Is Muhammad greater than Christ?

[CuriousBob]

Muhammadans/Muslims proudly proclaim that Muhammad ibn Abdullah (as he is portrayed in the documents that settle all disputes among those who proclaim it) is the last and the greatest of the prophets, even greater than the Christ of Christianity. If Muhammad really deserved to be exalted in this way, then I would expect him to speak and behave at least as admirably as I find the Christ who speaks in the New Testament documents (the documents that settle all disputes among Christians). I am convinced, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the claim holds absolutely no water for any mind that is capable of distinguishing between myth and reality, sane thinking and insane thinking, brilliance and stupidity mistaken for brilliance.

Keeping that in mind, I think the following is a good way to start off this thread. I would more than welcome any and all feedback I may receive from Mohammedans and from all who like to take sides with Mohammedans:

How convincing is the evidence that it is not most Muhammad-like or that it is not most anti-Christ-like

• to lie about one's faith when one discovers that practicing that faith openly will jeopardize the life or selfish-interests of the one who practices it or of the party that practices it?
• to place a lot of emphasis upon the suggestion that Jews and Christians, not the devil, are "the worst of created beings" and that Muslims are "the best of created beings" and a very insignificant emphasis on anything to the contrary?
• to speak no better than a child that has a nasty habit of deliberately telling far-fetched, silly, stupid, ridiculous, and incredibly unbelievable fairy tales and to expect everyone else to swallow them?
• to glorify lunacy and to make a blasphemous or sacrilegious mockery of all that can truly be associated with truth, reality, and / or justice?
• to apply a double standard in an effort to convince others that one is right and others are wrong (e.g., a standard of peace in weakness and a standard of war in strength; a standard of truth when truth is on one's side and a standard of half-truths and lies when it makes one look like a stupid fool or a criminal)?
• to behave no better than an impostor, no better than a racist, no better than a plagiarizer, no better than one who constantly confuses crimes with good deeds, no better than a blasphemous mocker of all that is most virtuous and holy, no better than a thief, no better than an extremely perverted and dangerous pedophile or sex offender, no better than an emotionally disturbed child, no better than a stark raving mad lunatic, no better than a cruel and savage dictator (like Hitler), no better than a genocidal maniac, or no better than a terrorist?

[barnasha]

Muhammadans/Muslims proudly proclaim that Muhammad ... is the greatest of the prophets, even greater than the Christ of Christianity.

really? who?

they would not understand what Muhammad taught, nor would they understand Islam very well at all.

Jesus (not Christ, which is a title, not a person - Paul makes the distinction clearly in his views) is not less than Muhammad, in fact Jesus is mentioned in Quran over 100 times

[apostoli]

really? who?

they would not understand what Muhammad taught, nor would they understand Islam very well at all.

Jesus (not Christ, which is a title, not a person - Paul makes the distinction clearly in his views) is not less than Muhammad, in fact Jesus is mentioned in Quran over 100 times

Not to mention that in Islamic teaching it is Isa (Jesus) who will descend from heaven in bodily form to judge the world. Imu, it is obligatory in all the Islamic sects that this is believed.

According to a Hadith of Anas bin Malik ibn Nadar al-Khazraji Al-Ansari the companion of Muhammad: "Isa (Jesus) is truly the Spirit of God and His Word" Sura al-Nisa 171 phrases this teaching as "Truly Jesus the son of Mary, is the Ambassador of God and His Word, which He threw into Mary and (He is) a spirit of Him."

Interestingly in the Quran's version of the annunciation to Mary it is foretold that "He [Jesus] will speak to the people from the crib, as well as an adult; he will be one of the righteous." (3:46)

[CuriousBob]

really? who?

they would not understand what Muhammad taught, nor would they understand Islam very well at all.

Jesus (not Christ, which is a title, not a person - Paul makes the distinction clearly in his views) is not less than Muhammad, in fact Jesus is mentioned in Quran over 100 times

Since it is quite clear to me that you speak like one who misunderstands what I am getting at I will rephrase the first part of it in the following way:

Muhammadans/Muslims proudly proclaim that Muhammad ibn Abdullah (as he is portrayed in the documents that settle all disputes among Muhammadans/Muslims) is the last and the greatest of the prophets. The fact that Muhammadans/Muslims openly express far more reverence towards Muhammad ibn Abdullah than they ever dare to express towards the Christ / Messiah / Savior that the New Testament documents refer to and inspire Christians (whose name is rooted in the Christ of the New Testament documents) to worship would certainly imply that Muhammadans/Muslims consider Muhammad ibn Abdullah to be even greater than the Christ of the New Testament documents (i.e., the Christ of Christianity).

If Muhammad really deserved to be exalted in this way, then I would expect him to speak and behave at least as admirably as I find the Christ who speaks in the New Testament documents (the documents that settle all disputes among Christians). I am convinced, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the claim holds absolutely no water for any mind that is capable of distinguishing between myth and reality, sane thinking and insane thinking, brilliance and stupidity mistaken for brilliance.

