₦airaland Forum

tayebest:
proof or get goofed, that Allah and Muhammed are same is 'substance'

Look at the way Muslims react when Muhammad is criticised or mocked. That speaks volumes about what they think of him.

Abuamam:
Come on. You want to build your entire premise on your ambiguous misinterpretation of this one verse, ignoring literally thousands of evidences that state clearly the position of Allah, and the position of the prophet (saw) in Islam?

Anyway, obedience to the messenger is obviously obedience to He Who sent him. It does not in any way imply that the messenger is the Sender. Hardly rocket science.

Misinterpretation? How can one disagree with Muhammad without disagreeing with 'Allah'? In a country with shari'a, criticism of Muhammad is treated the same as criticism of Allah. While there is the belief that one must not pray to Muhammad, in some ways he is indistinguishable from Allah because he served as the oracle of Allah. According to a hadith (as always hadiths are debatable), even Aisha noticed this when she remarked that Allah was awfully quick to let Muhammad satisfy his desires.

tayebest:
whoever disobeys Allah
and His Messenger the and really indicate that there is more differenciation among them... I advice you to read the Quran more sir!

I've read the entire Quran, many parts of it more than once. There is differentiation only in form but not substance. What Muhammad said has the same force and validity as "Allah".

DProDG:
I am not a supporter of Geller and I do not consider purposeless provocation progressive either. This does not change the fact this was an attempt(counter-productive maybe) to uphold freedom of speech, a fundamental human right. If one's knee-jerk reaction to provocation is violence and murder, he/she doesn't deserve any respect whatsoever.

Muslims earned the poor reputation themselves. We can all agree on their really bad track record. Christians for example do not face ridicule because their general response to such. However, most Muslims on the other hand would rather condemn satire, free-speech and everything else that goes with it before(if) they condemn the murder. You never hear of shootings during neo-nazi protests although they are equally provocative to a large number of people. Of all the magazines published by Charlie Hebdo, only Muslims got 'offended'. Demanding others to respect a figure in your personal belief is imposing your religion on others.

When people like Anjem Choudary are role-models and speakers for a lot of Muslims, how do you expect the respect of the general public? There are lots of Muslim riots and protests, some violent and provocative, yet you hardly see anti-Muslim attacks; when you do, they are condemned en masse. Same cannot be said on the contrary.

Does 'the media' downplay negative reports from specific demographics? Yes, to some extent I agree. Does it over blow acts of terror by Muslims? Not by a long shot.

Good post. Geller is full of sh/t but as long as Muslims are going to let themselves be provoked to violence these kinds of provocations are going to continue.

tayebest:
Haters

"Say: 'Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message). (Quran, 24:54)"

If you like

I like how Muslims like to claim that Christians 'associate' Jesus with God when you are required to do the same thing in this verse:

"But [I have for you] only notification from Allah , and His messages. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger - then indeed, for him is the fire of Hell; they will abide therein forever" (s72 v 23)

This verse shows that there is no meaningful difference between God and Muhammad. They are the same.

At least this time the shooters were killed before they could kill anyone.

Abuklaw:
^^^
That's not true of Islam. Because there is free will. The angels and animals are one of the creations of God that have no free will. Thus, won't be punished or rewarded for their acts. But human being who have free will be punished for unjust act and rewarded for just ones.

The issue of destiny (qadar) is something you can't comprehend. Won't it be unjust for Allah to create some for punishment? But nay, Allah is just in everything. Isn't it an act of hypocrisy to enjoy what you have been warned against and still expect to go unpunished whi

Your argument is not with me, rather you need to argue with Muhammad about destiny:

Hudhaifa b. Usaid reported directly from Allah's Messenger that he said:
When the drop of (semen) remains in the womb for forty or fifty (days) or forty nights, the angel comes and says: My Lord, will he be good or evil? And both these things would be written. Then the angel says: My Lord, would he be male or female? And both these things are written. And his deeds and actions, his death, his livelihood; these are also recorded. Then his document of destiny is rolled and there is no addition to nor subtraction from it. ---Sahih Muslim

I'm glad to see at least that you accept that there is no free will in Islam, that fate is already determined. So why bother to observe any Islamic rituals. Your prophet even said that if Allah has already programmed you to go to hell, there is nothing you can do about it.

Is this a poll of people who commit adultery or a poll of people who commit adultery and are willing to admit it?

truthman2012:
From the history you read: Who built Kaaba? There are biblical and islamic evidences that Abraham never stayed in Mecca.

Check: https://www.nairaland.com/2279859/true-story-abrahams-journey-mecca

I don't believe in the existence of Abraham. I think he's a mythical figure like Zeus or Sango. The Ka'aba was built by polytheists no more than a few hundred years before Muhammad, maybe even just a few decades before, and it was not the only such shrine in the Arabian peninsula.

