absolute power ----
I thought I discuss Islamic
Does this guy legally authority on women ----
States of marriage and divorce can not be interpreted because it peremptory provisions - a divine Islamic ---
I hope that does not distort the Koran in order to provide us with a moderate Islam
Men are in charge of women
This right to take away the rights of women all -----
Stewardship means absolute power ----
I thought I discuss Islamic
Does this guy legally authority on women ----
States of marriage and divorce can not be interpreted because it peremptory provisions - a divine Islamic ---
I hope that does not distort the Koran in order to provide us with a moderate Islam
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Nushuz means that the woman want to take the role of man in the house exactly as we call the Gay in Arabic as shaz, so the man have to be the *** hole in the house to accept a woman to rule him, regardless of religion, i won't accept a woman to rule me,dual understanding is OK,but to be ruled by a woman to me is unaccepted.
I have explained to you about the meaning of the word "strike" which means in Arabic similar to English as to abstain of doing something as means of objection and it is explained in the same verse by forsaking their beds, so it is very obvious that it is about sex strike and not beating.
.
Last edited: