What makes you think Islam is a false religion?

[YmirGF]

very funny ... veeeerrrryyyy funny.

Thanks. :flirt:

 

[Darkness]

1-Mohamed: It is fair to say that a poor man would never throw himself into the endless trouble of inviting his people to a new religion, in a very tough community, unless he is really God-sent.
There is no point whatsoever to falsely claim prophecy for nothing.

Last time I checked, Mohammad gained quite a large territorial empire by claiming he was the Last Prophet.

2-The Quran: In addition to the countless miracles in the Quran (which I am ready to explain God-willing)... most of the Quran includes verses where God tells about himself.
People who question the integrity of the holy Quran must ask this: Why hasn't God answered back Mohamed. (If you assume that the Quran is nothing but Mohamed's words).

You make the false assumption that there is a God to answer Mohammad. Even if God existed, you have to prove that he would care enough about humanity to answer the false teachings of a prophet in the desert.

Why would you reject Islam?

• "But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein."
• " Wed not idolatresses till they believe; for lo! a believing bondwoman is better than an idolatress though she please you; and give not your daughters in marriage to idolaters till they believe, for lo! a believing slave is better than an idolater though he please you. These invite unto the Fire, and Allah inviteth unto the Garden, and unto forgiveness by His grace, and expoundeth His revelations to mankind that haply they may remember."

 

[kai]

Originally Posted by Right_Path
1-Mohamed: It is fair to say that a poor man would never throw himself into the endless trouble of inviting his people to a new religion, in a very tough community, unless he is really God-sent.

the religion Mohamed gave to the Arabs was not a new religion , it was a revelation from God they could call their own,for Arabs in Arabic.

 

[Right_Path]

Last time I checked, Mohammad gained quite a large territorial empire by claiming he was the Last Prophet.

Gain Empire= being Emperor

Mohamed remained 'God's messenger' among his people...if he desired some empire his attitude would have been completely different.

If the objective was 'territorial empire'...he wouldn't have urged people to worship God and do good deeds till his last breath.

Read his biography, rather than checking...because knowing about him in deep will help you understand he was not looking for personal glory.

You make the false assumption that there is a God to answer Mohammad. Even if God existed, you have to prove that he would care enough about humanity to answer the false teachings of a prophet in the desert.

If you do not believe in God, nor believe he does care about humanity...then this assumption is not for you.

"But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein."
" Wed not idolatresses till they believe; for lo! a believing bondwoman is better than an idolatress though she please you; and give not your daughters in marriage to idolaters till they believe, for lo! a believing slave is better than an idolater though he please you. These invite unto the Fire, and Allah inviteth unto the Garden, and unto forgiveness by His grace, and expoundeth His revelations to mankind that haply they may remember."

Any explanation?

 

[MuhamedAbdullah]

Last time I checked, Mohammad gained quite a large territorial empire by claiming he was the Last Prophet.

When Islam was in its infancy and its few members where being oppressed and when being a Muslim meant hardship and suffering, the leaders of the Quraysh came to the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and offered to give him countless riches and kingship over them if he recognised their Gods.

Now if the Prophet made up Islam for worldly gain as some claim then the fact that he rejected this offer makes no sense at all. In fact unless one was blind or not really seeking truth but rather just to attack Islam then this instance should be proof that worldly benefit was not an issue for the Prophet.

p.s I am not saying you are just seeking to attack Islam Darkness, but there are many who just ignore what doesn't suit their outlook.

 

[kai]

When Islam was in its infancy and its few members where being oppressed and when being a Muslim meant hardship and suffering, the leaders of the Quraysh came to the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and offered to give him countless riches and kingship over them if he recognised their Gods.

Now if the Prophet made up Islam for worldly gain as some claim then the fact that he rejected this offer makes no sense at all. In fact unless one was blind or not really seeking truth but rather just to attack Islam then this instance should be proof that worldly benefit was not an issue for the Prophet.

p.s I am not saying you are just seeking to attack Islam Darkness, but there are many who just ignore what doesn't suit their outlook.

When Islam was in its infancy and its few members where being oppressed and when being a Muslim meant hardship and suffering, the leaders of the Quraysh came to the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and offered to give him countless riches and kingship over them if he recognised their Gods.

Why ? why would they do that?

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Why ? why would they do that?

