What is wrong with Islam?

[sovietchild]

Can you explain this?

If the sin of idolatry is unforgivable according to the Torah, should Muhammad have been stoned to death without mercy?

Explain what? I had to stop watching that video. All it was satanic this and satanic that.

 

[Notanumber]

Explain what? I had to stop watching that video. All it was satanic this and satanic that.

As per many things connected with Islam, it is difficult to understand but this video might provide a better explanation.

There is historical evidence that proves that Muhammad spoke the words of the Devil.

Muhammad and Islam basing its monotheism on the Israelites and their Torah, strongly oppose idolatry, polytheism and associating anything or anyone with Allah.

This contrasts sharply with contention by Muhammad’s Arab contemporaries who believed that Allah had associates. Some of these associates are mentioned in the Quran, amongst them are 3 female deities, i.e., Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat, who were according to the religious belief of the pagan Arabs, the daughters of Allah, the supreme deity of the Kaaba. Each had a shrine in separate places not far from Mecca. Although the Quran in its present form obviously rejects these deities, Muslim history asserts otherwise.

The Islamic records assert Muhammad actually spoke Satan’s words as if they were the words of Allah. Several early Mohammadan scholars document this event and it is referenced in the Hadith and the Quran.

The Islamic punishment for this crime is to be stoned to death, hence the previous questions that I asked you.

 

[gnostic]

How can a trustworthy person can become a pirate? After all, pirates usually drink and party.

You are not reading what I have written.

You ask a question of what Muhammad was like, before he became a prophet and before he began preaching in 610.

What was Muhammad known for before he started to preach a religion?

That was a different time.

And what before he began preaching, that biographers and historians are "not reliable". The sources for "pre-prophet" tends to be distorted and exaggerated. So I don't trust any biased Muslim source about Muhammad's life before 610 CE.

Actually, i think a lot of Muslim biographies and histories are distorted and embellished about Muhammad's life, including all the time he was a prophet to the day he died, because a lot of the sources cannot be verified independently.

The sources about how "good" he was, or how "virtuous" he was, or how "wise" he was, or how "trustworthy" he was - all these adjectives about him, are nothing more than propaganda.

To me, I don't think he was ever "trustworthy" or "virtuous".

When Muhammad began preaching in Mecca, some people mocked his claims that he was a prophet, while others believed him. He was harmless then.

But the main reason he was persecuted, is when Muhammad began preaching to Muslims that they should destroy other people's religion, exhorting them to tear down pagan shrines and idols. That's when pagan Meccans began to feel "threatened" by him and his followers. That's the real reason why he was driven out of Mecca in 622 CE, and it was Muhammad's fault that he went out in self-exile.

Arriving in Medina, he began causing more troubles. He began leading robbing Meccan merchants between 623 and 624, like bandits.

That showed that he was not trustworthy or virtuous. What living in Medina does demonstrate, is that he was a person who holds grudges, and that he was really vindictive *******.

And it is not just leading raiders to pillage merchants that started a war against Mecca. He also started a war against Jews who were living in Medina, in 624. He drove out one tribe, stealing wealth and real estates from the Banu Qaynupa. That had a domino-effect, causing the Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza to change side.

Muslims always blamed the pagans and Jewish tribes for starting wars, but the truth is that Muhammad himself was the troublemaker and the warmonger.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As I said earlier, it the links to the information regarding the Conservative Christians that interested me. You must have read some reports at least that you can refer me to. TIA

From the man who is known for describing himself as a "Christian, Conservative and Republican, in that order."
This is who Donald Trump has reportedly selected to be his VP

He was elected governor in 2012. He also has media experience: In the 1990s, he hosted The Mike Pence Show, a talk radio show, and described himself as "Rush Limbaugh on decaf."
...
In Congress, Pence was a champion of conservative and religious causes. He voted against measures aimed at preventing LGBT discrimination and helping families in poverty, and he supported federal legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage. As governor of Indiana, Pence has brought this Religious Right-friendly agenda to the state and enacted a number of stringent socially conservative measures.

