Why can't Muslims Take Criticism? (Page 148)

ghostgeek: As they say, a leopard never changes its spots.

Fractured fairy tale: I really don't think Religion Should be Mixed in with Politics , Then it Just Esculates to a free for all No, Im Right your wrong Its gods will Case closed Get the Bombs out
lol

Zanjan: Ghost, there are no authorized biographies of Muhammad, only authorized accounts of events. A biography is an exchange via a personal interview with the subject and those contemporaries whom the subject approves to convey accounts.

Ibn Ishaq wasn’t even born in Muhammad’s lifetime. He wasn’t a biographer; he was a historian and hagiographer, which is more opinion than fact.

No accounts are to be accepted except those that all agree. Muhammad speaks a little of His own life in the Quran; we know who His most trusted were so we should look for their own writing for accurate information, not to hearsay and third party stories.

By the way, there were no “mosques” in Muhammad’s time; there was a community administrative center in Medina.

After the first entry, I didn’t bother to read the rest because Ibn Ishaq has no credibility.

Zanjan: NDW, God instituted the leadership of Monarchies for the Old World Order. The Monarch was a leader of the given religion with respect to civics within a jurisdiction. Therefore, this leader's royal duty was to achieve a just and benevolent rule, being charged to know his people, to protect them and deeply care for their needs.

There was no guarantee every monarch would be ideal, only that the succession of authority, overall, was best arrangement for a single nation.

"Politics" refers to policy only - one can't govern without it. It doesn't refer to the partisan system, which one would do well to avoid.

Fractured fairy tale: Tell that to the bloke who Chopped down the Apple Tree

Zanjan: In Georgie's day, no one had heard of partisan politics (hadn't been invented yet. It was a cherry tree.

Wee Georgie had received the gift of a hatchet from his parents - what the hell did they expect a 6 year old to do with THAT?? I doubt the tree was older than 2 years. If Georgie had lived today, he would have got a gun and sprayed the living daylights out of all things living.

Fractured fairy tale: Heee Thats funny . Well we all know what the Next World order will be . Run out of Telli Vive and Controlled by Technology
and Robots

Blackshoes: Liken to most of those that cannot see beyond their bias Zanjan keeps her head in the sand.

"After the first entry, I didn’t bother to read the rest because Ibn Ishaq has no credibility. "

"Quran


A folio from an early Quran, written in Kufic script (Abbasid period, 8th–9th centuries)
The Quran is the central religious text of Islam. Muslims believe it represents the words of God revealed by the archangel Gabriel to Muhammad.[21][22][23] The Quran, however, provides minimal assistance for Muhammad's chronological biography; most Quranic verses do not provide significant historical context.[24][25]
Early biographies
Main article: Prophetic biography
Important sources regarding Muhammad's life may be found in the historic works by writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the Muslim era (AH – 8th and 9th century CE).[26] These include traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad, which provide additional information about Muhammad's life.[27]
The earliest surviving written sira (biographies of Muhammad and quotes attributed to him) is Ibn Ishaq's Life of God's Messenger written c. 767 CE (150 AH). Although the work was lost, this sira was used at great length by Ibn Hisham and to a lesser extent by Al-Tabari.[28][29] However, Ibn Hisham admits in the preface to his biography of Muhammad that he omitted matters from Ibn Ishaq's biography that "would distress certain people".[30] Another early history source is the history of Muhammad's campaigns by al-Waqidi (death 207 of Muslim era), and the work of his secretary Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi (death 230 of Muslim era).[26]
Many scholars accept these early biographies as authentic, though their accuracy is unascertainable.[28] Recent studies have led scholars to distinguish between traditions touching legal matters and purely historical events. In the legal group, traditions could have been subject to invention while historic events, aside from exceptional cases, may have been only subject to "tendential shaping"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Fractured fairy tale:

Zanjan: Anyone who thinks a Revelator doesn't make enough waves to have anyone write about Him in His own lifetime, is not worth talking to.

The Quran is not a history book. While it mentions certain events, if those hadn't taken place as recounted, the whole of Arabia would have called Him a liar. He would have come to nothing very quickly and His Book as well. Such was not the case.

Ibn Ishaq's original book on the Prophet's life was lost......it was not his own composition but a compilation of autonomous reports. That is, no screening for authenticity. He had set them in what he thought to be chronological order and made his own comments. Third parties can't verify anything.

Some parts of what remained of that book were re-worked and abridged numerous times by others - there were descendants in Muhammad's family who might well have objected had this compilation been published in full in their time.