Because as is the case you might find with all true Prophets of God the evil rulers of the time can not stand the truth of the Prophets. Look at Jesus, his message of love and subsequent persecution. Look at Moses, his message, and subsequent persecution. Look at Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), his message of equality and rights for women and subsequent persecution by the Arabs. Because they can't stand the truth. In their hearts they recognize it and in their hearts they know it will eventually remove them from their seat of power. So they try to bribe the Prophet. But when that does not work they persecute him.

It is a strange Godly phenomenon that when He raises His prophet He sends angels on one side to support His chosen one and unleashes dogs on the other side to work against His chosen one.

 

[Sententia]

Because as is the case you might find with all true Prophets of God the evil rulers of the time can not stand the truth of the Prophets. Look at Jesus, his message of love and subsequent persecution. Look at Moses, his message, and subsequent persecution. Look at Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), his message of equality and rights for women and subsequent persecution by the Arabs. Because they can't stand the truth. In their hearts they recognize it and in their hearts they know it will eventually remove them from their seat of power. So they try to bribe the Prophet. But when that does not work they persecute him.

It is a strange Godly phenomenon that when He raises His prophet He sends angels on one side to support His chosen one and unleashes dogs on the other side to work against His chosen one.

Muhammad could not read or write and dictated his words to scribes. Joe Smith of the mormon religion had text on gold plates only he could read and dicatated his words to scribes.

Go read the prophesies of Joe... Do you accept Joe as a prophet?

You believe it but it does not make it true no matter how many times you self affirm your own beliefs a day. In the words of Stephen Roberts... I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.

 

[gnostic]

When Islam was in its infancy and its few members where being oppressed and when being a Muslim meant hardship and suffering, the leaders of the Quraysh came to the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and offered to give him countless riches and kingship over them if he recognised their Gods.

Now if the Prophet made up Islam for worldly gain as some claim then the fact that he rejected this offer makes no sense at all. In fact unless one was blind or not really seeking truth but rather just to attack Islam then this instance should be proof that worldly benefit was not an issue for the Prophet.

There's enormous power in prophet as well as with kings, especially the power Muhammad wield, he might as well as be king.

He had army of believers to raid on his enemies. That's power of a king.

He has given himself the name as lawgiver, acted as judge. That's also power a king could wield.

You don't need luxury of palace or city to be a ruler. Attila the Hun, moved about and live in tent, but commanded hordes of warriors. But there's no doubt Attila has wealth from loots and tributes.

Even your Muhammad demanded tributes from defeated enemies. And only some with power can make treaty, after a war, and apparently he did. A power of ruler.

You don't need a crown or sceptre, to rule. You just don't understand that worldly power can come in shapes or forms. All you need is ambition, ruthlessness, and even imagination, and you can rule like any monarch or tyrant. And most important of all, all you need is a title, eg. king, ruler, emperor, chieftain, general, warlord, liberator, saviour, messiah, prophet, messenger, etc, and the power is good as yours.

He told people how to destroy idols, what to eat, how to pray, how women should dress, how many wives a man can have, who to execute, who broke treaty and how to treat oathbreakers, etc. Is that not power?

So don't give me craps about him not wanting power. Only a blind person can't see that he wield, on occasion, even more power than king.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Muhammad could not read or write and dictated his words to scribes. Joe Smith of the mormon religion had text on gold plates only he could read and dicatated his words to scribes.

Tch. You got me wrong. Persecution is not proof of the person being persecuted being true. But true Prophets face persecution because their enemies recognize the truth. So Prophets = persecution. But persecution does not equal prophet is true. Okay?

 

[tariqkhwaja]

There's enormous power in prophet as well as with kings, especially the power Muhammad wield, he might as well as be king.

He had army of believers to raid on his enemies. That's power of a king.

He has given himself the name as lawgiver, acted as judge. That's also power a king could wield.

You don't need luxury of palace or city to be a ruler. Attila the Hun, moved about and live in tent, but commanded hordes of warriors. But there's no doubt Attila has wealth from loots and tributes.

Even your Muhammad demanded tributes from defeated enemies. And only some with power can make treaty, after a war, and apparently he did. A power of ruler.

You don't need a crown or sceptre, to rule. You just don't understand that worldly power can come in shapes or forms. All you need is ambition, ruthlessness, and even imagination, and you can rule like any monarch or tyrant. And most important of all, all you need is a title, eg. king, ruler, emperor, chieftain, general, warlord, liberator, saviour, messiah, prophet, messenger, etc, and the power is good as yours.

He told people how to destroy idols, what to eat, how to pray, how women should dress, how many wives a man can have, who to execute, who broke treaty and how to treat oathbreakers, etc. Is that not power?