Here's a summary of his conservative record:
He has made life harder for low-income families: Between 2006 and 2009, Pence voted against raising the minimum wage, expanding health coverage for low-income kids, and providing additional funding for Section 8 vouchers, which help low-income families pay rent.

He refused to comply with Obama administration rules aimed at reducing prison rape: In 2014, Gov. Pence wrote to the Department of Justice to argue that the new rules "work only to bind the states, and hinder the evolution of even better and safer practices." He said Indiana would not follow them.

He has supported deporting undocumented children and sick people and favors building a fence on the border (sound familiar?): In 2009, Rep. Pence co-sponsored a bill that would have eliminated automatic citizenship for children born on US soil to undocumented parents. A few years earlier, he voted in favor of bills that would have allowed for the detention of undocumented immigrants seeking hospital treatment. He also voted yes on a bill—foreshadowing Trump's current platform—to build a fence on the Mexico border.

He has decimated access to abortion: In March 2016, Gov. Pence signed a measure prohibiting women from obtaining an abortion because of the race, gender, or disability of the fetus, making Indiana only the second state in the nation to do this. The law also held doctors legally liable for wrongful death if it was found they had performed an abortion motivated by one or more of the prohibited reasons. These sorts of bans are opposed by much of the medical community, out of fear that women will censor themselves when it comes to making difficult decisions with the help of their doctors. Following the Supreme Court's decision in a landmark abortion case in June, a federal judge blocked this Indiana law from going into effect.

He slashed Planned Parenthood funding, spurring clinic closures and an HIV outbreak: In 2011, Pence pushed an amendment through the House to defund Planned Parenthood. This amendment helped kick-start a wave of state actions aimed at removing government support from the women's health provider. Indiana was successful in its efforts, but a federal judge blocked the law from going into effect. When Pence became governor in 2013, Indiana continued to slash resources for the women's health provider. By 2014, state funding for Planned Parenthood had been cut nearly in half from 2005 levels. The organization was forced to close five of its smaller clinics, none of which had ever provided abortions, but they did provide STD testing. Soon, Scott County, Indiana, home to one of the closed clinics, became the hub of an enormous HIV outbreak.

He gave protection to businesses in Indiana that discriminate against gay people: In March 2015, Pence signed a bill into law permitting business owners to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers due to their religious beliefs. The bill also allowed religious beliefs to be used as a rationale for other forms of discrimination. As my colleague Molly Redden described it: "An employer who refused to hire Jewish employees could cite his religious beliefs as a defense against discrimination lawsuits. So could a landlord who refused to rent to Muslims, or a business that refused to serve atheists." In response to this bill's passage, athletes, celebrities, corporate leaders, and others criticized the state publicly, and some even pulled out of planned business projects there. The band Wilco canceled an Indianapolis show, referring to "thinly disguised legal discrimination," and Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post slamming the law.

He does this all because of his Christian beliefs. The man is absolutely nuts. Not only has he done the above, he's also said "smoking will not kill you," and heavily downplayed the risks of smoking (not religious related but directly and easily proven big tobacco money), and he even told Congress one day that the discovery of a 6 million year old skull of a distant human relative meant that science text books are going to have to be rewritten, because the finding proved evolution is "just" a theory (irony from the gods if I've ever seen it), and he used the moment to say Creationism must be taught in high school alongside evolution.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is historical evidence that proves that Muhammad spoke the words of the Devil.

That you are going to have to provide evidence for.

 

[sovietchild]

You are not reading what I have written.

You ask a question of what Muhammad was like, before he became a prophet and before he began preaching in 610.

That was a different time.

And what before he began preaching, that biographers and historians are "not reliable". The sources for "pre-prophet" tends to be distorted and exaggerated. So I don't trust any biased Muslim source about Muhammad's life before 610 CE.