[CuriousBob]

really? who?

they would not understand what Muhammad taught, nor would they understand Islam very well at all.

Jesus (not Christ, which is a title, not a person - Paul makes the distinction clearly in his views) is not less than Muhammad, in fact Jesus is mentioned in Quran over 100 times

If Muhammad ibn Abdullah really deserved to be exalted in the way that Muhammadans/Muslims exalt him, then I would expect him to speak and behave at least as admirably as I find the Christ/Messiah/Savior/Redeemer who speaks in the New Testament documents (the documents that settle all disputes among Christians) and whose name is exalted above every other name in those same documents. I am convinced, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the typical Muhammadan's/Muslims proclamation of Muhammad being the last and greatest of the prophets is extremely unconvincing to any mind that is capable of distinguishing between myth and reality, sane thinking and insane thinking, brilliance and stupidity mistaken for brilliance.

[CuriousBob]

Not to mention that in Islamic teaching it is Isa (Jesus) who will descend from heaven in bodily form to judge the world. Imu, it is obligatory in all the Islamic sects that this is believed.

According to a Hadith of Anas bin Malik ibn Nadar al-Khazraji Al-Ansari the companion of Muhammad: "Isa (Jesus) is truly the Spirit of God and His Word" Sura al-Nisa 171 phrases this teaching as "Truly Jesus the son of Mary, is the Ambassador of God and His Word, which He threw into Mary and (He is) a spirit of Him."

Interestingly in the Quran's version of the annunciation to Mary it is foretold that "He [Jesus] will speak to the people from the crib, as well as an adult; he will be one of the righteous." (3:46)

Wikipedia certainly agrees that in Islamic teaching Jesus, rather than Muhammad, will return. But the same Wikipedia also provides us with good evidence that in Islamic teaching His return will not be in accordance with any eschatology that is held by any mainstream Christian denomination. Nay, rather, Wikipedia provides us with convincing evidence that, in Islam's eschatology, Jesus will return in order to prove to Christians and everyone else that Islam alone is the only true religion that all men ought to follow. This is clearly the doctrine of an anti-Christ, if you consult the New Testament in order to answer a question like "Who or what is the anti-Christ?"

Also, the Quran most certainly makes Jesus look greater than Muhammad in ayats like the one you just quoted. Nevertheless it inspires Muhammadans/Muslims to follow Muhammad's (never Jesus's) example, which naturally leads the logical mind to the conclusion that the Quran considers Muhammad to be greater than Jesus.

Interestingly, When you discover the similarity between the Quaranic ayat that you just quoted from (i.e., Surah 3:46) and the imaginary and fabulous Christian writings such as the Greek storybook entitled, "The Gospel of Thomas the Israelite" you begin to see some convincing evidence that Surah 3:46 is merely a heavily plagiarized version of the words from that infancy Gospel, certainly not the uncreated book in heaven that Muhammadans/Muslims seem to believe it is.

[apostoli]

Wikipedia certainly agrees that in Islamic teaching Jesus, rather than Muhammad, will return. But the same Wikipedia also provides us with good evidence that in Islamic teaching His return will not be in accordance with any eschatology that is held by any mainstream Christian denomination. Nay, rather, Wikipedia provides us with convincing evidence that, in Islam's eschatology, Jesus will return in order to prove to Christians and everyone else that Islam alone is the only true religion that all men ought to follow. This is clearly the doctrine of an anti-Christ, if you consult the New Testament in order to answer a question like "Who or what is the anti-Christ?"

Also, the Quran most certainly makes Jesus look greater than Muhammad in ayats like the one you just quoted. Nevertheless it inspires Muhammadans/Muslims to follow Muhammad's (never Jesus's) example, which naturally leads the logical mind to the conclusion that the Quran considers Muhammad to be greater than Jesus.

Interestingly, When you discover the similarity between the Quaranic ayat that you just quoted from (i.e., Surah 3:46) and the imaginary and fabulous Christian writings such as the Greek storybook entitled, "The Gospel of Thomas the Israelite" you begin to see some convincing evidence that Surah 3:46 is merely a heavily plagiarized version of the words from that infancy Gospel, certainly not the uncreated book in heaven that Muhammadans/Muslims seem to believe it is.

Wiki isn't the best source for anything, albeit it is for many a starting point to further research. There are many better scholarly sources on the internet - seek them!

Put your prejudices on hold for a moment and think rationally. Jews can just as easily use, and do use, your style of polemic against Christianity and particularly the NT, it is not a convincing argument.

In my experience, followers of Islam, as opposed to hereditary Muslims (I hope you know the difference) have similar escatological aspirations as "Christians".