So don't give me craps about him not wanting power. Only a blind person can't see that he wield, on occasion, even more power than king.

He didn't have any of that. Didn't you read the post by Abdullah? He was offered this when he just started out and for 13 years at least his numbers were extremely few. And by the time of the first Jihad against the army of 1000 Mekkans he had 313, mostly non-warrior, followers weilding sticks and stones.

You are telling me that all this time what kept him going and rejecting these bribes was some imaginative foresight of victory that (well what do you know) actually came to pass. We claim it was Divine backing and constant Divine support that kept him going. You make the choice.

Your argument applies if Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was offered these things AFTER he had banded the armies of followers. Not at the time when "armies" were a far cry.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

So the first question:
1. Tariq, you believe something and have faith in it without evidence or reason to support such belief. How can you, then, say it is dishonest to not accept what you say?
You are right. If I believe in something without enough evidence or reason to support such a belief I am being dishonest and not you. But if such evidence exists and you understand it then you are the one being dishonest. Right?

2. How can you say Islam is the true religion when people believe without reason? How can you say that not having "faith" in Islam is dishonest. Isn't faith blind?
Once again, if I believe in "blind faith" which is faith without reason and evidence (rather, strong evidence) then I am being dishonest. In my view blind faith is useless and blind faith is worse than Atheism because blind faith is hypocrisy. At least Atheists are honest about their beliefs. But if enough strong evidence is seen by you that faith is not blind (like our faith in the existence of atoms, etc.) then you are being dishonest.

Third question next post.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Actually, the third question pointed out by you, Balance is a really good one. I don't want to post it in this thread so I will make a new one if you all permit.

The question (or rather my understanding of it) was:
3. You have not studied every religion? How can you say they are all wrong? You can not even claim to have completely studied Islam to know its truth. Then why tell us we are dishonest?

That is really a tough one I must say.

 

[YmirGF]

Gain Empire= being Emperor

Mohamed remained 'God's messenger' among his people...if he desired some empire his attitude would have been completely different.

Um... and how would you know that, exactly?

If the objective was 'territorial empire'...he wouldn't have urged people to worship God and do good deeds till his last breath.

Unless, of course, that was the method he chose to achieve his empire. You have to remember that the people he was dealing with were superstitious to the extreme, so in reality, what better way would there be to gain control over then?

Read his biography, rather than checking...

What on Earth are you trying to say here, friend?

because knowing about him in deep will help you understand he was not looking for personal glory.

So, reading white-washed accounts about the "prophet" of Islam, written by devout Muslims will give the reader an accurate picture?

If you do not believe in God, nor believe he does care about humanity...then this assumption is not for you.

This is certainly an amusing way of side-stepping the comment. I believe in "god", to an extent, and so I ask, why on Earth would god care enough to "set the record" straight? He has been rather mute in regards to many religions that have cropped up in the last 150 years. In reality, isn't your support for the idea that "god" would intervene to make corrections little more than wild-eyed assertions.

Any explanation?

Xenophobia about anything that is not Islam does come to mind.

 

[Right_Path]

Um... and how would you know that, exactly?.

I would know that from the Quran and from his speaches.

Unless, of course, that was the method he chose to achieve his empire. You have to remember that the people he was dealing with were superstitious to the extreme, so in reality, what better way would there be to gain control over then?.

What better way!!! are you kidding me boy.

You said it yourself, the people he was dealing were supertitious to the extreme, do you think that claiming prophethood was the best way to lure them...no way.

They were people who used to eat their Gods when they get hungry, burry baby girls alive...etc...changing this entirely was impossible unless there is divinity and revelation from God.

Mohamed enjoyed a unique pedigree among his people... he could have thought about reaching the goal you supposed through his relatives.

He was very wise, clever and extremly trusted in Mecca...he would have thought about being a commercial figure, given that the stalwarts of Mecca only cared about business.

Why would someone seeking control, start his mission by going against the stalwarts of the village??

What on Earth are you trying to say here, friend?.

On earth, I am saying 'know better about him'.

So, reading white-washed accounts about the "prophet" of Islam, written by devout Muslims will give the reader an accurate picture? .

Your false bias assumption would be plausible if Mohamed's biography and speaches were focused on praising him in person and speaking about his 'empire'.

This is history...the only source of information available at this time were those 'devout Muslims'...but this does not mean that they were biased.

This is certainly an amusing way of side-stepping the comment. I believe in "god", to an extent, and so I ask, why on Earth would god care enough to "set the record" straight?