Actually, i think a lot of Muslim biographies and histories are distorted and embellished about Muhammad's life, including all the time he was a prophet to the day he died, because a lot of the sources cannot be verified independently.

The sources about how "good" he was, or how "virtuous" he was, or how "wise" he was, or how "trustworthy" he was - all these adjectives about him, are nothing more than propaganda.

To me, I don't think he was ever "trustworthy" or "virtuous".

When Muhammad began preaching in Mecca, some people mocked his claims that he was a prophet, while others believed him. He was harmless then.

But the main reason he was persecuted, is when Muhammad began preaching to Muslims that they should destroy other people's religion, exhorting them to tear down pagan shrines and idols. That's when pagan Meccans began to feel "threatened" by him and his followers. That's the real reason why he was driven out of Mecca in 622 CE, and it was Muhammad's fault that he went out in self-exile.

Arriving in Medina, he began causing more troubles. He began leading robbing Meccan merchants between 623 and 624, like bandits.

That showed that he was not trustworthy or virtuous. What living in Medina does demonstrate, is that he was a person who holds grudges, and that he was really vindictive *******.

And it is not just leading raiders to pillage merchants that started a war against Mecca. He also started a war against Jews who were living in Medina, in 624. He drove out one tribe, stealing wealth and real estates from the Banu Qaynupa. That had a domino-effect, causing the Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza to change side.

Muslims always blamed the pagans and Jewish tribes for starting wars, but the truth is that Muhammad himself was the troublemaker and the warmonger.

In that case Stalin's biography is distorted also.

 

[sovietchild]

You are not reading what I have written.

You ask a question of what Muhammad was like, before he became a prophet and before he began preaching in 610.

That was a different time.

And what before he began preaching, that biographers and historians are "not reliable". The sources for "pre-prophet" tends to be distorted and exaggerated. So I don't trust any biased Muslim source about Muhammad's life before 610 CE.

Actually, i think a lot of Muslim biographies and histories are distorted and embellished about Muhammad's life, including all the time he was a prophet to the day he died, because a lot of the sources cannot be verified independently.

The sources about how "good" he was, or how "virtuous" he was, or how "wise" he was, or how "trustworthy" he was - all these adjectives about him, are nothing more than propaganda.

To me, I don't think he was ever "trustworthy" or "virtuous".

When Muhammad began preaching in Mecca, some people mocked his claims that he was a prophet, while others believed him. He was harmless then.

But the main reason he was persecuted, is when Muhammad began preaching to Muslims that they should destroy other people's religion, exhorting them to tear down pagan shrines and idols. That's when pagan Meccans began to feel "threatened" by him and his followers. That's the real reason why he was driven out of Mecca in 622 CE, and it was Muhammad's fault that he went out in self-exile.

Arriving in Medina, he began causing more troubles. He began leading robbing Meccan merchants between 623 and 624, like bandits.

That showed that he was not trustworthy or virtuous. What living in Medina does demonstrate, is that he was a person who holds grudges, and that he was really vindictive *******.

And it is not just leading raiders to pillage merchants that started a war against Mecca. He also started a war against Jews who were living in Medina, in 624. He drove out one tribe, stealing wealth and real estates from the Banu Qaynupa. That had a domino-effect, causing the Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza to change side.

Muslims always blamed the pagans and Jewish tribes for starting wars, but the truth is that Muhammad himself was the troublemaker and the warmonger.

What do you call those people who deceive others in order to obtain money?

 

[gnostic]

In that case Stalin's biography is distorted also.

You do realise the earliest biography was written over 100 years after Muhammad's death, don't you?

A lot of things written about Muhammad were either invented by the authors or they were based on traditions.

Traditions have the habits of being embellished, and not reliable as historical sources.

For instance, traditions like those found in the hadiths. Do you believe everything written to be real?