Orthodox Christianity (RCC, EOC, ROC, OOC etc) hold that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit, and the architect of all other things. In Islamic theology it is held that Allah (the Father) is the source and cause of all things, nothing more needs to be said.

[barnasha]

Wiki isn't the best source for anything, albeit it is for many a starting point to further research. There are many better scholarly sources on the internet - seek them!

Put your prejudices on hold for a moment and think rationally. Jews can just as easily use, and do use, your style of polemic against Christianity and particularly the NT, it is not a convincing argument.

In my experience, followers of Islam, as opposed to hereditary Muslims (I hope you know the difference) have similar escatological aspirations as "Christians".

Orthodox Christianity (RCC, EOC, ROC, OOC etc) hold that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit, and the architect of all other things. In Islamic theology it is held that Allah (the Father) is the source and cause of all things, nothing more needs to be said.

I agree with everything said except I would not categorize things so broadly, i.e. mentioning all "hereditary muslims' as contrasted with 'followers of Islam' - there is really quite a vast spectrum - just as in Christianity

[apostoli]

I agree with everything said except I would not categorize things so broadly, i.e. mentioning all "hereditary muslims' as contrasted with 'followers of Islam' - there is really quite a vast spectrum - just as in Christianity

In the very Muslim area where I live (predominantly Arabs) , "Muslim" has tended to become an ethnic category rather than a religious one. Thus I differentiate between those who submit their lives to God, and those who are 100% secular but identify their membership of Islamic culture in terms of ethnicity. In my experience, as you said, there is a vast spectrum.

What differentiates Christianity, is Christianity cannot be viewed as an ethnicity.

In my area (Punchbowl in Sydney), this ethnicity issue has implications, as Asian Muslims seem to be excluded from participation in the local Islamic community here - possibly they seperate themselves but I've been told otherwise...

[CuriousBob]

Wiki isn't the best source for anything, albeit it is for many a starting point to further research. There are many better scholarly sources on the internet - seek them!

What did I say that gave you the impression that I thought Wiki was a good source of information? I simply used it as a reference when I discovered that I didn't know much about the Islamic view of Jesus' return and because it was the first source I found that agreed with what you said about with regards to the Islamic perception of Jesus' return. It was simply the first source I came across when I Googled in the words, "Jesus' return in Islam". When I discovered it and read what it had to say I realized that it agreed with what your assessment of the Islamic perception of Jesus' return. So, naturally, I felt no need to consult any other source.

My Islamic research is primarily concerned with the Islamic perception of reality and the most authentic Islamic attitude towards all who oppose the suggestion that Islam is the world's true religion and that the example of Islam's lone prophet (may eternal misery rest upon him) is comparable with, if not better than, the example that Jesus of Nazareth set for Christians to follow.

Islamic perceptions (like that of Jesus' return) were never considered a problem with me. So, naturally, I have no real reason to study them.

My main contention with Islam and its lone prophet (who, incidentally, appears, to me, to have been overly consumed with a desire to make a huge profit from his ill-gotten booty) has everything to do with their treatment of women, children, apostates, Jews and Christians in particular, non-Muslims in general, and atheists. to do with the legal system inspires Muslims towards its most authentic teachings on a society's most acceptable beliefs and behavior or on a society's most unacceptable beliefs and behavior.

Bottom line:

I don't give a hoot about what Muslims believe, just so long as it can be convincingly demonstrated, to rational minds, that the texts that settle all disputes among Muslims do significantly more than anything to the contrary to inspire them to adopt rational / civilized attitudes (i.e., attitudes that are more common among rational adults than they are among lunatics, among deliberately silly story tellers, or among emotionally disturbed children) towards their non-Muslim neighbors. But this cannot be convincingly demonstrated.

On the contrary, it can be most convincingly demonstrated that many of their beliefs, especially their most important ones (e.g., the Shahadah) pose a serious problem or dangerous threat to every non-Muslim and to every apostate.

Firstly, without the Quran, today's Muslims know nothing about Allah, his revelations, and whom he considers to be the last and greatest of his prophetsor whom he considers to be the best example of a good Muslim; and without the Ahadith and Rasoul Sirat they know nothing about Muhammad's most sacred words or nothing of the example that inspires them to behave as they do. These sources are the primary sources that Muslims appeal to when they seek to prove the Islamic nature of the Shahadah.

Secondly, to follow the example of Allah's greatest prophet as it can only be found in the Ahadith/Sunnah and Rasoul Sirat is to follow the example of a criminally insane and emotionally disturbed child.

Put your prejudices on hold for a moment and think rationally. Jews can just as easily use, and do use, your style of polemic against Christianity and particularly the NT, it is not a convincing argument.

IN what ways am I suggesting to you that I am not thinking rationally?

Just what do you mean by "your style of polemic"?

