Also, has your god ever talked to you?
So you're suggesting that God communicated demands directly to you and reveals things to you which He does not reveal to the rest of mankind? I thought only Mormons believed that.
I have it and I haven't gone wrong yet. God loves all of His people regardless of what they are doing, however He will come to them one day to take them "home" and under His wing. It's up to that person whether or not they want to go to Him. I think there's a story in the bible that talked about a man and his dog on the roof during the flood. This guy was certain that God was going to save him. Three people passed him by asking him if he needed a ride, but he told them that "God will save me" the guy drowned and when he went to heaven he asked God why he wasn't saved. God told him that he sent not one but 3 people to save him but he refused the gift. I need not say no more.
Right, but this can be said about anyone from any faith. This could directly be reflected back to you, from me.
I know that He is saddened by people who are only looking for some type of physical proof and authenticity to His trueness, His Godliness and so on.
Oh please don't get me wrong. Nobody was ever convinced by sheer physical proof and authenticity about God or the will of God. These are just things that comfort the mind.
Religion proves its values when it solves people's problems. When they are tested in this life and they sincerely supplicate God and are helped. When they get the urge to worship God as an inner feeling, apart from any external proofs.
Blind faith, in a way is good because those are the meek that truly accept the word of God, unlike people who are always looking for some type of "proof" Proof seekers are the ones that usually get duped into the end because they can be fooled into believing that something is true when it's not [gob is a good example].
As I said before, even if someone were to know EVERYTHING about another faith and its authenticity, they could still disbelieve. You can't prove a faith to someone, but you CAN show them that it is not corrupted by human hands.
Actually, the only people who AREN'T duped are those that believe both in their hearts and minds. People ask you to accept things ONLY on blind faith when they have doubt or lack of evidence to support themselves, and God always sends signs and Messengers to mankind. Like I was saying above, you sometimes remind me of what the eastern religions say, because they don't claim to have divine scriptures they tell you to "shut out the mind and stop thinking". The end result? People believe in their "inner god" or many gods and so forth. And I don't believe that the GoB is the word of God, but certainly more reliable than the gospels.
If anyone's not sincere, it's you. You want us to read everything and read this and that, but have you even taken the time out to read the bible for yourself? All of these so called miracles are just shams and have been refuted time and time again. Show me something new and maybe I'll give it time. As far as fear is concerned, the only fear I have is turning my back on my beloved Jesus Christ, but since I know that will not happen, I have nothing to fear. Your psychological tactics will not work on me, sorry.
Sorry man, not only have I read the Bible, I've even taken bible lessons, and I can give you the email address of the person who taught me, if you don't believe that. If you are sincere, at least start with this site:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/
Once you know the Truth about the Qur'an, you will be interested to read it, and about its Messenger.
You're kidding, right?
Do you see why you need to read more?
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/
Bro, I hope you know that not all hadiths are of the same authenticity! There were a lot of disbelievers who purposely attributed sayings to the Prophet to ridicule him and divert the faiths of believers. They like yourself thought this amusing. So whenever you present a hadith, you also have to present it’s authenticity rating. This is based on whether it has a solid and large transmission of reliable persons going all the way back to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). THEN you have to check the biographies of each person to make sure they are reliable and don’t have a history of malice against Islam or people in general or even senility. THEN you have to note whether there are ever any broken links in the chain. Then you have to note how many chains have transmitted the same hadith. The science of hadith is too deep to go into, but I think the reason you find many hadiths amusing is exactly because many ARE frivolous and slanderous plagiarisms by the enemies of Islam. Do you understand this or should I expand more on the topic? Not all hadiths have the same weight, some we know were certainly words of the Prophet, and some are obviously plagiarism simply because of who transmitted them and how. This is where most apologetics get their hadiths and enjoy themselves, oblivious to the fact that Muslims regard much of the same hadiths as plagiarisms.
And here’s a rough explanation:
When scholars like Muslim and Bukhary were collecting the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) they went around asking people what they knew.
When someone claimed to have known something, they had say what they knew, and say who told them, and then who told THEM, and who told THEM, all the way back to someone who was actually present when Muhammad (pbuh) said it. Now if someone can’t do that, if he says “Someone told me that the Prophet said this” but can’t name all the names back to the source, it’s not credible. Also, if someone says that so-and-so told me, and “so-and-so” is someone of questionable repute, the hadith is considered questionable. Remember that at the time there were many enemies of Islam who want to just spread slander. If someone was known to have been a hypocrite at the time, how reliable could his testimony have been? Anyway, so the more reliable people you had at each level in the chain of transmission, the more reliable was the hadith.
