Using what sources?
-
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!
Why has there never been a documentary on Mohammad
- Thread starter Cooky
- Start date
Using what sources?
Notanumber
A Free Man
I think you'll find it's better to go to the primary sources, not all of which are uniformly accepted by Muslims of different persuasions, or seen in the same light..
Notanumber
A Free Man
If there had never been a Mohammed, there would not be an Islam of any description.
sooda
Veteran Member
Where did you get the idea that Muhammed was a bad guy? Surely you know better than to listen to a failure like Bill Warner.
Notanumber
A Free Man
You might not like Bill Warner, but you cannot disagree with what he says.
Right. And your reason for not going to the primary sources?
sooda
Veteran Member
He's a failure.. Couldn't earn a living until he started teaching hate and lies.
Notanumber
A Free Man
Why re-invent the wheel?
Notanumber
A Free Man
They did not know what they were missing.
To see and understand with your own eyes, without the bias that Mr Warner inevitably brings.
Excuse me? Do you want to support either of those assertions?
His bias is so lesser to most others that I do not think that you truly want to go there.
Frankly, I have to assume that you have been buying lies told about him.
We all have our biases.
And some are scandalours, while others are negligible.
Many are somewhere in the middle, but that is not relevant for this discussion.
Bill Warner sources his claims very effectively and, to my knowledge, has never been contradicted with any seriousness.
Meanwhile, Muslims can't even stop accusing each other of "not being true Muslims" while threatening their own brothers in faith.
But he is still viewing those sources through one particular lens - his lens.
Some Muslims do this, some don't.
And despite a lot of wishful thinking, that has no discernible ill effects.
Much as even I wish he were quite wrong.
Besides the point.
We are talking about a situation that would not even exist without the arising of conceptions of "Muslim" and "Islaam".
That Islaam so very often fails to even sustain its own moral weight is a grave failure. Pointing out that it does not happen all the time does not remedy anything.
Last edited:
That's according to anyone who views those sources through a similar lens.
Not so - my point is that there are different Islams, practiced by different Muslims. Some are more judgemental than others. Again, different lenses.
Sorry to be blunt, but... it does not look like any version of Islaam justifies its own existence.