Are you suggesting that my attacks (i.e., against Islam's outrageously childish perceptions of reality and its most authentic attitude towards all who are not in line with Islam's blasphemously outrageous lunacy) are not convincing enough for rational / civilized minds to accept or agree with them?

[QUOTE=apostoli;3110396]In my experience, followers of Islam, as opposed to hereditary Muslims (I hope you know the difference) have similar escatological aspirations as "Christians".[QUOTE]I have been hoping to come across a word like "Hereditary" to describe Muslims who were, not by any choice of their own, born into a family that gave them no choice but to follow the teachings of Islam's lone profiteering prophet and to avoid, at all costs, doing anything that inspires true Muslims to legally harm them. Thanks for supplying it to me. From now on, that is the term I will use to describe them.

Whether or not Muslims have "similar escatological aspirations as "Christians"" is neither here nor there for me. I have no problem with similarities between the two groups of people because it is not the similarities that disturb me. If anything, the problem that disturbs me the most is that which inspires Muslims to treat all non-Muslims like we are their worst enemies, like we are criminals when we simply ridicule that in their most sacred ideology, which begs to be ridiculed, like we deserve to be beheaded when we simply name a Teddy bear after their criminally insane prophet (eternal misery be upon him). So long as it cannot be convincingly demonstrated, to the rational mind, that Islamic eschatology or Islamic aspirations are a threat to the safety of non-Muslims, I don't give a hoot about that eschatology or end-time aspirations of those who adhere to or suggest that they adhere to the authentic Islamic teachings.

Orthodox Christianity (RCC, EOC, ROC, OOC etc) hold that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit, and the architect of all other things. In Islamic theology it is held that Allah (the Father) is the source and cause of all things, nothing more needs to be said.

That statement is referring to a subject that does not concern me, at least in this thread.

[CuriousBob]

Corrections to my last post

Wiki isn't the best source for anything, albeit it is for many a starting point to further research. There are many better scholarly sources on the internet - seek them!

What did I say that gave you the impression that I thought Wiki was a good source of information? I simply used it as a reference when I discovered that I didn't know much about the Islamic view of Jesus' return and because it was the first source I found that agreed with what you said about the Islamic perception of Jesus' return. It was simply the first source I came across when I Googled in the words, "Jesus' return in Islam". When I discovered it and read what it had to say I realized that it agreed with your assessment of the Islamic perception of Jesus' return was. So, naturally, I felt no need to consult any other source.

My Islamic research is primarily concerned with the Islamic perception of reality and the most authentic Islamic attitude towards all who oppose the suggestion that Islam is the world's true religion and that the example of Islam's lone prophet (may eternal misery rest upon him) is comparable with, if not better than, the example that Jesus of Nazareth set for Christians to follow.

Islamic perceptions (like that of Jesus' return) were never considered a problem with me. So, naturally, I have no real reason to study them.

My main contention with Islam and its lone prophet (who, incidentally, appears, to me, to have been extremely consumed with a passion to make a huge profit from his ill-gotten booty) has everything to do with their treatment of women, children, apostates, Jews and Christians in particular, non-Muslims in general, and atheists.

Bottom line:

I don't give a hoot about what Muslims believe, just so long as it can be convincingly demonstrated, to rational minds, that the texts that settle all disputes among Muslims do significantly more than anything to the contrary to inspire them to adopt rational / civilized attitudes (i.e., attitudes that are more common among rational adults than they are among lunatics, among children who love to make up silly stories, or among emotionally disturbed children) towards their non-Muslim neighbors. But this cannot be convincingly demonstrated.

On the contrary, it can be most convincingly demonstrated that many of their beliefs, especially their most important ones (e.g., the Shahadah) pose a serious problem or dangerous threat to every non-Muslim and to every apostate.

Firstly, without the Quran, today's Muslims know nothing about Allah, his revelations, and whom he considers to be the last and greatest of his prophets or whom he considers to be the best example of a good Muslim; and without the Ahadith and Rasoul Sirat they know nothing about Muhammad's most sacred words or nothing about the example that inspires them to behave as they do. These sources are the primary sources that Muslims appeal to when they seek to prove the Islamic nature of the Shahadah.

Secondly, to follow the example of Allah's greatest prophet as it can only be found in the Ahadith/Sunnah and Rasoul Sirat is to follow the example of a criminally insane and emotionally disturbed child.

Put your prejudices on hold for a moment and think rationally. Jews can just as easily use, and do use, your style of polemic against Christianity and particularly the NT, it is not a convincing argument.

In which ways am I suggesting to you that I am not thinking rationally?

Just what do you mean by "your style of polemic"?

Are you suggesting that my attacks (i.e., against Islam's outrageously childish perceptions of reality and its most authentic attitude towards all who are not in line with Islam's blasphemously outrageous lunacy) are not convincing enough for rational / civilized minds to accept or agree with?