So not ALL the hadiths are untrue, they have variable integrities. We know which ones are true by the way they were transmitted and by WHOM they were transmitted. Sometimes senile men could’t remember where they had heard something or seen something, sometimes people couldn’t remember just one name in the transmission. These were all reasons to doubt the authenticity of a hadith. It’s a very meticulous matter to insure that slander and falsity didn’t creep into the words and life of the Prophet.
Oh but they sold it and mohammed bought them. why would he need to buy them? He can't read. Maybe he would get someone to read them for him.
Bro I told you that those verses don't even REFER to the Prophet, they refer to the Jews. You probably read what you just said in some apologetic discourse.
Also I think there's one about the sperm coming from a man's chest cavity?
See "hadiths" above.
Exactly and that's because of the mixing of the two different waters. And that was my point. Therefore, no miracle of barriers of water.
Please scroll back up and read what I wrote. E.g. the Mediteranean water could have a pH of 7.5 and the atlantic 6.5 and they would retain those properties and the huge atlantic would never average with the Mediteranean to bring it down to ~7 or below.
The Mediterranean is connected to the GIGANTIC Atlantic Ocean. Didn’t you ever wonder why they have two distinct water properties? If you have a plate full of one type of water, and pour a little of another type of water into its side, then measure the water. It’s a weighted average of their two properties, the solutions mix. This doesn’t happen with the rivers and oceans.
I'm not just a blind believer as you would think of me as.
Well yes, you're obviously intelligent. But unfortunately you don't apply the same critical thinking you do with regard to the Qur'an as you do with regard to the Bible. I still don't see how you think the Bible is more authentic as a text.
I'm not so sure about that since in islam you guys are looking for proofs and authenticities.
But you yourself prove that authenticity isn't enough, you still disbelieve. Guidance can only come from God and sincerely seeking Him and repenting to Him and supplicating Him. You are a living example of how there is not enough proof in the world to convince a disbeliever.
As for the Disbelievers, whether you warn them or not, it is all one for them; they do not believe. (Surah Al-Baqarah: 6)
Actually by clearing one's mind of all thoughts is supposed to give you more concentration in the spiritual realm since most humans are more inclined to fleshly things.
I agree. But that's AFTER you've established the correct conception of God. You can't tell a polytheists to clear their mind in worship of their idols if they first base this belief on questionable texts to begin with.
many of the people have given you proofs as well as I have [including the fallacy of the gob]
Like I said, the GoB is NOT divine revelation and has several fallacies. I don't go by it in any way except to say that it offers an account of the crucifixion that does not contradict the Qur'an the way the Gospels do.
I would much rather have a buddist, hindu OR AETHIEST neighbor rather than a muslim. Why? they are too hostile and like to force religion down your throat.
Oh come on. Do you consider me hostile? Do you feel I'm forcing religion down your throat. Look at my thread and compare who has used more derogatory, insulting, and sarcastic language.
That's the flaw that's in mohammed. He made a new doctirne and that's against the teachings of Jesus Christ.
You only think that Muhammad (pbuh) made a new doctrine because you don't believe that Jesus (pbuh) taught the same Divine Unity that Muhammad did, as did Moses. That's the only reason you find a contradiction. Please read the book I've suggested to get a clear understanding of what I'm talking about.
I hope you're not talking about the jews here
No I was talking about some of the pseudo-historians and apologetics you read. People who made you believe things like this:
I know about your prophet and believe me he's a backwards sharlot. I don't know or understand how any man [or woman as a matter of fact] can pay homage to such a monster. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. JESUS all the way for me, thanks.
Would you read a true account of the Prophet's life if I gave it to you? Or have you chosen to rest on your convictions?
Ok I have a good one. Jesus said marry only one woman. Mohammed said 4. OK we have a problem. someone is lying here. I know you're going to say the Bible is corrupt, but I will tell you this, Mohammed was corrupt. And yes I know he married all these women before he got his revealation and that's why he was entitled to keep more than the usual muslim man, but give me a break. Jesus says forgive them for they know not what they do, yet mohammed cursed the jews and christians. Yes, they both came directly from god.
When did Jesus (pbuh) say marry only one woman? Actually, in Islam marrying only one woman IS the norm and is most favored and suggested. In addition, how many OT prophets had more than one wife? On the contary Islam is the only religion to have regulated polygamy and set rules for it. Also, a man can't marry more than one wife
unless his other wife agrees. That in itself is the most difficult criteria possible, how often do you think that happens.