Nevertheless, it's the Revelation that's important and IT has certainly been authenticated. All other stories are irrelevant. You might want to recall how many wrote crap about Christianity in its first few hundred years.

Blackshoes: Maybe so. Yet; I don't ignore the Borgias and those that wrote about their crimes, because I don't like the information given

Zanjan: There's a difference between those who write garbage about religion and those writing garbage about their own religion.

The enemies of God's Faith don't come from the opposition - they're on the inside.

Blackshoes: One way or another Mohammad actions, as well as the statements within the Qu'ran, AFA (fruits), were hardly Good at all times.

You will know them by their fruits.

Zanjan: What statements in the Quran weren't good? If "None of you are good", as Jesus said, how would you recognize good?

Maybe its the fruit you don't like.

ghostgeek: It's pretty much accepted that Muhammad was illiterate. This being so, we only have as his teaching what other people claimed he said. Factor in that much of what was recorded was written down on bits of stone and leaves and it becomes quite clear why the Quran is a muddle.

ghostgeek: As for Revelators, I have yet to see any evidence that supports their existence. Having some bloke say he's one is about as convincing as a dripping ice cream cone on a hot day.

Blackshoes: "In the year 610 A.D. a man named Muhammad began publicly preaching supposed revelations received from the Angel Gabriel, sparking a movement we know today as Islam. However, historical attitudes and beliefs about the religion are not the same as we know them today. You might be surprised to learn that Medieval Christendom actually condemned Islam as a Christian heresy, a thought still surviving today.
“Many false prophets will arise and deceive many; and because of the increase of evildoing, the love of many will grow cold. … they will perform signs and wonders so great as to deceive, if that were possible, even the elect.” – Matthew 24:11-12,24
During the Early Middle Ages following Islam’s proliferation, Christendom largely viewed Islam as a Christian heresy and Muhammad as a false prophet. By the end of the Late Middle Ages, consensus had Islam grouped with paganism, and viewed Muhammad as inspired by Satan. Public opinion only shifted slightly after the Islamic empires ceased to be an acute military threat to Europe.
It is worth noting that Muhammad’s uncle was an Assyrian Christian monk by the name of Sergius who held heretical views including elements of Arianism, Nestorianism, and possibly Gnostic Nasorean. It was from this relative that Muhammad likely was exposed to the Old and New Testament.
The earliest proponent of this position of Islam as a Christian heresy was Saint John Damascene, a man from an epicenter of Islamic expansion in Damascus who was witness to how Islam was molding and adapting itself in its nascent form. This is evidenced in his writings where he quotes a surah that is not generally present in today’s extant Quran.
In his dogmatic work Fountain of Knowledge, Saint John Damascene devotes a portion of the writing to a section titled Concerning Heresy. While a majority of its 101 chapters addresses various heresies succinctly in a few short lines, the final chapter is comprised of many paragraphs devoted to the “Heresy of the Ishmaelites,” the first Christian apologetic refutation of Islam.
In this cornerstone work of Christian apologetics on Islam, Saint John Damascene is first to call Muhammad a “false prophet” and the “Antichrist,” proclaiming he devised his own heresy.
“From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.” – Saint John Damascene, Heresy of the Ishmaelites
Taking a historical approach, Muhammad drew on second-hand Biblical accounts from some of the Christians around him in Arabia. However, these Christians were unorthodox and would be considered gnostic today. As Bible translations were often rare and poor, and because a majority of Arabian gnostic Christians didn’t recognize the Bible as Holy Scripture, Islam has its roots in Biblical misunderstandings and thus was, and still is by some, considered a Christian heresy.
Saint Thomas Aquinas in Summa Contra Gentiles noted that Mohammed drew much of his thought from altered stories and teachings from the Old and New Testaments and subsequently forbade his followers to read them.
“Lastly, no divine oracles of prophets in a previous age bore witness to him; rather did he corrupt almost all the teaching of the Old and New Testaments by a narrative replete with fables, as one may see by a perusal of his law. Hence by a cunning device, he did not commit [forbade] the reading of the Old and New Testament books to his followers, lest he should thereby be convicted of falsehood.”
In his book The Great Christian Heresies, Hilaire Belloc predicted the future rise of Islam. He also identifies the religion as a Christian heresy. Belloc states Islam began as a perversion of Christian belief, saying:
“It began as a heresy, not as a new religion….It was a perversion of the Christian religion…an adaptation and a misuse of the Christian thing.”
He calls Muhammad a heresiarch that while not a man of Catholic birth, taught heretical doctrine drawing from Catholicism.
“The chief heresiarch, Mohammed himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth, and doctrine to begin with. He sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified. It was the great Catholic world – on the frontiers of which he lived, whose influence was all around him and whose territories he had known by travel-which inspired his convictions.”
He evidences this by drawing the comparison between Islamic and Catholic belief, and pointing out where Islam perverses the belief to a heresy.
“Thus the very foundation of his teaching was that prime Catholic doctrine, the unity and omnipotence of God. But the central point where his new heresy struck home with a mortal blow against Catholic tradition was a full denial of the Incarnation. He taught that our Lord was the greatest of all the prophets, but still only a prophet; a man like other men. He eliminated the Trinity altogether.”
Finally, he explains how Islam is founded on simplification of true Catholic doctrines, and this simplification produced a Christian heresy.
“In other words, he, like so many lesser heresiarchs, founded his heresy on simplification…Simplicity was the note of the whole affair; and since all heresies draw their strength from some true doctrine, Mohammedanism drew its strength from the true Catholic doctrines which it retained.”