In my experience, followers of Islam, as opposed to hereditary Muslims (I hope you know the difference) have similar escatological aspirations as "Christians".

I have been hoping to come across a word like "Hereditary" to describe Muslims who were, not by any choice of their own, born into a family that gave them no choice but to follow the teachings of Islam's lone profiteering prophet and to avoid, at all costs, doing anything that inspires true Muslims to legally harm those whom Muslims are inspired to hate and murder. Thanks for supplying it to me. From now on, that is the term I will use to describe them.

Whether or not Muslims have "similar escatological aspirations as "Christians"" is neither here nor there for me. I have no problem with similarities between the two groups of people because it is not the similarities that disturb me. If anything, the problem that disturbs me the most is that which inspires Muslims to treat us non-Muslims like we are their worst enemies, like we are criminals when we simply ridicule that, in their most sacred ideology, which begs to be ridiculed; like we deserve to be beheaded when we simply name a Teddy bear after their criminally insane prophet (eternal misery be upon him). So long as it cannot be convincingly demonstrated, to the rational mind, that Islamic eschatology or Islamic aspirations are a threat to the safety of non-Muslims, I don't give a hoot about that eschatology or about the end-time aspirations of those who adhere to or suggest that they adhere to the authentic Islamic teachings.

Orthodox Christianity (RCC, EOC, ROC, OOC etc) hold that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit, and the architect of all other things. In Islamic theology it is held that Allah (the Father) is the source and cause of all things, nothing more needs to be said.

I am aware of things like this, but they do not concern me.

[apostoli]

Hello CuriousBob,

Been extremely busy of late, so please forgive my tardiness in replying.

What did I say that gave you the impression that I thought Wiki was a good source of information? I simply used it as a reference when I discovered that I didn't know much about the Islamic view of Jesus' return and because it was the first source I found that agreed with what you said about with regards to the Islamic perception of Jesus' return. It was simply the first source I came across when I Googled in the words, "Jesus' return in Islam". When I discovered it and read what it had to say I realized that it agreed with what your assessment of the Islamic perception of Jesus' return. So, naturally, I felt no need to consult any other source.

My Islamic research is primarily concerned with the Islamic perception of reality and the most authentic Islamic attitude towards all who oppose the suggestion that Islam is the world's true religion and that the example of Islam's lone prophet (may eternal misery rest upon him) is comparable with, if not better than, the example that Jesus of Nazareth set for Christians to follow.

Islamic perceptions (like that of Jesus' return) were never considered a problem with me. So, naturally, I have no real reason to study them.

My main contention with Islam and its lone prophet (who, incidentally, appears, to me, to have been overly consumed with a desire to make a huge profit from his ill-gotten booty) has everything to do with their treatment of women, children, apostates, Jews and Christians in particular, non-Muslims in general, and atheists. to do with the legal system inspires Muslims towards its most authentic teachings on a society's most acceptable beliefs and behavior or on a society's most unacceptable beliefs and behavior.

Bottom line:

I don't give a hoot about what Muslims believe, just so long as it can be convincingly demonstrated, to rational minds, that the texts that settle all disputes among Muslims do significantly more than anything to the contrary to inspire them to adopt rational / civilized attitudes (i.e., attitudes that are more common among rational adults than they are among lunatics, among deliberately silly story tellers, or among emotionally disturbed children) towards their non-Muslim neighbors. But this cannot be convincingly demonstrated.

On the contrary, it can be most convincingly demonstrated that many of their beliefs, especially their most important ones (e.g., the Shahadah) pose a serious problem or dangerous threat to every non-Muslim and to every apostate.

Firstly, without the Quran, today's Muslims know nothing about Allah, his revelations, and whom he considers to be the last and greatest of his prophetsor whom he considers to be the best example of a good Muslim; and without the Ahadith and Rasoul Sirat they know nothing about Muhammad's most sacred words or nothing of the example that inspires them to behave as they do. These sources are the primary sources that Muslims appeal to when they seek to prove the Islamic nature of the Shahadah.

Secondly, to follow the example of Allah's greatest prophet as it can only be found in the Ahadith/Sunnah and Rasoul Sirat is to follow the example of a criminally insane and emotionally disturbed child.IN what ways am I suggesting to you that I am not thinking rationally?

Just what do you mean by "your style of polemic"?

Are you suggesting that my attacks (i.e., against Islam's outrageously childish perceptions of reality and its most authentic attitude towards all who are not in line with Islam's blasphemously outrageous lunacy) are not convincing enough for rational / civilized minds to accept or agree with them?

In my experience, followers of Islam, as opposed to hereditary Muslims (I hope you know the difference) have similar escatological aspirations as "Christians".

I have been hoping to come across a word like "Hereditary" to describe Muslims who were, not by any choice of their own, born into a family that gave them no choice but to follow the teachings of Islam's lone profiteering prophet and to avoid, at all costs, doing anything that inspires true Muslims to legally harm them. Thanks for supplying it to me. From now on, that is the term I will use to describe them.