Read this:
whoever wants to understand the ruling of doing something in Islam must know all the texts connected with it. Because as ordinary Muslims, you and I are not only responsible for obeying the Qur’anic verses and hadiths we are familiar with. We are responsible for obeying all of them, the whole shari‘a. And if we are not personally qualified to join between all of its texts—and we have heard Ahmad ibn Hanbal discuss how much knowledge this takes—we must follow someone who can, which is why Allah tells us, "Ask those who recall if you know not."
The size and nature of this knowledge necessitate that the non-specialist use adab or "proper respect" towards the scholars of fiqh when he finds a hadith, whether in Bukhari or elsewhere, that ostensibly contradicts the schools of fiqh. A non-scholar, for example, reading through Sahih al-Bukhari will find the hadith that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) bared a thigh on the ride back from Khaybar (Bukhari, 1.103–4). And he might imagine that the four madhhabs or "legal schools"—Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, and Hanbali—were mistaken in their judgment that the thigh is ‘awra or "nakedness that must be covered."
But in fact there are a number of other hadiths, all of them well authenticated (hasan) or rigorously authenticated (sahih) that prove that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) explicitly commanded various Sahaba to cover the thigh because it was nakedness. Hakim reports that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) saw Jarhad in the mosque wearing a mantle, and his thigh became uncovered, so the Prophet told him, "The thigh is part of one’s nakedness" (al-Mustadrak), of which Hakim said, "This is a hadith whose chain of transmission is rigorously authenticated (sahih)," which Imam Dhahabi confirmed (ibid.).
Imam al-Baghawi records the sahih hadith that "the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) passed by Ma‘mar, whose two thighs were exposed, and told him, ‘O Ma‘mar, cover your two thighs, for the two thighs are nakedness’" (Sharh al-sunna 9.21). And Ahmad ibn Hanbal records that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, "When one of you marries [someone to] his servant or hired man, let him not look at his nakedness, for what is below his navel to his two knees is nakedness" (Ahmad, 2.187), a hadith with a well authenticated (hasan) chain of transmission. The mujtahid Imams of the four schools knew these hadiths, and joined between them and the Khaybar hadith in Bukhari by the methodological principle that: "An explicit command in words from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is given precedence over an action of his." Why?
Among other reasons, because certain laws of the shari‘a applied to the Prophet alone (Allah bless him and give him peace). Such as the fact that when he went into battle, he was not permitted to retreat, no matter how outnumbered. Or such as the obligatoriness for him alone of praying tahajjud or "night vigil prayer" after rising from sleep before dawn, which is merely sunna for the rest of us. Or such as the permissibility for him alone of not breaking his fast at night between fast-days. Or such as the permissibility for him alone of having more than four wives—the means through which Allah, in His wisdom, preserved for us the minutest details of the Prophet’s day-to-day sunna (Allah bless him and give him peace), which a larger number of wives would be far abler to observe and remember.
Because certain laws of the shari‘a applied to him alone, the scholars of ijtihad have established the principle that in many cases, when an act was done by the Prophet personally (Allah bless him and give him peace), such as bearing the thigh after Khaybar, and when he gave an explicit command to us to do something else, in this case, to cover the thigh because it is nakedness, then the command is adopted for us, and the act is considered to pertain to him alone (Allah bless him and give him peace).
Jesus says that a woman can be a glorious mother without giving birth, but yet adoption is forbidden in koran.
That's not even true, bro.
Oh really. I doubt that especially since there are other animals that are forbidden to be eaten such as the camel, the shell fish in the sea. why didn't he use that instead huh?
Man, look at yourself. Camel and shellfish aren't even forbidden. Look at how skewed your understanding of Islam is.
My gosh...I can read you know. I see it with my own eyes. I know this post is long, but would you like me to make it longer to show about mohammed boasting about his sexuality being that of 30 men?
Read above about hadiths and how they aren't all true. People spread as many lies about the Prophet then as they do now.
but then you could have all the slave girls you wanted.
Man, acquiring slaves is FORBIDDEN in Islam. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I tell you that you've been deceived by the disseminators of information, the wolves in sheep's clothing.
But then you were taught that it was right?
It is permissible, but not suggested. Actually the time it was really followed was when there were too many widows as many men had died in battle and there were not enough men in the community for women to marry.
but the perversion is incredible in islam and I fully reject it. Peace.
That's just not true, my friend. You're basing your entire belief on falsified hadith texts.
Peace