I don't see a reason to hate on the Ka'aba. It's a very significant building in terms of history; I've already looked up pictures of the interior sometime in the past. As an atheist, I can never visit it, which is a shame, though visiting Saudi Arabia has never been high on my list.

I studied history and I can appreciate buildings associated with religions if they have particular historical, cultural, or artistic value. I've visited the Vatican and thoroughly enjoyed seeing the sites there, even if I don't believe in the Catholic religion.

No need to hate on a building just because it is associated with a religion one does not like.

In any case, people living at that time would have seen miscarriages at various stages of pregnancy and so knowledge of what the developing fetus looked like would have been quite well known. There is absolutely nothing stated in the Quran that reflects any kind of miraculous knowledge.

In any case, Keith Moore refuses to confirm anything that he said all those years ago, preferring simply to say that it has been a while since he was involved with the Quran. Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement to me.

The entire body of scientific evidence disproves the idea of a 90-foot-tall human, and there is zero, I repeat zero, evidence of what you claim about the height of early humans.

And these 'scientific miracles' you talk about regarding embryology and other things have been thoroughly debunked. Even the stuff that Muhammad borrowed from the Romans (like the steps of the embryo, which has errors)

Didn't Muhammad say that when a man and a woman are having relations, the child which results will look like whoever had orgasm first? Insanity.

This is one of the most fact-free posts I've ever read. Congrats OP!

oyewolestephen:
but he had already done that to some people. Maybe you want to be seeing God on CNN or NTA before you now whether he exist or not

A personal appearance by any god is all I ask for. Until then I don't accept the existence of one.

plaetton:
Lol.
Another self-service thread.
We almost had one full week without one.

Since AD 001, Christians having been conflating Selfless Service with Self-Service.

Poor perverts.

Seriously, some of these people spend way too much time at their mas.turbation stations computers.

JudismphD:
God have mercy

If that's your attitude, you're going to have a rough time in this thread.

Can God commit suicide?

barophobia--fear of gravity

wtf??

Ultimate001:
as logical as ur submissions may be, it's not the truth. Smone said nd I quote, "God is not reasonable; u cannot comprehend Him wt ur human reasoning and neither can u reason Him out". God is way superior to us! Our greatest measure of wisdom is as a great folly to Him. There are many things u may not have answers to; they r called mystery and we hope that everyone gets answers to them wen we see God (if one makes Heaven anyways). What has been revealed to us by God is ours while the other things blong to HIM (Deuteronomy 26: 26). God is God, not because we call Him God but because HE IS GOD INDEED. He does not need the approval of any man to gain that title. He was existing when nothing existed, He is exisiting when everythingis existing and He will keep on existing even when no other thing exists--AMEN!

You've explained perfectly why I'm an atheist. Thank you!

I thought that 'failed prophets' were the only type of prophet that existed.

The quick answer is that, yes, extremists can certainly link themselves to Islam, just as violent Christians can as well. Both religions have so many scriptures that there are internal contradictions, so that peaceful Muslims can be said to be following Islam, as can violent Muslims. Everyone picks and chooses the parts of the religion they like and ignores the parts they don't like or find inconvenient. In addition, Muslims are forbidden to declare other Muslims to be non-Muslims, so if someone says that they are Muslim, then they are.

Show me that this guy (Tejatat Tejasen) is who they say he is. I've seen no record of his existence outside of Islamic websites.

As an atheist, I have no bone in this fight, but most Muslims are unfamiliar with taqiyya. It is an idea occasionally discussed by Shia clerics, but it does not have wide currency in the Muslim world. While I find many legitimate reasons to criticise certain religious claims and beliefs, it is false to claim that deception/taqiyya is some kind of general practice among Muslims.

I should add that I am working in a country that is more than 80% Muslim.

true2god:
See what your prophet said in quran 9:30,

If you look at the first statement, mohammed said the the Jews said, 'Ezra is the son of allahh'. Thats a big lie. There have never been a time in history that the Jews hold this view, even now.

So if mohammed can get it so wrong here, how do you think his 'revelations' are credible? If however you insist your prophet is right here, can you show me any Jewsish religios document which shows that the Jews hold the view that 'Ezra is the son of allahh'?

There is speculation (as is ever true with ancient history) that this verse was essentially planted in the Quran by a Jewish rabbi (Sallam ibn Mishkam), who lied to Muhammad about the status of Ezra so that Muhammad would include the lie in the Quran. This was done deliberately so that any Jew, when listening to or reading the Quran, would know automatically that the Quran could not be from Yahweh/Allah as soon as they heard that verse. If true it was a very cunning move on the part of the Jew.