Whether or not Muslims have "similar escatological aspirations as "Christians"" is neither here nor there for me. I have no problem with similarities between the two groups of people because it is not the similarities that disturb me. If anything, the problem that disturbs me the most is that which inspires Muslims to treat all non-Muslims like we are their worst enemies, like we are criminals when we simply ridicule that in their most sacred ideology, which begs to be ridiculed, like we deserve to be beheaded when we simply name a Teddy bear after their criminally insane prophet (eternal misery be upon him). So long as it cannot be convincingly demonstrated, to the rational mind, that Islamic eschatology or Islamic aspirations are a threat to the safety of non-Muslims, I don't give a hoot about that eschatology or end-time aspirations of those who adhere to or suggest that they adhere to the authentic Islamic teachings.

That statement is referring to a subject that does not concern me, at least in this thread.

All the things you now find abhorant about Islam were once evident in Western Christian history. Throughout Christian history we have had our versions of the Taliban. I'll assume you are a young dude. The advanced treatment of Women and children in the western world is less than 40 years old. Depending on which country you live in, up until the 1960s women were still considered "in law" the chattel of their husbands. Hence the onerous divorce laws that remain todays in most western societies.

A lot has changed in the western world in the last 65 years and more so in the last 30years.

If you are American I assume you are aware that the USA was the only nation in the world that bred their slaves like cattle. And the slaves had no rights! Even Jefferson (author of the bill of rights) was a slave owner. I also assume you are aware that at the Nuremburg trials, the Nazis defended their actions by pointing to identical laws and practices in the USA (particularly in the South). You might object, that organised genocide was not conducted in the USA, but your history will prove you wrong. You might object, that freedom of religion was gauranteed in the USA, but in reality protestant prejudices restricted employment opportunities (ask any older Catholic or Jew). The list of parallels to your adhorance of Islam is extensive. I'm not USA bashing, the same or similar occured in my country. The difference between our countries and the Arab world is Europe had an age of enlightenment, the Arab world is still waiting for its.

You'll note I made mention of the Arab world rather than the Islamic world. There is a big difference! Whether Christian or Muslim, in my experience they reflect their voilent environment. Saddan Hussians (muslim) chief henchman was/is a Christian.

There is also a big difference between Asian and Arab muslims. The Asians, in my experience, are more moderate and therefore enlightened. But that said, in my experience, the educated Arab is more moderate and therefore enlightened.
______________

Shia law is almost identical to Moses ordinances. Moses decreed that even a women who was raped should be stoned to death, unless someone heard her scream. Same rule applied in many western Christian societies late into the 20th century (eg: Greece).

We have a programme here in Oz called Insight, basically they pick a topic, get an audience of experts and lay, and discuss it. This week the topic was Shia law. And the audience was made up of Muslims (of various persuasions), Jews, Christians, "experts", and politicians. What struck me as perculiar is that one Islamic scholar pointed out there is no consistant interprtation of Shia - its a living thing, that reacts to local circumstance. So in one place you'll find vengence and another mercy. When you think about it, same applies in western societies - watch the news when you hear about a pedophile being released into the community - lots of death threats abound.
______________

You make a big thing about Mohammad. I guess you aren't aware he was monied to begin with, and what he accumulated later he distributed to the widows and the poor - alms is the big obligation in Islamic culture. Also I guess you aren't aware that the reason he fled to Medina was he opposed the polytheism rampant in Mecca and attempted to cleanse the place, so was persecuted by the Meccan tribes for some time. Ultimately, he organised the Medinian tribes, raised an army and defeated the Meccans. Eliminated polytheism from the region, and established his monotheist religion - which imo is a blend of Zoroastrianism, Judaism & Christianity.

Now the thing that stands out in Muslim orthodox belief is, that unlike modern Chistian belief in Jesus, Mohammad is neither revered nor worshipped. In fact not even a depiction of him is allowed to be made. This is comparable to the iconclast controversies in the Christian church, where voilent wars were once waged in opposing Christian groups.
______________

In short, for every objection you can raise against Muslim practice, I can point to a parallel in practices of some Christian countries. And that is the important distinction, it is not the ethnic group that is important, but whether or not that the religion is being followed to its full extent.

Personally, I find modern Christianity more satisfying than modern Islam. However, a thousand or so years ago, when Islam had its age of enlightenment while Western Europe was oppressed by the dark ages, I may have had a different opinion.

[barnasha]

If anyone can find anyone who believes this - Muslim or not - let me know.

[CuriousBob]

Hello CuriousBob,

And a pleasant “Hello” to you Apostoli! Nice to meet you ol’ chap!

Been extremely busy of late, so please forgive my tardiness in replying.