Because if you believe in God, you must know he is FAIR enough to set the record straight.

Xenophobia about anything that is not Islam does come to mind.

Wrong...Rejecting anything that is not God would be more appropriate.

 

[opuntia]

First, I believe that Muhammad was a true prophet and that he received the revelations contained in the Holy Qur-an. But now--concerning today--I do not believe that the Holy Qur-an is being interpreted correctly by its adherents, too many centuries have passed where the original intent may have been lost.

It is my belief that Islam today suffers the same fate as Judaism and Christianity. Both Judaism and Christianity no longer represent the original religious structures and true interpretations of their respective scriptures. Too many centuries have passed for all three religions to warrant that all three are correct or that one of them is correct. It is my belief that another religion will come forth and supplant all three religions. Christianity came forth to supplant Judaism and Islam came to supplant Christianity and now another is likely to supplant Islam. If Islam had no divisions or sects I might believe Islam was an original religion. But since Islam is divided as much as both Judaism and Christianity, then I might believe that another religion having a more pure form of doctrine and structure might be true.

Now, what would another religion look like? It is certainly true that Islam, Judaism and Christianity do not resemble each other, so it is likely that another religion will not resemble any of the three except in general principles such as in believing in a Supreme Creator and that He is all-powerful and so forth.

It is not likely to enter into the minds of the adherents of these aforementioned religions that their form of observance is incorrect. The thought of your religion being untrue or defective or has been corrupted over the centuries is hard to bear. But if Judaism had been able to bear the thought that Christianity came as a new observance of the word and law of God, they might have assimilated Christianity. If the Christians had the thought that Islam was a new religion instead of another supposedly pagan observance they might have been more respectful of Muslims. Now if Islam is capable of sustaining the thought that perhaps their form of observance has changed since the days of Muhammad they might sustain the idea of another religion coming forth.

Now Islam has no prophet today, so who with authority can we ask what Islam is supposed to look like as it did in Muhammad's day? Islam has no central authority just like Judaism and Christianity. Who among all these religious sects is the true observance or all incorrect?

 

[Sententia]

There is no certain relgion which is guaranteed to be true. As convinced as you are that you have found the one true religion there are others more convinced that a religion diametrically or fundamentally opposed to yours also exists. You all can't be correct.

Thats the believers argument. I'm correct and heres why... right? wrong? whatever?

Agnostic argument is we can not know... how could anyone know? When you die we just dont know.

Atheists runs the gamut from agnostic to there cant possibly be a god.

So there are lots of different belief systems out there. The story of most religions is not unique and plays on emotion and fears and errors of logic. They are almost never honest... If they came out and said look.. we dont know if this is true or not but we believe this because some illiterate guy who was very moral dictated a book very much like other religious books and knew things we have interpreted in a such a way as to be holy... so we have elevated this human and his book to be divinely inspired. Thus we are assuming that there is a god and he wants to reach out to 21% of us and he wants 50% of them to truly believe based on this hear say evidence and he demands our adherence or he will punish us... BUT he cant prove his existence or directly interfere... except through his prophets which you should believe.... Direct interference would violate your freewill...

However if I can scare the crap out of you and get you to fully absorb and believe and accept that what Im telling you is not just hear say but is actually fact then I can personally violate your free will through any means neccessary. The ends justify the means. (Even if we cant be sure of the ends at all)

I can sum up... Accept that you could be wrong and dont talk about god existing or not existing as fact. You can use probability if you'd like but there is no way you could know for sure. (Sure we could probably disprove many different personal gods or atleast their ideas I dont think we can disprove as of yet the general concept.)

On a lighter note go see Religulous. (If you can find a theatre that has it) Larry King interviewed Bill as well... Listen to Bill at the end of this video.

Dawkins tries to argue a very similar point. Listen to what he says and the advice he gets: YouTube - Dawkins tries to reason with a Muslim

 

[gnostic]

He didn't have any of that. Didn't you read the post by Abdullah? He was offered this when he just started out and for 13 years at least his numbers were extremely few.

And you haven't read what I've written.

As I said, Muhammad didn't need kingship, he had powers of prophethood; that gave him far more worldly powers THAN if he had accepted kingship. He knew where the real power lie.

Did you and other Muslims have compared your prophet with Moses?

By copying Moses, he didn't need to be king. Moses wasn't a king, but he had something much powerful, he had the title of Lawgiver. Such power is enormous. And Moses had leadership of army.

Did Muhammad not make laws and customs in how his followers should live?

Did Muhammad not act as a judge in dispute?