Abuamam:
I think that this question has been put to rest by prominent orientalists. No point in beating a dead horse. The authentic hadith were transmitted virtually in a similar fashion to the Quran, though no single hadith has the massive numbers in the chain of narrators that the Quran has.

The question has not been put to rest. Recent scholarship has called into question the authenticity of the Quran (particularly with the palimpsest found in Yemen a few decades back which has been studied by scholars, though a firm conclusion has not yet been found). Once again, any chain of narrators is suspect, and the credibility of the transmitters has not been established anyway. Just saying that someone is honest, pious, etc, is not sufficient, even if the hadith compilers were able to eliminate the most obviously fabricated ones.

They rose to power BECAUSE of their Islam. The unification of the Arabian peninsula and face-offs with the Romans and Byzantines were already occurring BEFORE his death. There was no need for them to construct an already established doctrine and code of laws. All they had to do was follow it. Your statement above is pure conjecture, and is not likely supported by any credible scholarship; and I have read many orientalist interpretations on the subject, from Gibbons to Gabrielli.

No, they rose to power because of a power vaccuum in the region; i.e. the Byzantines and Persians were exhausted from fighting each other. In addition, the Nestorian Christians in Syria and Palestine were tired of the persecution from the established church in Constantinople, and so accepting a more lenient conqueror in the form of the Arabs was a natural move on their part.

We 'cannot know for sure', only because you insist on thinking that ALL Muslim sourced statements are suspect; ie they never told the truth about their intentions. It is the mark of conspiracy theorists.
It would be impossible to prove any concept if the general assumption was that every statement made is to be taken as a lie, denied solely on the basis of conjecture; without any proof. Some hadith were unflattering. Many were flattering. ALL were removed because they lacked authenticity. The method of rating hadith is not a secret. The narrators' respective histories are explained. Why a narrator is deemed weak, or a fabricator, or forgetful, is clarified and reasons given. Whether the narrator's history actually overlaps the transmitter from whom he claims to have gotten the hadith, is ascertained. It is not like an old man sits in a corner with a red biro gleefully marking off any hadith that does not suit his fancy.

If you look at another area of history, for example, Roman history, you find the same type of doubt among researchers, particularly with regard to written histories, which are roundly criticised. They often require multiple different perspectives (and not necessarily on the same side) plus archaeology. This is not conspiracy theory stuff, this is healthy skepticism. And sometimes the history itself can change as they discover new information.

Xtian missionaries were attacking Islam since the era of the first crusades (see al-Kindi's apologies; among others). There was no internet, few people could read or write, and the scholars could have easily removed any hadith with unflattering content. They did not, because of their percieved sanctity of the authentic hadith. Authenticated as explained above.

What might be unflattering now might not have been unflattering then. While there may have been well-meaning transmitters of hadiths, even the most well-meaning and honest people can have serious errors in recollection.

I think we are starting to go around in circles. To me, religions look like the product of people; to you, one (Islam) looks like it has divine origins. You've stated some of your case, I've stated some of mine. But I'll keep reading both sides.

Esdb3:
I believe,Atheism originated from people who wanted to engage in immorality, they wanted to drink, smoke weed, commit crimes but they couldn't because christianity wouldn't let them to so they started questioning its existence and formed another religion(if you don't know atheism is a religion, so it's just as if you are leaving a religion for another) that doesn't question their actions.

Ha! I wish! My life is plenty boring. Work--home--work--home. Get on the internet and debate theists is about the most exciting thing I do these days.

If I really wanted to engage in all kinds of immorality, I would start calling myself a pastor and start collecting money from fools church members and live a fast life, immune from criticism because I am a man of god.

Abuamam:
I still put it to you that you are talking about transmitting stories that were not considered sacred, and which did not have to be transmitted WORD FOR WORD, as a sacred duty; which is not the case in Islam. Witness the narrations of the Quran. Millions memorise it, word for word, accent for accent, from as young as 10years of age. It is the same with the hadith, and this tradition has been subsisting since the time of the prophet (saw).

Memorizing the Quran, which is already written down, is a lot different than trying to remember stories that are passed down in a strictly oral fashion. We don't even have any real way of knowing if the final edition of the Quran is exactly correct, given that there were at least 7 versions circulating prior to the Uthmanic edition.

It does not have any bearing on your assertion that Arab tribes actually plotted for centuries before the prophet's (saw) emergence, to create a unifying religion.

That is not what I am claiming. I am saying that Muhammad appeared (among other 'prophets' around the same time like Musilaymah), claimed to be a prophet, had some role in creating the Quran, but that it was only after the creation of the Rashidun Empire that they thought to really use Muhammad's claim to support their own political legitimacy, and to draw the religious centers away from Constantinople, Rome, Persia, and Jerusalem, and toward Mecca, which is where the early rulers hailed from.