You are not alone! I think everyone here should take delays in answering for granted, given the fact that at least a few of us live outside of cyberspace.

I, for one, have very little time for online discussions and find them extremely time consuming, if not impossible to continue for very long. But, for me, sporadic participation in them has become a necessary evil. For one thing, they are one of several tools I have at my disposal to inform and warn, according to my more than 25 years of research and observations, about Islam’s corrupt motives (very well established by the texts that settle all disputes among Muhammadans) as opposed to Christianity’s pure motives (established by the texts, i.e., the 66 non-apocryphal writings of the canonical Holy Scriptures as well as the supplementary material we have from the Apostolic Fathers, that settle all disputes among Christians – be they Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, etc.)

All the things you now find abhorant about Islam were once evident in Western Christian history.

I don't have much of a problem with the gist of what you are saying, since you qualified most of it with the words “once evident in Western Christian history”! The only problem I have with it is the way in which you, perhaps conveniently, like a typical liberal, gloss over the most obvious difference between the most un-Christ-like behavior in those who profess to be followers of the Christ of Christianity and the most Christ-like behavior.

Anyone who is unfamiliar with the teachings and example of the Christ whose name is that from which the title, “Christianity” was derived is bound to think, after reading what you just said, that the Christianity that the Christ of the New Testament inspired is no better or worse than the Islam that the Muhammad of Islam inspired.

Your choice of words throughout this entire post of yours leads me to believe that you don’t want anyone who happens to be ignorant of the Christ behind Christianity to discover who He is and what kind of example He obligated everyone who points to Him as Lord or Savior to follow.

You could have told the whole truth instead of a half-truth. But you didn’t. You told only that which appears to have suited your purpose, which is to make ignoramuses think that the Christ of Christianity is no better than the Muhammad of Islam. This convinces me that you are an enemy of the Christ and a friend of the adversary (i.e., “the accuser of the brethren”, “that old serpent”).

In order to make Islam appear on a par with Christianity, you have deliberately refused to mention the fact that when Christian nations behave in the most Christ-like fashion they most certainly do not inspire crusades against member of other nations who have consistently and publicly demonstrated a willingness to be and remain harmless towards the harmless citizens of those Christian nations. You didn’t even qualify your statement by suggesting that the truly unjust actions of the crusades were most certainly not inspired by the Christ of Christianity (i.e., the Christ of the canonical and historically sound New Testament documents). What I have just pointed out about your first statement is evidently what this entire post of yours is all about.

I doubt very much that you have any interest in anything other than half-truths when it comes to discussing this subject. Are you afraid of the truth? Why do you speak like a treasonous liberal or pseudo Christian?

[QUOTE=apostoli;3116310]If you are American I assume you are aware that the USA was the only nation in the world that bred their slaves like cattle. And the slaves had no rights! Even Jefferson (author of the bill of rights) was a slave owner.[QUOTE]Here you go again. You conveniently neglect to mention the fact that Jefferson himself was a deist, not a Christian, and the fact that Islamic nations alone were where rich Americans once looked for a seemingly endless supply of slaves.

To be fair though, even Jesus saw nothing wrong with slave ownership. However, His teachings and example made it quite obvious that He would never have approved of slave owners who did not treat their slaves as Christ treats His bride (i.e., His Church, not a place of worship); that He did not approve of those who did not allow their slaves the freedom to worship and follow the meek and mild Christ of the New Testament.

I also assume you are aware that at the Nuremburg trials, the Nazis defended their actions by pointing to identical laws and practices in the USA (particularly in the South).

You also forgot to mention the fact that they defended their actions most adamantly by pointing to the godless, harebrained, and damnable doctrine that Charles Darwin made popular, though he was not the originator of that doctrine.

You might object, that organised genocide was not conducted in the USA, but your history will prove you wrong. You might object, that freedom of religion was gauranteed in the USA, but in reality protestant prejudices restricted employment opportunities (ask any older Catholic or Jew).

Although I am not sure of which genocide (e.g., the Indians or some other group) you are referring to, the possibility or probability of such is not out of the question and does not pose a problem for me as I do not view America or any nation as a perfect example of a Christ-like nation. However, I am certain of one thing with regards to early America’s and all truly Islamic nations’ values: Early Americans could not point to any law, in either the Old or New Testament, that condoned, let alone demanded, the physical murder or beheading, the physical genocide, or the physical torture of those who did not believe in the God or in any of the prophets of the Bible. Islamic societies and all truly Islamic societies, on the other hand, are established upon laws that demand this sort of punishment for those who do not SUBMIT or SURRENDER to Allah and his prophet (eternal misery be upon him) and Islamic laws (Sharia) are as Islamic as any laws or legal systems get.

I'm not USA bashing, the same or similar occured in my country. The difference between our countries and the Arab world is Europe had an age of enlightenment, the Arab world is still waiting for its.