By Billy Ryan -
April 17, 2018

Fractured fairy tale: Mohammedism was Invented by Catholics
Why do you reckon ISIS always target the Catholic churches. Ant coincidence

Fractured fairy tale: Too many Cults about

Zanjan: Who the heck is Billy Ryan???

"Christendom largely viewed Islam as a Christian heresy and Muhammad as a false prophet.

Naturally, they would - medieval Christians loved torturing with unique and horrifying implements and publically burning people alive. You didn't dare question them or you'd taste some of that.

At that time, Islam was enjoying its golden age of high culture and civility. If not for the Islamic world's contributions to Medieval Europeans, feeding it information, science, medicine, the arts etc, Christians would have descended into the stone age.

"Christian apologetics on Islam"

Now that's a laugh! Apologetics is the defense of one's own religion - you don't do it for someone else's. It's impossible to defend your faith by attacking someone else's.

"Muhammad’s uncle was an Assyrian Christian monk by the name of Sergius"

Good grief! Muhammad had 12 uncles - none by that name. His family tree is carefully documented. They were all pagans until they became Muslim.

I didn't bother reading further than that - I don't use sources that demonstrate historical and intellectual sloppiness. It could only get worse.

Blackshoes: "Is Islam "A Religion of Peace" or Does it Promote Violence?
Are most Muslims peaceful because of Islam or in spite of Islam? Let's look at what the Quran says.
Doug Ponder

“Islam is a religion of peace. Islam does not tolerate wanton murder,” said Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in a recent interview on Meet the Press.
With all due respect to Mr. Abdul-Jabbar, he was a far better basketball player than he is an apologist. To be fair, Abdul-Jabbar is far from alone in his defense of Islam. After every attack in the name of Allah, many people hasten to disavow the connection between the Islamic faith of the terrorists and their murderous actions. Whether it’s 9/11, the London bombings, or the ISIS beheadings—it’s always the same refrain: Attacks carried out by radical Muslims have nothing to do with the religion of Islam. But the sad truth is that the so-called “religion of peace” is responsible for more deaths and violence than any other religion in the world.
Shockingly, even French President François Hollande repeated this mantra after the recent murder of more than a dozen journalists and several Jews by Muslim jihadists in Paris. And it won't be long for we see articles scrambling to create some distance between the Islamic faith and the mass killings of Christians by the Islamic group Boko Haram. But is it true? Are we to believe that Islam has nothing to do with the record levels of deaths and violence “in the name of Allah”?
Of course, Christians don’t believe that every insane person who does something “in the name of Jesus” has a right to speak for all Christians. As Kareem Abdul-Jabbar pointed out, “When the Ku Klux Klan burns a cross in a black family’s yard, Christians aren’t required to explain how these aren’t really Christian acts.”



But there’s a tremendous difference between the relationship of Christianity to the K.K.K. and the relationship of Islam to Muslim terrorists. The difference is this: when Klan members burn crosses or promote their racism, they are opposing the plain teachings of the Bible. Jesus calls us to love our neighbors (Matt. 22:39), and he also tells us that persons of every color and culture are equal in him (Col. 3:11). Furthermore, Jesus left us an example in suffering for doing good—not causing others to suffer—and he calls us to follow in his steps (1 Pet. 2:20-23).
In other words, when people commit horrific acts “in the name of Jesus,” it is because they are completely unlike Jesus in every respect. Their actions are opposing—not fulfilling—the teachings of the Bible.
Islam, The Religion of Violence, Not a Religion of Peace
The same is not true when it comes to Islam. By most conservative counts, the Quran contains over 100 passages that call Muslims to take up arms against unbelievers in the name of Allah.
“Kill them [unbelievers] wherever you find them… And fight them until there is no more unbelief and worship is for Allah alone” (Quran 2:191-193).
“Strike off their heads and strike from them every fingertip” (Quran 8:12).
“Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties; in exchange for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they slay and are slain” (Quran 9:111).