The reason why Jewish stories were not accepted was their lack of credible support. Muslim scholars from the inception, did not accept stories that were not properly substantiated. It had nothing to do with content.

That may be a stated reason, but it is also true that some of the stories were allegedly quite unflattering. We cannot know for sure, even of some of the current accepted hadiths appear to portray Muhammad in an unflattering light, they clearly did not pose much of a problem 1000 years ago.

mmsen:
I've never heard of a Jew being forbidden from a church.

Do you have any proof of this?

Also, were/are not Jews and Muslims segregated in Jerusalem? Each group may only pray in specified areas?

How many synagogues are there in Saudi Arabia?

I think he means that Jewish tradition forbids Jews from praying in a church, it's not like the Christians currently forbid them from doing so, though at one time this was almost certainly true as well.

Horus:
The Kaaba is actually where the computer was in the Garden or the tree in the center of the Garden. This is where all the ME Stones were kept. And what is called the Black Stone is actually a blood red color symbolic of the red ME Stone of the Karma Sutra. The Ka'aba was said to have had 360 Idols or Gods. These "Gods" were the different experiments that were created and presented at the events the ANUNNAQI would have to see whose creation was most creative. This 360 Gods also ties in with the 365 days of the year. The remaining 5 were named of other Deities. These stones were also referred to as the "Akasha Records" or the "Tablets of Destiny". All beings have them and there are even tablets of destiny of the NADJARU as ENQI took them and buried them. The Egiptians mastered cloning, which is why everyone borrowed information from ancient Egyptians.

wat?

nsiazu:
He is coming soon, just as other bible prophesies have been fulfilled. Jesus Christ dont want you to miss rapture.

I simply answered that all biblical prophecies have not been fulfilled--and Jesus' return is the biggest prophecy of all. People have been saying that Jesus is 'coming back soon' for almost 2000 years. He's really late. Is he on African time?

Abuamam:
Madhabs are not the source of shari'a. The formation of madhabs were an attempt at codifying and interpreting it with the information that they could obtain at the time. The sources remain the Quran and hadith, and in some cases, the consensus of scholars, which was the code used by the earlier judges; and are used presently. The prophet (saw) applied the sharia in his time, both civil and criminal, and his example is used as past precedence even today; especially where it conflicts with a wrong interpretation by a madhab. That is not to say that madhabs are totally useless, they still served a function where there was a dearth of information; but the madhabs are largely irrelevant today.

Oral sources may be unreliable normally, but not when they were organized systematically, the way the early Muslims did to the hadith. You should understand that the early muhadithin were very meticulous, and literally millions were discarded. It was for this precise reason that ibn Ishaq was not a popular narrator. He often failed to give his sources, and would narrate stories which were proven to be Jewish in origin, with no authentic backing. A number of scholars did attempt to sift out the authentic narrations, like ibn Hisham, but even he was not entirely successful. You should also keep in mind that Muslim scholars believe that lying about a hadith attracted severe punishment, and even today, no Muslim scholar can deliberately fabricate hadith... not to talk of then.

You again mention 'rulers of the Arabian empire'. As a historian, it should be pretty obvious that there was never any such empire, nor did the segregated Arab tribes ever agree on a common 'ruler' or 'rulers'. The idea that Arab tribes came together for centuries to create a monotheistic religion that was so oppossed to the existing worship of thousands of gods, and finally chose one of their not so significant men as the leader of the centuries old planned faith, but still vilified and oppossed him for carrying out their plan is too far-fetched. It has too many incongruencies in it.

I did not claim that the madhabs were the source of sharia. But they are considered, as you said, to be proper ways of interpreting and applying the sharia. And the fact that these madhabs were founded ~200 years after Muhammad shows that sharia was something that developed over many years, as I originally claimed.

ibn Ishaq was not a popular narrator. He often failed to give his sources, and would narrate stories which were proven to be Jewish in origin,

You've precisely hit one of my issues with Islamic history. So what if the sources were Jewish? Let them be included so that we could have a balanced view of early Islam instead of just a one-sided view. Islamic history, outside of a few early Christian writers, is completely one-sided, which is why a lot of it cannot really be accepted.

Oral sources may be unreliable normally, but not when they were organized systematically, the way the early Muslims did to the hadith.

Memory is highly unreliable, and even if the narrators were sincere in their attempt to remember what happened, their memory cannot be trusted. Psychological research has amply demonstrated this (Bartlett's war of the Ghosts, Loftus and Palmer's car crash study, etc.).

You again mention 'rulers of the Arabian empire'. As a historian, it should be pretty obvious that there was never any such empire, nor did the segregated Arab tribes ever agree on a common 'ruler' or 'rulers'.

I'm referring to the Rashidin and Ummayad Empires, roughly 635 through 750.