Such as the more elaborate version of the "Night Journey" (Isra and Mi'raj), where a magical flying steed Buraq took him to Jerusalem (the "furthest mosque", which doesn't exist in Muhammad's time), and then ascend to the seven heavens, witnessing angel host and speaking to God.

Not only this isn't history, it is borrowing of the myth of Enoch (the great grandfather of Noah), who ascended 10 heavens, guided by angels (source: 2 Enoch).

Qur'an 17, make no mention of such ascension. The Hadith about Isra and Mi'raj is clearly a myth.

Like I said, traditions should never be considered "reliable". Nor should we considered written in the 8th and 9th centuries biased histories and biographies, especially that can't be verified from independent sources.

Can any biography of Stalin be distorted? Of course they could be.

BUT none of the biographies of Stalin include flying horse, or ascending to heavens to talk to god.

 

[gnostic]

What do you call those people who deceive others in order to obtain money?

What do you call Muhammad's unverified claims that he talked to Gabriel?

I think Muhammad have deceived you all.

 

[sovietchild]

What do you call Muhammad's unverified claims that he talked to Gabriel?

I think Muhammad have deceived you all.

He brought a message to people and nothing else. People were worshiping idols. He brought a message to them and tolled them: "There is no gods but God."

How is that deceiving?

Deceiving is when you tell people to bring offerings to an idol.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

What do you call those people who deceive others in order to obtain money?

Thieves. What do you call those people who deceive others in order to obtain power?

 

[Notanumber]

That you are going to have to provide evidence for.

I hope these and the links in my previous posts will do for now.

The Satanic Verses controversy - Wikipedia

Just let me know if you need more.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I hope these and the links in my previous posts will do for now.

The Satanic Verses controversy - Wikipedia

Just let me know if you need more.

I'm not watching a video, and Wiki links is not the evidence I asked for.

 

[Notanumber]

This incident is no doubt embarrassing for Muslims, and some will, and indeed have, attempted to dismiss the entire incident as hearsay or a legenary story concocted by Muhammad's enemies. There are two problems with taking this position.

First, the story is well documented is authoritative Islamic sources. Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa'd, and al-Tabari all document this incident, and none of these had axes to grind against Muhammad. If it had been considered heresay or legend in their day, surely they would have excised the account from their writings of Muhammad.

Second, if this account is to be considered a fabrication, then the context has been removed for a verse in the Qur'an, rendering the verse unintelligible. Why would Muhammad have received Sura 22:52, to exonerate him from Shaytan putting words on his tongue, if the incident never happened in the first place?

Muslims must own up to the fact that Muhammad was not a prophet in the line of Biblical prophets. He was merely a man with perhaps a grandiose imagination. There was a good reason the Jews of Yathrib rejected him as a prophet; he simply did not rise to the level of other prophets they knew.

What Are the Satanic Verses?

 

[Rival]

Thieves. What do you call those people who deceive others in order to obtain power?

Tory Party.

 

[Shad]

Before the revelation of the Holy Qur’an, the Holy Prophet could neither write with his own hand nor could he read anything written by the others. How could have then the prophet authored such an unmatchable book by himself.

According to Muslim sources he could read enough to identify his name and title as he rubbed out "Messenger of Allah" in one of his treaties with non-Muslims as they rejected his claim. So while he couldn't read a book he know how to identify a few words. More so this establishes that there were people that could read and written surrounding him. Islamic sources themselves indictate he had a personal scribe.

You are also missing the obvious technique of dictation in which one speaks while a different person writes what is spoken.... Heard of it?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Tory Party.

As Tony Stark would say: " Well you're not wrong."

 

[Notanumber]

I presume this was filmed in the sixties, but I wonder if these practises continue to this day.

I doubt if they would be allowed to film it now.

 

[sovietchild]

 

[Notanumber]

She is right, the sooner he goes the better.

We need someone who will call a spade a spade.