Did Muhammad not have command to make war?

Did Muhammad not have the ability of make treaty and demand tributes?

Did Muhammad not make demands from kings and chieftains that he defeated?

If you answer "YES" to any of the above question, then are these not worldly powers that a king would wield? If know then what is this power?

And by the time of the first Jihad against the army of 1000 Mekkans he had 313, mostly non-warrior, followers weilding sticks and stones.

So what?

So did Spartacus. He started small and they were equally as ill-equiped against the better armed Romans. Many of the escaped slaves were not warriors. Less than 200 of them managed to defeat a force of 3000 soliders at Mount Vesuvius. Only 70 of the under-200 were trained as gladiators.

This victory brought more runaway slaves throughout Italy to join Spartacus.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

First, I believe that Muhammad was a true prophet and that he received the revelations contained in the Holy Qur-an. But now--concerning today--I do not believe that the Holy Qur-an is being interpreted correctly by its adherents, too many centuries have passed where the original intent may have been lost.

It is my belief that Islam today suffers the same fate as Judaism and Christianity. Both Judaism and Christianity no longer represent the original religious structures and true interpretations of their respective scriptures. Too many centuries have passed for all three religions to warrant that all three are correct or that one of them is correct. It is my belief that another religion will come forth and supplant all three religions. Christianity came forth to supplant Judaism and Islam came to supplant Christianity and now another is likely to supplant Islam. If Islam had no divisions or sects I might believe Islam was an original religion. But since Islam is divided as much as both Judaism and Christianity, then I might believe that another religion having a more pure form of doctrine and structure might be true.

Now, what would another religion look like? It is certainly true that Islam, Judaism and Christianity do not resemble each other, so it is likely that another religion will not resemble any of the three except in general principles such as in believing in a Supreme Creator and that He is all-powerful and so forth.

It is not likely to enter into the minds of the adherents of these aforementioned religions that their form of observance is incorrect. The thought of your religion being untrue or defective or has been corrupted over the centuries is hard to bear. But if Judaism had been able to bear the thought that Christianity came as a new observance of the word and law of God, they might have assimilated Christianity. If the Christians had the thought that Islam was a new religion instead of another supposedly pagan observance they might have been more respectful of Muslims. Now if Islam is capable of sustaining the thought that perhaps their form of observance has changed since the days of Muhammad they might sustain the idea of another religion coming forth.

Now Islam has no prophet today, so who with authority can we ask what Islam is supposed to look like as it did in Muhammad's day? Islam has no central authority just like Judaism and Christianity. Who among all these religious sects is the true observance or all incorrect?

Opuntia. Frubals and BINGO! You have hit the bullseye. You are right. A prophet is needed. And in the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community we believe that prophet did come. Please do go to An Overview.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

And you haven't read what I've written.
As I said, Muhammad didn't need kingship, he had powers of prophethood; that gave him far more worldly powers THAN if he had accepted kingship. He knew where the real power lie.
Did you and other Muslims have compared your prophet with Moses?
By copying Moses, he didn't need to be king. Moses wasn't a king, but he had something much powerful, he had the title of Lawgiver. Such power is enormous. And Moses had leadership of army.
Did Muhammad not make laws and customs in how his followers should live?
Did Muhammad not act as a judge in dispute?
Did Muhammad not have command to make war?
Did Muhammad not have the ability of make treaty and demand tributes?
Did Muhammad not make demands from kings and chieftains that he defeated?
If you answer "YES" to any of the above question, then are these not worldly powers that a king would wield? If know then what is this power?

Yes but Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would have had that confidence AFTER victory. NOT when defeat seemed imminent at every step!!! What assurance did Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have of success of his claim to Prophethood and eventual victory for 13 years of persecution in Mekkah. In these years he was made the offer? What assurance of victory made him reject the offer? Moses succeeded miraculously against the Pharoah. How did Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) know in the face of constant defeat that he would eventually win and that he should reject these trivial worldly offerings of women, jewels, etc. What assurance did he have that his Prophethood will be eventually accepted as was the Prophethood of Moses? What was his ace in the hole, Gnostic?

So what?

So did Spartacus. He started small and they were equally as ill-equiped against the better armed Romans. Many of the escaped slaves were not warriors. Less than 200 of them managed to defeat a force of 3000 soliders at Mount Vesuvius. Only 70 of the under-200 were trained as gladiators.

This victory brought more runaway slaves throughout Italy to join Spartacus.

I'll look into Spartacus versus Roman and come back to you.