“Truly Allah loves those who fight in His cause in battle array…” (Quran 61:4)
“The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” (Sahih Muslim 1:33).
The word translated “fight” in many of the verses above is the infamous word jihad, which loosely means “struggle.” And while it’s true that “jihad” can sometimes refer to the “inner struggle” of a faithful Muslim against sin, it’s plain that an “inner struggle” is not the meaning of passages that call for the removing of heads and fingers from every infidel. Indeed, virtually every major Muslim jurist (specialists of Islamic law) have for centuries understood that jihad was an inherently militaristic term.
Therefore, when Muslim terrorists take up the call to arms in the name of Allah, they are fulfilling the Quran, not opposing it.
The True Source of Peace
At this point some will object (they always do) that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people. This is quite true, and we can be thankful it is so. But we must remember that a Muslim’s peacefulness is actually inconsistent with the full teachings of the Quran. In other words, most Muslims are not peaceful because of Islam but in spite of Islam. The Japanese journalist, Kenji Goto, who was recently beheaded by ISIS militants wrote in 2010, "Hate is not for humans. Judgment lies with God. That's what I learned from my Arabic brothers and sisters." Sadly and ironically, Goto’s 'Arabic brothers and sisters' could not have learned such a peaceful philosophy from the Muslim holy book. Indeed, his final encounter in this life was with Muslims who were following Quranic directives to the letter.



In the end, there is no really comparison between Mohammed and Jesus. One says, ‘Blessed are you when you persecute,’ (Quran 9:111). The other says, ‘Blessed are you when others persecute you’ (Matt. 5:11). One says, ‘Go and kill’ (Quran 47:3-4). The other says, ‘Come and die’ (Luke 9:23). One says, ‘Fight until you are victorious’ (Quran 61:9). The other has already won the victory for us (1 Cor. 15:57).
There is only one religion of peace, and it comes from the Prince of Peace himself.

Doug Ponder is one of the founding pastors of Remnant Church in Richmond, VA, where he serves in many of the church’s teaching ministries. He has contributed to several published works and is the author of Rethink Marriage & Family. His interests include the intersection of theology, ethics, and the Christian life. Follow him on Facebook orTwitter."

Zanjan: "Attacks carried out by radical Muslims have nothing to do with the religion of Islam."

More correctly, they're militant Islamists, not Muslims. They don't obey any law of God. Muslims know their faith well and reject them; they won't allow them in their mosques. Islamists don't have mosques. They often blow up mosques. Mostly, they're suicidal because they've failed at life.

"the so-called “religion of peace” is responsible for more deaths and violence than any other religion in the world."

Yep, bury your head in the sand. Just ignore the destruction of N.America's Aboriginals, totally extinguishing many tribes; ignore both world wars, race wars, and so many others overseas I can't begin to list. As long as they don't say its in the name of God, it can be dismissed.

Don't include all those gun-totin' Americans blasting into schools, cutting down teachers and kids - NOT in the name of God, but their own. That's different. Ignore those churches that drink funny Koolaid and set fire to their own armories and compounds after standoffs with authorities.

The writer can easily disassociate Christianity from the KKK but can't disassociate Muslims from Islamists. How does he even trust his own mind?

Zanjan: The Quran doesn't say "kill the unbelievers" - it says "slay the infidel", the faithless covenant breakers.

This guy forgets that Moses said the same thing - that GOD was directing this - the infidels were the Jews who worshiped the golden calf, and those who refused to make/honour peace treaties. Slay them, He said. Is the Bible wrong? Is God wrong?

Either way, there's a lot of Christians bombing the Islamists. It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it.

Again, I didn't finish reading the tract. I'm thinking the reason this Doug guy had to found his own church is no denomination would have him. Lunatics everywhere.

Blackshoes: Today Christains don't bomb others, In the name of God. Islamic terrorist invoke the name of God to kill one another and outsiders.

So if you cannot see any difference between what's done in the name of God or they're religious beliefs and what's done for greed, lust for power, or even self-defense.

Then it's not I', that has their head in the sand.


Note that it's not Islamic terrorists, that lose their minds and want to kill anyone that uses Mohammad's name in vain'. It's a good number of average Islamic followers that do so

ghostgeek: How much slaughter has been conducted in the name of God? More than the world can bear.