I am convinced that as long as the Shahada is repeated, your statement will remain the statement of a hopeless wishful thinker.

You'll note I made mention of the Arab world rather than the Islamic world. There is a big difference! Whether Christian or Muslim, in my experience they reflect their voilent environment. Saddan Hussians (muslim) chief henchman was/is a Christian.

Again, you conveniently neglect to mention that he was/is a very Un-Christ-like Christian, at best.

There is also a big difference between Asian and Arab muslims. The Asians, in my experience, are more moderate and therefore enlightened. But that said, in my experience, the educated Arab is more moderate and therefore enlightened.

The fact remains: To identify oneself with Islam and the Islamic community one must publicly declare the Shahada, which is an admission that he/she believes that the Muhammad (a most blasphemously ridiculous example of a good man) of whom the Quran demands allegiance to and of whom the Hadith/Sunnah describes in exhaustive detail is the last and the greatest of the prophets and that his example is the best example that a Muslim can possibly follow.
______________

Shia law is almost identical to Moses ordinances. Moses decreed that even a women who was raped should be stoned to death, unless someone heard her scream. Same rule applied in many western Christian societies late into the 20th century (eg: Greece).

That is quite a bold statement! I would like to see how you would back it up. Are you referring to Sharia or Shiite law?

We have a programme here in Oz called Insight, basically they pick a topic, get an audience of experts and lay, and discuss it. This week the topic was Shia law. And the audience was made up of Muslims (of various persuasions), Jews, Christians, "experts", and politicians. What struck me as perculiar is that one Islamic scholar pointed out there is no consistant interprtation of Shia - its a living thing, that reacts to local circumstance. So in one place you'll find vengence and another mercy. When you think about it, same applies in western societies - watch the news when you hear about a pedophile being released into the community - lots of death threats abound.

What a Muslim scholar says and what actually happens in the Islamic world do not appear to be the same when I look into current Islamic punishments of infidels and dissidents in nations that are governed by those laws. Besides, the four schools of Jurisprudence, with regards to Islamic laws, continue to agree on the murderous punishments that must be meted out to dissidents and infidels. So, I don’t know what that Muslim scholar was trying to say or hide.
______________

You make a big thing about Mohammad. I guess you aren't aware he was monied to begin with, and what he accumulated later he distributed to the widows and the poor - alms is the big obligation in Islamic culture. Also I guess you aren't aware that the reason he fled to Medina was he opposed the polytheism rampant in Mecca and attempted to cleanse the place, so was persecuted by the Meccan tribes for some time. Ultimately, he organised the Medinian tribes, raised an army and defeated the Meccans. Eliminated polytheism from the region, and established his monotheist religion - which imo is a blend of Zoroastrianism, Judaism & Christianity.

On the contrary, it seems, more than anything to the contrary, you make a pip squeak out of a monster. According to Islamic sources, Kadija (i.e., an extremely un-Christ-like Coptic Egyptian widow) contributed significantly to the main reason that Muhammad became the monster he was. Until he ran to her for comfort and received reassurance from her that his revelations were not evil but good he was terrified that he was possessed by evil jinn.

I understand that the only widows and poor that he did give money to were those who believed in the lunacy about Allah and Gabriel that spewed forth from his lips. I guess you aren't aware that the most decisive reason that Muhammad had for fleeing to Medina was to escape being persecuted by the Meccans who called him a madman (a name that he earned fair a square) and to escape from possible harm to his person.

Now the thing that stands out in Muslim orthodox belief is, that unlike modern Chistian belief in Jesus, Mohammad is neither revered nor worshipped. In fact not even a depiction of him is allowed to be made. This is comparable to the iconclast controversies in the Christian church, where voilent wars were once waged in opposing Christian groups.

That is an outright lie, if I ever heard one. The Shahadah, which every Muslim must publicly confess, as well as the Quran and Hadith, as well as typical Islamic reactions to cartoons of Muhammad and teddy bears named after him, as well as Sharia laws make it quite obvious that what you have just told is a blatant / transparent lie.

In short, for every objection you can raise against Muslim practice, I can point to a parallel in practices of some Christian countries. And that is the important distinction, it is not the ethnic group that is important, but whether or not that the religion is being followed to its full extent.

Personally, I find modern Christianity more satisfying than modern Islam. However, a thousand or so years ago, when Islam had its age of enlightenment while Western Europe was oppressed by the dark ages, I may have had a different opinion.

Here you go again! You conveniently neglect to mention the fact that a particular practice and that which inspires that particular practice may not necessarily be the same thing. The Christ of Christianity does not inspire the stoning of harmless individuals or groups. The Muhammad and Allah of the Quran and Hadith do. I see a huge contrast here; no similarities whatsoever.

[barnasha]

But the slaying of women and children by the Christian crusaders in the holy land doesn't count, right?

it's only wrong when "they" do it